Bush Website Blocked Outside N. America 1797
acey72 writes "The BBC News are
reporting that George W Bush's re-election website (don't bother if you aren't in the USA) is blocked to people accessing it from outside the USA. Netcraft spotted the change on Monday, and have a report on the matter. Oh well, at least John Kerry's site still works for us outlanders." At least some Canadians can access the Bush campaign site, but Europeans cannot (without going through a U.S. proxy).
Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:2, Insightful)
On 21 October, the George W Bush website began using the services of a company called Akamai to ensure that the pages, videos and other content on its site reaches visitors.
Mike Prettejohn, president of Netcraft, speculated that the blocking decision was taken to cut costs, and traffic, in the run-up to the election on 2 November.
He said the site may see no reason to distribute content to people who will not be voting next week.
Managing traffic could also be a good way to ensure that the site stays working in the closing days of the election campaign.
And:
However, simply blocking non-US visitors also means that Americans overseas are barred too.
Ok, yeah, that's the ONE thing that might be pertinent, and might be arguable.
Otherwise, there's always this [archive.org], and this [google.com], and this [google.com], and, um, the whole rest of the internet and every other available source of information in print, television, radio, and so on, on Earth.
This is a political campaign site with political campaign propaganda. And since there are still an extremely wide variety of ways to get at its content and information from outside the US, it's obviously not some kind of "international censorship". (C'mon, slashdot! I know you can come up with some crazy shit!) Even the Netcraft guy realizes that. It's not like the New York Times, or critical news information, is suddenly blocked. Hell, within the last week, they had to start using Akamai! That alone should prove to a normal person that there are clearly traffic concerns at play. They have little to no obligation to serve anyone outside of the US, with the statistically negligible exception of US citizens outside the US.
Ok, slashdot, let's see who can come up with the best off-the-wall looney conspiracy theories to twist this around as a malicious, underhanded tactic, and some kind of "proof" that Bush is evil incarnate! While you're at it, explain to me how it's right for the Guardian to encourage its UK readers, i.e., not US citizens, to start a letter writing and email campaign to Ohioans encouraging them to vote for John Kerry, or, better yet, calling for the assassination of the sitting US president [mercurynews.com]! (Even as a "joke".)
In a regular column in The Guardian newspaper's Saturday TV listings magazine, Charlie Brooker described Bush in scathing terms, and concluded: "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr., where are you now that we need you?"
3... 2... 1...
Go!
Perfectly demonstrates (Score:5, Insightful)
Stupid. (Score:4, Insightful)
why bother? (Score:3, Insightful)
"You are not authorized..." (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:2, Insightful)
very disturbing, if true.
"He said the administration see no reason to distribute policies to people who will not be affecting them."
Racism? (Score:2, Insightful)
Not surprising (Score:2, Insightful)
Bush campaign offices. The folks who
run the campaign are probably calculating
that a DoS attack on the web site is likely,
and mostly like to originate from foreign
countries where Bush is very unpopular.
Not having the web site available for the next
few days could be devastating.
Re:Non-US Simulation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:a few questions... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:5, Insightful)
Blaming this on the capabilities of the provider is not an excuse.
Yawn (Score:3, Insightful)
There are already enough anti-Bush people that will take ANY change as some sort of big fuck-the-world gesture from the Bush camp. And of course despite that fact that nobody knows for sure WHY this has been implemented there will 1000 conspiracy theories posted, and dozens of pro-Kerry propaganda garbage as well.
Until there is enough information to actually discuss the topic with facts I'm not really interested...
Re:Forum abuse perhaps? (Score:4, Insightful)
Any webmaster can block connections from any IPs he doesn't want connecting, I don't see how georgewbush.com should be any different.
Re:Not Surprised (Score:2, Insightful)
Except when they go through a proxy or zombie pc and the FBI bursts in on Granny running AdAware to get her PC to go faster.
And there weren't a few odd groups protesting the RNC. Almost half the country doesn't like George Bush. Sure, a few of the groups were odd, but there weren't only a few groups.
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:1, Insightful)
That didn't sound to me like blaming capabilities, but more like not wanting to pay for their services outside the US.
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:2, Insightful)
You do realize that, fundamentally, no matter how "ironic" you think it is, that non-US citizens do not and should not have any say whatsoever in the outcome of US elections? And that, therefore, US political campaign sites have no actual reason to serve anyone other than voters?
Are we considered the 51st state? No thats the UK (Score:1, Insightful)
No thats the UK is.
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:1, Insightful)
Well, the usual suspects denied tobacco was harmful...until proven otherwise.
They deny scientific evidence of global warming...until the Alaskan pipeline sinks into the permafrost
Not to say that Bush is evil per se. Just a meglomaniac manipulative weasle frat boy.
Go ahead mod me a troll.
Why should the Bush-haters care? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Perfectly demonstrates (Score:5, Insightful)
You got modded troll, but I think it's a fair comment. The man's invaded Iraq, invaded Afghanistan, and at length talked about the importance of alliance support.
Why shouldn't the rest of the world see what's on his website? If Iraq's important enough for him to invade, it's important enough for him to spend a few extra $$$ for the people of Iraq (and the RoW) to see what his re-election policies are.
The other thing that shits me about this is that it is setting a nasty precedent for the web - and this is a high profile site. I'd hate to see a whole lot of other sites all around the world taking this approach to blocking foreign access. It would ruin the 'net.
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree that there is nothing "wrong" with this (other than the collateral overseas abenstee voter damage), it does point out something about this presidents beliefs:
What the rest of the world thinks does not matter.
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought Americans were pretty keen on a concept called "free speech"?
Oh - hang on... What year is it again?
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:5, Insightful)
Like you said: This is a political campaign site with political campaign propaganda.
You know that most of Europe and a few other countries for some reason or other backs Kerry, right (worldwide polls put Kerry at 70%, Bush at sub-20%, with only Korea and one other nation backing Bush)? And perhaps doesn't understand why Americans are so different?
Since the rest of the world is going to have to live with whoever's voted (mostly foreign policy issues), it's nice to be able to actually find out *why* Americans vote the way they do. I may not be able to vote in your election, but I sure am going to have to live with your decision. And reading the propaganda straight from the horse's mouth is the best reason to why Bush may be re-elected in.
(Note: I know that Kerry and Bush are equally bad choices (worse in some places than the other, better in other places... but really, it's a decision on two bad choices - or as we say in Canada, picking the least offensive) - yet for some reason or other, Kerry's more popular outside the US.
Bush's website will perhaps tell us why Americans are so divided to be split even on how they'll vote? And let us do the research. There may yet be something Bush does that no one outside the US knows and it's posted on his website. The international community has been wrong before - I don't know, maybe Bush is a really great guy - but at least it will help us find out why the preferences are so skewed.
On purpose? (Score:2, Insightful)
Seems silly to spend money on an poster campaign, and then block your website...
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps it could have been treated as some sort of demonstration of democracy to internet-using citizens of the new Iraq and Afghanistan, an indication of the Right Manner of Doing Things?
Instead, there's just an error message with no explanation. Even a polite error message would have been an improvement...
