Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Communications Government United States IT Politics Technology

White House: No Kerry Supporters at IATC Meeting 1430

An anonymous reader writes "Time Magazine is reporting that the Bush Administration is removing U.S. delegates from the Inter-American Telephone Commission because they gave money to John Kerry in last year's election. A Bush spokesman admits it's true: 'We wanted people who would represent the Administration positively, and--call us nutty--it seemed like those who wanted to kick this Administration out of town last November would have some difficulty doing that,' says White House spokesman Trent Duffy. Employees of Qualcomm and Nokia are among those who have been removed from the commission."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

White House: No Kerry Supporters at IATC Meeting

Comments Filter:
  • Change of personnel (Score:2, Interesting)

    by bfizzle ( 836992 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @06:03PM (#12341461)
    There was a time when a change in political parties ment that the whole staff of the government changed... all the way down to mail clerks.
  • tribalism. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Monday April 25, 2005 @06:05PM (#12341484) Homepage Journal
    You mean like this [wikipedia.org]?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 25, 2005 @06:09PM (#12341538)
    Kerry's campaign spokesman Chad Clanton made an obvious threat against Sinclair Broadcasting after they announced they were going to air an anti-Kerry documentary.

    Chad Clanton [newsmax.com]

    "I think they're going to regret doing this," the Kerry spokesman warned before adding - "They better hope we don't win."

    Big freakin' surprise. Political parties and politicians reward people that support them and punish people that go against them. Oooh! It's Bush so it must be evil!
  • by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @06:09PM (#12341541)
    Quite correct -- essentially what the Bush adminstration is telling these telecom companies is that they won't be allowed to send a representative to a conference UNTIL there is