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:2, Insightful)
Granted, it's primarily Republicans that are fighting to ensure that not all the votes counted, as they did in 2000 when they argued before the Supreme Court that racially marginalized populations don't deserve to have their votes counted (being too brown, and all), but it's not at all inconceivable that someone overseas might not know how to vote and might need to find out how to vote. While they can, of course, search for the information on Google and check out cached pages and do a reverse DNS over IP doubleback-traceroute off a proxy server in Malaysia to get to the information they need, chances are they are not as computer savvy as your average slashbot (though certainly more worldly, as you've pointed out). In fact, there is undoubtedly someone out there that can only guess at where they might go, and it certainly seems to the layperson that the candidates that want your vote might have information on how to vote on their webpages. Guessing http://www.georgewbush.com/ [georgewbush.com] is a lot easier than guessing http://www.eac.gov/register_vote_forms.asp [eac.gov].
Of course, if people overseas can't get to the cesspool of lies that is georgewbush.com, they're more likely to go to the mildly festering swamp of lies and revealing truths at http://www.johnkerry.com/ [johnkerry.com], or preferably the amusing and admirable http://www.georgewbush.org/ [georgewbush.org]. Either way, it's a step in the right direction (or at least shorter strides in the wrong one).
If only.. (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is (Score:4, Insightful)
Iraqi Insurgent Kerry Supporters (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:1, Insightful)
They just don't like Bush. So therefore, Kerry must be an angel.
They're the same guy. Someone tell me the differences in their platforms.
All I've heard is "Bush is a dummy!" from the Kerry camp, and "Kerry is a wimp!" from the Bush camp.
There are no issues in this campaign, because they agree on all of them. Kerry has no intentions of discontinuing the operations in Iraq, repealing PATRIOT, fixing MediCare or Social Security, etc, etc, etc..
The only issue I can think of where they disagree is abortion, which is too much of a hot-button topic to bring up during a campaign.
So you have foreign dopes saying stupid-ass shit. Like the Vatican endorsing Kerry. Then they're asked, "isn't it a sin to vote for a candidate in favor of abortion? Didn't you say exactly that LAST ELECTION?". And they go "ummm ummm ummmm But Bush is a dummY!!!!!1!!!! Him mess up a cliche during a speech!1!1!!"
Frankly, the rest of the world *is* irrelevant when it comes to an American election.
Bush needs to fire his Internet campaign managers (Score:3, Insightful)
Now this.
Way to alienate users, Dubya.
wow... just wow. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Speaking as one of those absentee voters (Score:2, Insightful)
Please clarify (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:5, Insightful)
In a word, no. At least not in the USA.
During the campaign, both candidates try their best, with a straight face, to promise that everyone who votes for them will get to spend a night with the Swedish Bikini Team (or the equivalent male group, if they are so inclined) after the election. In addition to the free Lincoln Towncar, forgiveness of their mortgages and all taxes until the end of time.
Oh, and they'll make you immortal, too!
After the campaign is over, all that is forgotten (including the so-called Party Platform), and the winner gets on to the proper business of government - taking your money, and giving it to someone else.
Re:Non-US Simulation (Score:3, Insightful)
Only big corporations and large republican contributors actually have access to the president. All others - "access denied."
Americans in the UK, Unite! (Score:2, Insightful)
Saving bandwidth? The Bush campaign has raised hundreds of millions of dollars--who cares about a couple hundred or thousand more a month spent on bandwidth when you're buying in multi-gb blocks anyway?
I'm living in the UK and have been for years. It would be nice to be able to view his site, if only because he has a chance (against my vote and wishes) of becoming president so it is important I know about his views, and I be able to see, for example, copies of the ads that I cannot view because I do not get US TV.
If I was undecided, like some of my collegues, I as a NJ resident are entitled to waive my secret ballot and vote by fax up until election day (some states allow this). If you are living abroad I encourage you to do this asap by going to http://www.fvap.gov/pubs/onlinefpca.pdf [fvap.gov] and following the instructions on the form. As long as the fax is received by 2 Nov, and the real ballot is received no more than I think 1 week later, that vote is valid and will be counted (well, possibly, given past experience). The fact that actual voters both civilians and potentially military personel (even if all on-base traffic went through US proxies, which is dubius, as people might feel more comfortable using the net at a cafe or otherwise off base) will be denied valuable information that is needed to make an informed electoral decision. Given that US citizens via taxes and other means provide matching funds for those candidates, what this essentially means is that we can't see the fruits of something we helped, however indirectly, fund, and by extension, create(georgewbush.com).
Also, we need to understand that whomever is elected US President has a great deal of influence not only on Americans--so it would be a positive move, in the spirit of liberty and transparency, for those abroad to be able to view the information surrounding someone's candidacy, even if those persons cannot vote.
The bottom line is that actively seeking to prevent the dissemination of information about candidates for an election as important as the US Presidential election, when we know that cost is not an issue for the campaigns, speaks volumes about the candidate and his views. It is in keeping with the tradition of the Patriot act, fingerprinting and photographing even those US vistors from countries that do not require a visa to enter the US.
I don't know why the Campaign is doing this; it's an idiot decision that can only produce severely negative PR outside the US (as if more of this was needed--we're not the most popular team in town even in the UK) and probably within the US as well. Perhaps the reason is that Bush is writing off the expatriate vote anyway (military aside, it's overwhelmingly democratic / liberal) and feels that his views are providing too much ammunition to anti-us views abroad. Blocking access, though, is a childish, counter-productive, and heavy handed solution.
But from George W.--who would expect any less?Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:3, Insightful)
George W. Bush is President of the United States, not President of the Rest of the World. His job is to act in the best interests of the United States. If that means going against the wishes of the rest of the world, so be it.
While you can argue the case that the best interests of the United States need to include (to some degree) world opinion, how much influence it should have is a judgement call and always subject to differences in opinion. The guy sitting in the Oval Office gets to make that decision, though, not the newspapers, talking-heads, or bloggers.
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:5, Insightful)
Kerry is not necessarily popular. It's just that Bush is unpopular, and Kerry is the only alternative.
"ABB" reigns.
Re:a few questions... (Score:3, Insightful)
Either you haven't thought about it, or you're deranged or you're on the best crack I've ever seen.
SAVE MONEY?
These are the folks who with two weeks to go had something in excess of 50 MILLION dollars in the bank? The hosting costs are so trivial, they equate to the cost of a sandwitch bag for the average person. Not a cost one would even think about.
Even if the hosting cost added up to an additional 100K for 10 days, which I can't even imagine, I'll bet GWB could pay that out of his own pocket without any undue hardship.
===
The 2004 Republican National Convention cost almost $154 million dollars to stage, according to a detailed report filed with the Federal Election Commission. Most of the $58 million spent by the city on police and other services will be reimbursed by the federal government. Expenses included $301,460 in limousine services, $207,000 on the balloon drop finale, and $7, 000 on coffee and donuts for host committee staff and police officers. The bulk of the cost has been covered by private donations with the largest single contributor emerging as New York City's own Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, donating $5 million in cash and $2 million in legal and accounting fees. Other contributors include Goldman Sachs ($1.2 million) and Merrill Lynch ($1.1 million). The mayor stated, "The numbers will basically show that it's good news for the city. We raised all the money privately."
===
So, they can spend $207,000 on the balloon drop, but hosting the website for the whole world would cost too much.
Uh, right...
Sheesh,
Greg
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:2, Insightful)
Terrorists don't hate us for our "freedom", they hate us for our "attitude problems". If I treated the people around me with this same attitude, I would have zero friends toot sweet. But hey, this is slashdot, you probably wouldn't know anything about those mythical "friends" things.
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:3, Insightful)
The annoying thing is that he thinks and behaves as if he were.
Different Possible Reason (Score:1, Insightful)
By eliminating traffic from outside the U.S., they block malicious hacking from countries whose populations dislike Bush (lots of countries). Those populations don't need the information as much as Americans do, and it may be harder to find and prosecute international website crackers after the fact.
Simple explanation (Score:2, Insightful)
This is just a wild guess, but maybe they want to learn more about Bush's policies?
You don't need to be a Bush-worshipper to want to look at his website. In fact, those who believe that Bush is God have very little need to do any research at all. But those who have an open mind tend to want to make decisions for themselves.
Re:You mean these Iraqis? (Score:2, Insightful)
That entire post was completely irrelevant and the attitude you displayed in making it is a prime example of the reason more rational people are afraid of the generally clueless, incoherent, and ignorant folks who are voting for Bush next week.
Regardless of whether the Iraqis are happier, angrier, sadder, or just completely disinterested is irrelevant. You would have to be a singularly brainless individual to argue that the U.S. election is not affecting them, which is where the grandparent post's point starts and ends despite your rather sad attempt at turning it into a giant partisan pissing match.
You need to be modded offtopic for that post at which point I'm sure you will whine that you are being "repressed" by "evil liberals" on slashdot.
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:At least the .org's still accessible! (Score:1, Insightful)
In case you forgot about your chemistry class, the mass of air is 22 g/mol at 293K, 101.315 KPa.
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:3, Insightful)
Except for U.S. Citizans who are in the military in forgen countries, Or U.S. Citizans who are in Studying in forgen countries, or perhaps people who are on prolonged buisness trips in other countries. There are a lot of reasons why the rest of the work could need to access his page. Bush may have lost some voter because the People via Absentee Ballot may not be able to see what he has to say on the issue. And in a tight election like this one every vote counts.
sorry, bro (Score:3, Insightful)
And I suspect that even if Jesus Christ came out of the sky escorted by angels playing harps and trumpets, and said "I support John Kerry", 50% of republicans would still say "bah, liberal messiah bias" and vote Bush anyway.
Seriously... "Blessed are the Peacemakers" ring any bells? No? Okay, then let's bomb the only country in the middle east that isn't in bed with al Qaeda. Check? wow, we don't have enough jobs, but we're leading the world in screwing ourselves. Great, great.
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:3, Insightful)
It has been said (on last weeks' Bill Mawr by one of the Kennedy's in a book of theirs) that a prominent member of the Regan administration who carried over as the secretary of the interior in the current Bush administration has made public statements that "I don't know how many years we have left before the second comming", and thus "waste not, want not".
If you honestly believe that there are resources that would go to waste if not used before a deadline, then it would be logical to consume them away today. Of course, this would require absolute certainty, since you'd have no backup plan.
While this may or may not be true, consider that if you know that your term is limited and you won't personally have to clean up the messes you make (more than 8 years down the line), then why wouldn't you make use of every resource at your disposal today (at the expense of someone else having to clean it up).
In terms of natural resources, there's always the more expensive "natural energy" sources. We can always desalinate ocean water; we can always grow food in a lab; we can always resort to high nuclear / geo-thermal / wind / solar power sources. The only caveat is that resources will cost tremendously more.. BUT, there's an interesting catch. If it costs more, then we have inflation. If we have inflation then suddenly our past debts are less of a burden. Sure we could have an economic crisis, but again, that's somebody else's problem. They key is that the world won't end; it's very resilient.
I think the key is that we'll run out of resources some-day, the Bush doctrine merely says "what's the difference between running out tomorrow or in 100 years, it's only the difference of one generation".
Thus, don't be too quick to call this logic evil or stupid or illogical. There is obvious cost-benifit analysis going on.. The problem is that some segments of society are being given highest priority; garuntees, while the remainder have a potential saving plan that may or may not pay off. It's not very different from saying that we have to garuntee a social safety net and the rich have to pay for it. The poor may very well only get poorer in such a situation (loss of fundamental motivation), and the rich may dwindle in number, thereby having the whole system collapse. So there is no correct answer, it's just a matter of "who's your daddy?".
Lastly, on arrogance, all you need to do is watch a military movie or watch the apprentice to see why arrogance is promoted in the commanding ranks. Better to be a "strong and inspiring leader" than be correct but late and dead. Look at hitler, his charisma and self-confidence inspired a nation into what must have seemed to some insiders as insanity. But after suppression after WWI, massive economic collapse, etc, the people were starving for leadership. And they would only accept the strong confident type. After 9/11, the common people of America also wanted a confident leader, and Bush unfortunately provides this. You can't be openly rational, by expressing your concerns, doubts, and temporary confusions to the public. This has to happen behind closed doors. The governed can't know your weaknesses (in terms of not being perfect in simply knowing the correct answers). This is why businesses deliberate behind closed doors. So Kerry's rational, inquisitive, non-self-assured (non-arrogant) approach isn't sitting well with the public.
We like to look at a clever turn of events, then look back and see "who was clever enough to perfectly predict this". We call them gamblers, pioneers, people with great fore-sight. While some of it is true (people who stick to the fundamentals and don't gyrate with the current fads), a lot of it is shere luck. The survivors are falsely inspirational, because it's easy to trace back through decendants and look at how only 1 in 1,000 surived a great calamity. What's hard is to look at that initial 1
Dishonarable Discharge (Score:5, Insightful)
And by all appearances wasn't HONORABLY discharged until President Carter's general amensty in 1977. Of course we can't be sure since Kerry still refuses to sign the release for his military records to be made public.
not relevant six days before the election (Score:2, Insightful)
Anything the GWB campaign wants to be public can be distributed in 10 minutes through other sources. George can say it, and John can say what a catastrophic error in judgement it was. My Yahoo! page headline will update (with Kerry's quote and "Bush optimistic"), and it'll be out there. There's nothing at the campaign HQ page that someone in
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:4, Insightful)
Are we to believe that people in the Bush campaign aren't rich enough to foot the bill for the last week of a site that's been up in one form or another since 1999? While anyone can find a mirror or archive, it's the thought that counts. It's just another example of how, generally speaking, Bush doesn't care about the worlds population unles it suits his agenda. He doesn't read papers or watch the news because he doesn't like what they say. When the world community disagrees with he, he just ignores them and does it his own way, mocking the other countires the whole time, until he shows back up on their doorstep, hat in hand, pleading for help. It sounds like this man lives in his own world.
You know what I would love to see as the next
I bet most Americans couldn't even name any of the policies of the Libertarian or Green partys, the 2 largest 3rd party candidates. I find it hard to believe that so many people believe all they hype by the media and fail to realize that the Dems and Repubs are unable to represent the majority of the country. Is America so diverse that only two colors can fill in the map of our demographic? Imagine if all the disillusioned voters and non-voters banded together and voted for Nader, the person with the strongest standing on the presidental ballot with a major part of his campaign being to abolish the winner take all electoral system. Even if you don't agree with his policy to pardon all non-violent drug offenders, or make drugs a health and social issue nstead of continuing the failing criminal model, or even if you think his semi-isolationist internationl stance is crap, he and other 3rd party candidates are the only way electoral reform has a shot in hell of happening. The two major parties agree to refuse sharing their power, while America eats its own shit, continuing to believe that the lesser of two evils is an acceptabe mentality in a democracy.
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:2, Insightful)
It seems you are one of the many gullible ones taken in by the Bush administrations lies, deceptions, half-truths, and spin.
They don't think Kerry is an Angel. They just think Kerry would make a far better President and Leader than Bush has been for the past four years. And they're absolutely correct.
There are lots of issues in this campaign. Apparently you haven't been listening. The secretiveness and utter deception of the Bush administration (and it's inability to admit mistakes let alone learn from them) is one issue of course. So is the destruction of the environment via the Bush Administration's gutting of environmental protections. So is the war on Iraq, which was an illegal and unnecessary war, a distraction from the real war on terror, and which has exacerbated the problem of terrorism in the world and has destroyed our credibility in the world community. The Bush administration had united our enemies and divided our friends and our citizens, making us fundamentally weaker than we were before, and fundamentally less safe.
If you think the two people agree on everything, you not only haven't been listening or paying attention, you haven't even been thinking.
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Non-US Simulation (Score:3, Insightful)
It's even worse.
He's saying someone in the Bush administration making security decisions is incompetent.
And to make matters worse, said person is doing something that:
A. He thinks is making things more secure
B. Is restricting access to information that should be freely available.
C. I cutting off entire countries as potential threats.
D. Is actually making it harder to run things.
My God. the web server is a metaphor for the administration.
Re:At least the .org's still accessible! (Score:5, Insightful)
at least it claims that Bush's foreign policy is based on:
------
The strategy has three pillars:
- We will defend the peace by opposing and preventing violence by terrorists and outlaw regimes.
- We will preserve the peace by fostering an era of good relations among the world's great powers.
- And we will extend the peace by seeking to extend the benefits of freedom and prosperity across the globe."
-----
Hello??? Have I been living in the same universe as these guys??? All three pillars involve "peace"? What happened to preemptive war, the axis of evil, not caring what the rest of world think, etc. etc.
I guess the site must have been hijacked by some crazy flip-flopping communists democrat freaks
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:3, Insightful)
Now Bush has been doing his own thing without listening to the people, There are less jobs now then when he entered office (first pres to do this in 74 years) and we have a record deficit. The world pretty much fears us.
Hmmm, I wonder which is better.
Re:Dead Letter Office (Score:4, Insightful)
An illustration of how everyone wants ".com", no matter how appropriate. I could joke about how politicians are for sale and thus should be in .com, but really, it's just dumbing down the whole naming system. Another I've noticed is "moneyfactory.com" for the mint; which I believe is rather definitely part of the government and thus should be a .gov. By all means, get the .com too (it's only $10) before it gets squatted by a porn site, but set it to redirect to the real .org site.
But I realise this has as much hope as Linux being called "GNU/Linux", or media differentiating between hackers and crackers.
Re:You mean these Iraqis? (Score:2, Insightful)
2) Net electricity production is *down* - not just in the cities, but overall. The cities are in especially bad shape because they've had the net loss of power combined with the power re-routing to rural areas.
3) Polls in poor or devastated countries are notoriously bad. For example, any non-door-to-door poll in such a place is little more than propaganda right off the bat, because the poor and those in damaged neighborhoods have little/no phone service.
However, if you want polls, let me toss you one:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04
"BAGHDAD - Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.
The nationwide survey, the most comprehensive look at Iraqi attitudes toward the occupation, was conducted in late March and early April. It reached nearly 3,500 Iraqis of every religious and ethnic group."
Want a recent poll?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=
A couple of excerpts:
"Wrong direction: Forty-five percent of Iraqis said the country is headed in the wrong direction compared with 39% when the United States transferred political power to a caretaker Iraqi government in June. Sixty-three percent blamed "poor security" as the reason. "
"Concerns: Asked to name the most important issues to them, every Iraqi surveyed named security; 80% said the economy; 58% said quality of life; and 38% said politics. When asked to rank specific issues, they listed unemployment, crime and infrastructure in the top three. More people singled out crime as their first concern"
"Violence. Seventy-eight percent said their households had not suffered a loss of a family member or major economic damage since Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was toppled; 22% said they had."
These numbers, if you want to believe polls i Iraq, are staggering. 1 in 5 people in Iraq have suffered a loss of a family member or major economic damage since Saddam Hussein was toppled? That's insane! Of course, those numbers are backed up by what you get from the Iraqi bloggers; Riverbend's cousin had her husband kidnapped, and had to pay a huge ransom. Faiza Jarrar (the mother of Raed, of "Dear Raed" fame) was carjacked a month or two ago, and had a bomb explode on her street last week (blowing out their windows and damaging their door).
These poll numbers are made all the more dramatic when you consider the fact that the Kurdish region was (and still is somewhat) autonomous and pro-US, which skews the statistics in favor of optimism.
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:3, Insightful)
They'd be as well blocking black people in Florida, then.
Re:Like Bob Dole once said... (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed, because they've been indoctrinated by one-sided foreign media.
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:3, Insightful)
Um...this is a POLITICAL CAMPAIGN SITE. The people not voting next week should have NO IMPACT here. The official policies of the United States, whoever is in office, are not disseminated by political campaign sites, but by myriad other means.
Except for those Americans not currently in the United States who are going to vote. Military, Depart of Defense, Department of State et. al. and their families.
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:oh my beloved american friends (NO SARCASM HERE (Score:1, Insightful)
The freedom to choose my own healthcare insurance and providers.
The freedom to choose my own retirement plan.
The freedom to choose which schools my kids can go to.
.
.
.
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:3, Insightful)
If by "United States" you mean "big business", he's done a fine job.
It's a shame we the people are stuck with the low opinion the rest of the world has for us just because of the crap representation that passes for our government, which we'll never know whether or not it was properly elected.
"The guy in the Oval Office gets to make that decision"
I'll quote out of context just to say that I'll be at the pollbooth on Tuesday to let Chief know how he did by making the decision to get rid of his crappy administration (gee... it's not even the guy in the Oval Office I have a problem with, but vote for the guy, vote for his administration)
I'm not firing a bad guy as much as I am choosing a different liar and thus a different set of lies to be annoyed with.
Re:sorry, bro (Score:3, Insightful)
I still find it absolutely amazing that American's still haven't figured out that there might be something fishy about a plan called "No Child Left Behind" that involves cutting funding for schools in poor neighborhoods.
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:4, Insightful)
As to your belief that police don't owe anything to the policed, that's just what a police state would want you to think. In theory, the police are supposed to be under the control of our elected representatives, who are voted in and out of office by the policed. It sounds like you don't think police should be held responsible for abuse of authority or police brutality, and that strikes me as an insane attitude.
If America continues its economic slide, it could get overtaken by China and India. Then you're going to wish you'd been a little less eager to popularize the idea that a country should be able to do preemptively invade another country if the invading country feels that it's in the interests of "national security" to do so.
Re:You mean these Iraqis? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:5, Insightful)
The US was, and is, a nation that fostered terrorism in quite a number of countries around the world. Do you think that gives China the right to send in the helicopter gunships and take over?
Nobody liked Saddam, but more people are worried about the terrorist actions of the US than were worried about him.
Remember, double standards come home to roost. Unless you get a heap more humility and start acting to the standards of the civilised world, one day you are going to find out that type of behaviour hurts.
Don't whine about it then, you're not special and have no special rights. Learn the lesson now, before its too late.
Re:You mean these Iraqis? (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder how'd you feel if the Chinese now decided to 'free' the US. Your religion is not correct, by their views. Your democracy is not correct, by their views. Your set of freedoms is also not correct, by their views.
Bush supporters (and Bush himself) don't realize the greatest error in the Iraq war was this one. The US could have built a post-cold war international law effort (as father Bush and Clinton were doing), and instead behaved like any dictator: Made up an excuse and invaded.
Whats the point in blocking outside the US? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Speaking as one of those absentee voters (Score:2, Insightful)
And don't forget the genocide! That's the real lesson. To become like the US, find a large territory of land with abundant resources inhabited by a civilization with a large technological disadvantage, and murder them.
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:2, Insightful)
Both would be, sensu strictu, examples of free speech, but I think state actors tend to get viewed rather more critically than non-state actors when doing this sort of thing. God knows how the ditto-heads who flamed The Guardian would react if MI6 slipped the DNC a few million quid and started flying in airplane loads of letters threatening WTO sanctions if Bush wins next week. Probably call for airstrikes on Vauxhall before stroking out or something.
The fact that the CIA has done exactly this (and worse) in the past, is one of the reasons why I view the torrent of venom provoked by the Guardian's ill-judged wheeze as being just a bit rich...
Regards
Luke
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:2, Insightful)
There are tens of thousands of expatriot Americans (Americans who live/work abroad) who have the opportunity to vote in the election. We have absentee ballots for these folks, just as we do for American Armed Service personnel abroad.
These folks (and I can say this because I've been one of them, working at one time for a software shop in Germany) usually have the same ISP that everyone else in the country has. (Mine was Deutsche Telekom.) When they're at work, they're using the same internet services that everyone else at the office has. If you're an expat American and you're prevented from reaching out to the online election information sources that you might use to decide on your candidate choices, you don't have the campaign message that comes straight from the source... from the President's campaign. Instead, you have to rely on filtered sources like news organizations. (Prolly FOX, but other conservative rags will suffice to some degree.)
If I was an expat republican, I'd be a little concerned and would consider this as news. However I'd go a little further and submit that people in countries around the world are keenly interested in the choices that American voters are facing this year. They're also interested in knowing what the messages of the candidates are -- not because they have a vote to cast, but because they're looking for signs/information about how foreign and trade policies will be conducted, and to get a feel for what the domestic climate might be under one administration or another. On this level, I think it's also news.
Like it or not, people in all the other nations of the world look to the President as the primary representative of our country's policies. Sure, individual Americans are also representatives, but individual citizens don't have the leadership responsibilities that the President has. Consequently, any message that comes straight from the President or his party brain-trust is pretty valuable from an information standpoint.
Yeah, you could say that the effect isn't that great, and in totality I'd agree. I do believe, though, that people anywhere in the world ought to have the ability to learn about the Bush re-election campaign and get their information from the source.
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:1, Insightful)
A lot of us Americans are frankly weary of the outside world trying to influence our internal politics. And many of us are just as weary of our tax dollars being used to influence internal events of other countries.
Many of us would be pleased as punch to be out of the UN as it is clearly irrelevant and has an agenda that counters recognized civil liberties in the US.
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:3, Insightful)
We put Karzai into power via a hand picked tribal meeting with people who didn't have tribal credentials in Afghanistan. We provide him with sercurity (but none of the other candidates - most of whom don't hold office and therefore have no security unless they're a warlord). Rumour has it that we even talked to the other candidates offering them position in the government if they gave up their bit. So I'd say we have quite a bit to do with Afghanistan elections.
Re:oh my beloved american friends (NO SARCASM HERE (Score:2, Insightful)
You do know that a fair number of Bush's so-called base (to which he panders constantly) want to knock down the barrier between church and state? This isn't just some whack-job...it's the Texas GOP platform, which includes other goodies, such as invading Panama to retake the canal (because it seems that 6 years ago, a Chinese firm was interested in a management contract, though this was turned down), abolishing the teaching of any kind of evolutionary theory in public schools, and much, much more.
I'd honestly prefer the following freedoms:
The freedom to get the health care I need at a reasonable cost
The freedom to retire
The freedom from having to worry about paying through the nose for a good education for my children (good private schools are the exception, not the rule--I don't want to send my kids to school to be taught about Jesus...I'll send them to church for that)
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:3, Insightful)
little deluded repubs (Score:2, Insightful)
You may not realize this, or you may just be using your "faith" to ignore painful realities. But a vote for Bush is a vote for another 9-11. It's a vote for strengthening alQaeda, and for making us less safe.
Why do you support alQaeda, moronikos? Does it have something to do with your poorly chosen but totally apt moniker?
Re:sorry, bro (Score:4, Insightful)
Trolling is when you post something false in feigned ignorance. Posting truths that are inconvenient to the VRWC is patriotic dissent.
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:oh my beloved american friends (NO SARCASM HERE (Score:1, Insightful)
So you think you have the right to low cost health care at the expense of doctors and people who make more money than you?
"The freedom to retire?"
Good luck. Social security will not fund a retirement. Kerry's policy is a joke.
You have this absurd belief that you can claim a freedom at someone elses expense. That's called slavery.
Re:Like Bob Dole once said... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:1, Insightful)
The irony of it all.
Re:WWJT (Score:5, Insightful)
BTW grandparent [slashdot.org] is mad funny.
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are weary of the outside world trying to influence your politics, then bloody well stop trying to affect other peoples politics. I mean seriously, was that a troll? You can't invade other countries and then turn around and say "Why the hell are the rest of the world interested in our politics?"
But I forgot, the UN didn't agree with the US, so the UN is automatically irrelevant. Better go veto another Israel policy eh...
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:oh my beloved american friends (NO SARCASM HERE (Score:1, Insightful)
The freedom to get the health care I need at a reasonable cost
Unfortunately, that's neither a freedom nor a right. That's like saying I want the freedom to by a Mercedes for the price of a Honda.
You can retire right now. You may have to live in a box. But that's another thing you want the big government to take of... it's YOUR responsibility, which is why it SHOULD BE our right to decide how we save for retirement.
W.r.t. education; in fact, I don't want public schools to end, I want them to improve, but I also want freedom of choice. You want freedom to leech off of everyone elses hard work.
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:4, Insightful)
Yours is one of the most informed and insightful comments on this topic that I have yet read. It asks a question that I will try to (perhaps imperfectly) answer.
The first mistake non-Americans make when analyzing American politics is the over emphasis of political parties and positions. The American system of government is one that emphasizes election of individuals rather than of parties or ideas. In America, politicians may claim membership in a (Republican, Democratic, Green, Libertarian, etc.) party, but they have no obligation to the party platform... nor do the voters expect them to. If you doubt this, look at Zell Miller (Democrat?) or John McCain (Republican?).
Contrast this then with the rest of the world... In many (most?) other constitutional democracies, it is possible to vote for a PARTY in addition to a local representative. The local rep is beholden to his party and platform for advancement (the locals may elect him, but he can never become Prime Minister unless he does as he is told).
In those countries that are NOT democracies, PARTY is still important... In communist nations (China, Cuba, etc) an official owes EVERYTHING to the party and must do as they are told... and the same is basically true in the Dictatorships and Monarchies around the world. In SOVIET RUSSIA, the PARTY FINDS YOU! (Sorry, had to get that in.)
So the world reads the platforms of the Democratic and Republican Party, and of the two Candidates, and notices that the Democrats claim to be more receptive to the "needs" and "wishes" of the "world" and especially the "UN"... it's no surprise they find this preferable.
The "world", and especially the "UN" resents it when the US goes out and does things without being told. Bush has done this, and asserts the right of the US to do so again... Kerry has not. Go figure.
So why do Americans not see Bush and Kerry in the same light as "The World" does?
1) Americans really could care less what the rest of the world thinks about what it does. We spend plenty of time with our historical revisionism and tearing down our heroes and leaders and don't need any outside help, thank you! Moreover, Americans know that the "World" lacks the capability to do what we do, so we are naturally skeptical when that same "World" tries to tell us how we MUST use that ability.
The "World" may view America is Arrogant and Ill Informed, but Americans generally think the same of the "World".
2) Americans (or at least the famous group of "SWING VOTERS" that gets so much press) look more at personality and performance than at platform or party. And to complicate things for the foreign observers, we don't look for the same things every election...
Performance wise.... Bush doesn't have a perfect record (and "The World" thinks he has a poor record indeed), but Kerry has no record (Hasn't authored any legislation, has no "cause" except opposition to military action, but surprisingly, claims to support (in substance if not in form) current policy toward Iraq, at least last time I checked). So.... performance is moot to Americans.
That leaves personality... Kerry comes across as an upper-crust/elitist/knows what's best for you Snob. Bush comes across more as an "average joe"... opinionated, but not necessarily the smartest guy in the neighborhood, certainly not a know-it-all (Americanism for snob). Frankly, we like the Bush personality better, but not much better. Some of us are put off by his being opinionated, and many of us wish he "looked" smarter
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:3, Insightful)
People outside of the US are of course free to express their opinions. Just as I am free to ignore them as irrelevant noise. That was my first point, and the one that you seem to have read.
The other point I had is that our international policies are not the viewpoints of all (dare I say most) Americans.
The USA was founded on different values than it operates under today. Many of us would love to see a return to the Jeffersonian philosophy of "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none."
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:3, Insightful)
According to the International Herald Tribune there are up to 4.1 million Americans living abroad [iht.com]. They aren't just rendering the site unreachable to non-Americans, but to a good number of voters. Of course, those voters can still visit johnkerry.com...
Re:oh my beloved american friends (NO SARCASM HERE (Score:3, Insightful)
Do I think it should be the government's responsibility to pay for my retirement? No, but I do expect them to make sure that it's possible for me to retire. Social Security is dead, I'll admit that. It was okay for the Depression, but it's a dinosaur now. However, Medicare is still quite needed, as most HMOs don't cater to individuals when trying to get insurance, because there's no profit in individual contracts, especially for the elderly, who have a limited income and high health care bills. It goes back to my right to life argument.
Re: Education: Vouchers will draw funding from public schools, unless the money comes from some other source. As for freedom of choice, my recommendation would be an Iowa-like system, where you can choose which school district you wish to send your child to, as long as you provide the transportation if it's not the one that you live in. That would foster the same competition, yet not drain money from public schools.
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe it's just me, but as an Ohioan I suspect a personal letter from someone in the UK would be vastly more interesting than the pure crap I'm getting from the campaigns in the mail and on TV. If someone (a real person, and not a political campaign or corporation or something) wants to share their opinion with me, I'd probably look at it. Why not? It's just as unlikely to sway my opinion as the rest of the stuff. Anyone who bases their decisions in an election on any one data point, particularly something they saw in an advertisement, isn't really doing their job as a citizen IMO.
But the angry reaction to the letter writing campaign strikes me as jingoistic and immature, at the least. Yes, the letters are unlikely to tell us anything we don't know, and we've got enough pure opinion pieces to wade through already. But if a sincere person (a citizen of our most important ally in Iraq, I might add) thinks it's worthwhile to send me a personal letter, I'm going to read the thing. It probably won't be of political interest but it might be interesting on a personal level.
Re:Speaking as one of those absentee voters (Score:2, Insightful)
Spain 1898
The C20th has been reasonably clear insofar as yer actual shooting wars go, but there have been numerous jaunts Down South that could have triggered a war if anyone other than the hemispheric superpower had been behind them.
Just because the biggest MoFo on the block doesn't get in many fights, it doesn't make him a man of peace.
Regards
Luke
motive (Score:2, Insightful)
There's been a reasonable amount of US election coverage in the UK so far, hence why the BBC have picked this up already.
Re:Before Voting for Kerry . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds somewhat like the Nazis with their "arien superrace", if you ask me... what happened to "all are equal" as beeing the base of democracy?
Re:Yes, you are sorry, Bro (Score:5, Insightful)
The U.S. invasion led directly to such chaos that all of this stuff was able to be trucked out. As you say, moving this stuff requires a massive effort. It's amazing the amount of incompetence and understaffing that had to be going on that this could happen. Even with full knowledge of the exact location and inventory of all sensitive materials before the invasion had even begun, they still couldn't keep the bad guys from hauling off truck after truck full of stuff. Hell, in the case of the WMD manufacturing, they even dismantled and took off with the buildings!
Before the invasion: a very bad guy had lots of conventional explosives, and was wishing for WMDs but probably wouldn't have been able to get them unless the sanctions were lifted (per the inspection group). He was an egomaniacal dictator, hated in the region, and jealously guarded what he had. It is not apparent that he would have sold his stuff to others. He was a bad guy, but was not a direct or apparently indirect threat to the U.S.
After the invasion: it's almost certain that a large chunk of the stuff we went to war so that Saddam wouldn't sell it to the terrorists is, well, in the hands of the terrorists.
I personally believe that this is NOT the fault of the troops, who did the best they could; it was the fault of the administration only seeing what they wanted to see, ignoring intelligence, estimates and requests they didn't like, and George W. "we're not going to have any casualties" Bush trying to do the job on the cheap because he thought he could get away with it.
Thus, as a direct result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, there are now hundreds of tons of high explosives, plus entire buildings full of specialized WMD manufacturing machinery and tools in the hands of we know not who.
Feel safer?
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:3, Insightful)
That is fair and I agree... but when it is the majority of the world outside of the US that is expressing these opinions, don't you think something strange is happening?
Again, this I understand, and I am not yet one of those people who blankets every US citizen under the same umbrella - although let me tell you, many do. You say "dare I say most" and yet the polls are still firmly 50/50. What gives? - but back on topic, how do the rest of the world change their opinions if they can't see information on the candidates proposed foreign policy?
Personally I don't care for the site, but I can see why people are suspect at it being blocked. What need is there? It just creates a negative suspicious view. People say DOS is a problem - how so? Last I checked the page isn't 404'ing, but returning html.. and therefore the server can still be DOS'd. And anyway, get real - this isn't being run from someone's basement, but on one of the biggest content providers in the world.
Re:WWJT (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmmm, Try reading this [cnn.com] or this [christianembassy.com].
Re:sorry, bro (Score:3, Insightful)
The only question would be if that would be before or after Jesus gets locked up as a terrorist leader
Re:WWJT (Score:2, Insightful)
They didn't need to. Bush's rhetoric about "doing God's work" and "God speaks through me [bush]" and "this crusade" and the interminable drivel about "faith" and "consulting a higher father" make the crosses unnecessary.
How does that work? Bush says "God" so it automatically becomes a Christian invasion? That's leaping to conclusions.
Re:Yes, you are sorry, Bro (Score:5, Insightful)
Human rights violation ? Ok, the US violates the human rights too [hrw.org] with the Guantanamo camp. W should invade the US too.
The 350 tons of explosives didn't disappeared under the UN's nose but under the US's nose. They disappeared in April 2003. Check it now [cnn.com].
You are too stupid to admit that there are simply no WMDs in Irak despite that even GWB himself and his administration admitted this fact. I believe you are definitely lost.
Re:Yes, you are sorry, Bro (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:YES! (Score:5, Insightful)
This "insightful" comment is the reason I distrust Republicans and won't vote for Bush. Too many seem to equate reasonable dissent and constructive criticism with treason.
Every time I ask self-proclaimed democrats why they support abortion, they say they believe in a womans right to choose...
There are many here in the US without the hubris to proclaim that they know the mind of God and who do not wish to force their religous beliefs down the throats of others. Abortion is a difficult personal choice that only a woman and her own conscience can make. I find it particularly disturbing that the religious zelots on the right would outlaw late term abortions with no provision for protecting the life of the mother. By doing so, they will surely kill some women whose pregnancy has developed serious life threatening complications. It must truly feel rightous to have such moral clarity that you know that the fetus's life is always more important than the mother's.
Re:WWJT (Score:2, Insightful)
This brings up an excellent question. Who did we go to war for?
the iraqi people?
GW?
the poor?
the rich?
soldiers?
oilmen from texas?
jesus?
satan?
israel?
Re:Who Cares!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
The US is an economic powerhouse, one that is tied with trillions of dollars of international trade and debt. What's bad for the US economy is bad for the world economy. If the US debt keeps going up, and the US has problems paying it, a whole lot of foreigners are out of a lot of money. If the US imposes tariffs on trade, it's not just American workers who suffer, but workers in countries that trade with the US suffer.
So from the point of view of a foreigner, it makes perfect sense to keep abreast of American politics. This is something many people due, because it has a direct impact on their lives. Even as an American, I make it a point to keep abreast of politics in Europe and Canada. These regions are important strategic allies, and important partners in trade. In the future, the EU also looks like it will become an important competitor economically. As a result, I would be foolish not to keep informed of their politics, because they have a direct impact on my country's economy.
Re:YES! Oh wait.... NO! (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, so what's so different about the fetus's personhood 1 day before the third trimester?
I don't think grossing people out is necessary in the abortion debate. I just don't get how there can be such a disconnect for people between something in the womb and something that just came out if it. Even if it's a stinkin' embryo, thousands of years of observation STRONGLY suggests that, left unharmed, it's going to become a human being. If somebody has an abortion, simple logic dictates that they effectively prevented a human from existing, even if they don't think its a human at that point.
I was totally incensed this past April or whenever when CNN had the Pro Choice march on. All these woman would come up to speak about the virtue of a Woman's Right to Choose(tm) and then they bring up their daughters and tell them how they're doing all this for THEM!!!! If given the microphone for a moment, most of them just said something along the lines of "go pro-choice!", I was waiting for one to say, "I'm glad mommy didn't abort me!".
Seriously, it's a self-defeating argument- they're trying to protect their daughters, yet some of those potential daughters won't be around to enjoy that protection.
Personally, I think you should be able to abort until the end of potty training.
As long as it's legal, I'd have to say it should be okay until they move out
War is Peace (Score:3, Insightful)
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and the Truth is a Lie.
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:3, Insightful)
Interestingly most of the rest of the planet is at least as fed up with this as well. Especially those who have the misfortune to live in the Middle East as well as parts of Central and South America. These "tax dollers" very often wind up paying for people to suffer and die. (As well as making plenty of enemies of the US.)
But you won't find either the Democrats or the Republicans wanting to end the "war on (some) drugs"; "war on (some) terror"; abolish "foreign aid"; abandon military bases in foreign countries. Instead spending the vast amounts of money these consume on things of direct relevence to the American people.
Many of us would be pleased as punch to be out of the UN
The Zionist lobby would not want that. There are simply too many people in the current US Government who's primary loyalty is not to the USA.
Suggest leaving Afghanistan, Iraq and especially Israel to themselves and see who makes a fuss... Removing the military base on Diago Garcia would, most likely, make friends of the Chagossiens, but would any US politican even consider it.
as it is clearly irrelevant and has an agenda that counters recognized civil liberties in the US.
Compared with the attacks on civil liberties coming from the US Government itself the UN is hardly anything to worry about.
If you don't like the way the rest of the world views the US then you as the US populace need to fix your government. The bad news is that it's so badly broken that rather more effort than just casting a few votes (through a farcical electoral system) on the second of November.
Re:YES! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WWJT (Score:3, Insightful)
The original Crusades were for profit first, religion second. The first one's so blatant this time that only the ones being attacked see the second.
Re:At least the .org's still accessible! (Score:3, Insightful)
--John Philpot Curran: Speech upon the Right of Election, 1790.
To be peaceful does not mean to be passive. It just means that one won't fight without a good reason. I'm sure whether that was a good reason is up for debate, but let's not equate "strong" with "peaceless." Sometimes you need to fight to find peace.
Re:YES! (Score:2, Insightful)
Summary: She's 19 weeks pregnant. She discovers her baby is dead. Very dead. She's bleeding. The baby's skin is starting to slough off inside the womb, its skull might be collapsing. The corpse needs removal. The safest way for the mother is to remove it in pieces.
But the years of angry debate (this means you!), restrictive state laws and violence targeting physicians have left very few institutions willing to do the job - meaning that she is advised to go through delivery. Comparatively unsafe and traumatic. So she chooses to look for a doctor willing to do the procedure, phones around, and finally finds someone after a long hunt. But he's busy. She spends days in a motel room feeling her dead baby inside her and watching herself bleed, until finally, someone condescends to remove it.
The moral of this story, in case you didn't know, is that for every bleeding-heart emotive story you can contrive, there's a counterexample. I don't really care how you feel about Kerry, but you do want to watch that tendancy to sensationalise.
Re:Yes, you are sorry, Bro (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:YES! Oh wait.... NO! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not viable, even with serious equipment.
Now the intersting thing is that "serious equipment" is a moving target. But the basic argument is that it can't develop outside the womb if it were, for instance, born that prematurely.
I think this is the definition of viability for fetuses, but I'm getting a little murky on the terms. Of course that's a grey area too, which is why doctor's have to consult with women to determine that a fetus is not viable before a regular abortion takes place. Please disagree with this if I'm wrong.
However, I do agree with your point that it is the snuffing out of a potential human life. It just doesn't bother me, what with the overpopulation and AIDS killing a zillion people a day.
Shit, starving people all over the world who have kids are basically sentencing a certain percentage of them to death. Where's the outrage about that? At least abortion is a well reasoned choice, where you take responsibility for your own action when it matters: before you make a mistake that leads to years of easy-to-measure human suffering.
To really clear the air, I'd even let you say life began with conception, and that abortion was actually killing a real live person. I just wouldn't call it murder, with all the punishment attached. If we're gonna have penicillin, clearly a human invented way of choosing which people to keep alive, I can't see the moral dilemma in choosing which people to prevent from being alive. The same could be said about distribution of food and medicine on a world wide scale. The Catholics are at least consistent on this one, they're pro-life for everything.
Interesting point about the not-aborted daughters, but I totally disagree. Certainly some of those girls are happy and have an excellent life and relationship with their mothers because they were born at the right time. How many too-young unwed mothers produce children that will go with them to political rallys? So I think their sentiment does make sense, choosing to end a pregnancy through abortion allows you to provide the best life for your eventual child.
"I had a dream the other night that all the babies prevented by the pill came back.
They were pissed."
- Steven Wright
dea9: Visualize your mailing lists to actually SEE trolls! [marumushi.com]
Re:Ugh... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, let me get this straight. You vote Republican because when Democrats see something seriously wrong, they challenge it? It's better than sitting idly while your freedoms, liberties, and livelihood is challenged.
They proved that with the 2000 election.
Gore won that election, even in Florida. I was a Republican, but crossed over to the Democratic party after watching the Republican party steal the presidency. Bush is president only by title. Even this election, several republicans funded by the GOP have been caught [google.com] disposing of tens of thousands of valid democrat voter registrations in swing states, and rarely vice versa, probably a fraction of the total fraud going on.
Don't hate me because I think John Kerry is a douche bag
But I'm voting for him anyway [johnkerryi...anyway.com]
Re:At least the .org's still accessible! (Score:5, Insightful)
But it's not. The USA faces practically zero terrorism. 9/11 was a spike, and we've caused at least 20x the damage to innocent civilians in our fight against terrorism. Americans have a better chance of having a new disease named after them than dying in a terrorist attack.
Bush wants Americans to be afraid, so he can push his agenda and use that fear to get reelected. Bush has many killed more Americans than have all the terrorists combined, through fear and budgetting, and even more foreigners in the name of preventing another 9/11. Americans will vote for Bush because they believe his lies.
We didn't catch many of the terrorists behind 9/11 because Bush allowed them to leave by plane the next day to Saudi Arabia, when all other planes in the country were grounded. Among them were several members of the bin Laden family. Authorized by the president himself. The bin Ladens gave the Bush family $1.4 billion before the 2000 election. If we caught the terrorists, there could be no war on terror, no war for the control of middle east oil production, which is the greatest concern of the Bush family.
Re:YES! (Score:1, Insightful)
Don't worry. If you were paying attention, you would have noticed the very next year that the IRS took back that $300. It's not like Georgie gave you anything you wouldn't have gotten anyway. And woe befall those people who did run right out to WallyWorld and bought that new 32" TV, then got laid off. Then found out they owed a few hundred dollars in taxes the next year.
Re:Perfectly demonstrates (Score:3, Insightful)
I highly recommend Hoder's blog [hoder.com] about anything Iranian. He pretty much started blogging in Iran, and now there are a huge community of bloggers there.
Re:Speaking as one of those absentee voters (Score:1, Insightful)
Huh??? Boy do you need to do a little studying.
First Al Qaeda is not a racial organization, but a religio-political one. It started out as a CIA=funded group to help the Afghanis (they're not Arabs) rid themselves of the Soviets. They receive much support from the Pakistanis (not Arabs). They are known to have ties in Indonesia and the Phillipines (yep, you guessed it, not Arabs). And, get this, perhaps the biggest gap in your logic, reports indicate that Al Qaeda (and specifically the 9/11 guys) did receive support from Iran; the same reports have still failed to find any significant Al Qaeda-Iraq link.
Iraq was unprovoked. Go to the CIA site and check out Duelfer report, or go to your bookstore and pick up the 9/11 report, or just listen to what our own government is now saying. No ties, no weapons, we were horribly mislead, and it appears that the misleading was totally willful.
Re:WWJT (Score:3, Insightful)
Georege Bush, Ayatollah Khomeini, Usama Bin Laden... different levels of fundamentalist whackery, but the root cause is all the same.
Religeon and politics. The two do not mix - each is a powerful corrosive on the other.
Cheers,
Greg
Re:oh my beloved american friends (NO SARCASM HERE (Score:1, Insightful)
Do you realy think terrorists care who is president of the US?
Or that Bush would protect the country better then Kerry would?
That's pretty naive
It's not very likely terrorists care who is president since quite a lot of them see the entire nation (and the rest of the western world) as their enemy.
And neither presidental candidate can guarantee to stop terrorist attacks. The more realistic view is the one the British have.
They assume that a successful terrorist attack is inevitable whatever preventative measures are taken. (And they know what they are talking about since they have decennia of experience with dealing with terrorism.)
Any promises made by the candidates to keep the country 100% safe are just hot air unless of course one of them has psychic powers.
Re:YES! Oh wait.... NO! (Score:1, Insightful)
While I am sure most of the children they bring up to speak share the, "I'm glad mommy didn't abort me!" sentiment all of the ones they possibly aborted were never around long enough to have sentiments. Problem solved. Also, if the daughters had more time to speak they would probably say, "go pro-choice! Because if mommy was forced to carry the pregnancy that she foolishly ended up with while partying one weekend at college she would have never finished and earned her degree. She would have had 3 children now instead of 2 and she would be working two jobs earning minimum wage instead of getting the managerial position that she needed her degree to get. Thankyou Mommy for waiting for the right time!"
Re:Like Bob Dole once said... (Score:3, Insightful)
I watch both US and European news broadcasts and the US broadcasts are heavely polarised and polished. It seems they are afraid they might hurt their viewer ratings by being too critical or reporting on issues that may alienate their viewer base.
The reports generally lack depth, especially when it comes to reporting on events outside the US. With the US networks we can see over here it seems the facts are secundary to the entertainment value of a story.
Some of the European channels are guilty of the same, particularly some of the many commercial ones, but generally the European channels present the news in a far more balanced and neutral way. And they pay a lot more attention to what is going on in the rest of the world, which helps to bring a lot of what is happening into perspective.
As a bonus of being in Europe you get to watch the news from different countries as long as you speak more than one language. That should help offset any bias. (I speak Dutch, German, French and English so that gives me access to quite a selection of sources.)
O..and as for the US elections the reporting I have seen on the European channels is mostly neutral and professional which can't be said for the American channels.
Re:YES! (Score:1, Insightful)
I hope this is not called flamebait. (Score:1, Insightful)
I am from Australia, and your democratic system, while appearing so very similar to ours is unbelievably different.
I cannot understand the way a lot of you (Probably not many slashdotters) get behind your political parties like it is a form of sporting team.
IMHO there is way too much grandstanding, not enough core politics.
Seriously, we take rugby less competitively.
I see the waving of banners and screaming of 'fans' for these people as if they are heros.
I hope this doesn't get modded down as I would like to hear an American take on it.
ps. posting AC because I am having trouble logging in.
Biscuit.
Re:Someone explain to me how this is news (Score:2, Insightful)
> political campaign propaganda. And since there
> are still an extremely wide variety of ways to
> get at its content and information from outside
> the US, it's obviously not some kind
> of "international censorship".
That isn't the point. It is extremely insulting, even if it is hardly surprising, to see that George W Bush cares so little about the rest of the world that he is not even prepared to allow them to follow his campaign on his _official_ site. If he thinks it is unimportant that we see his _propaganda_, he plainly doesn't care what we think. Sure, there are plenty of other sites - and mirrors - but this is the only site that represents him personally.
Bandwidth is a very poor reason for further damaging what little goodwill many of those outside America still have towards G W Bush.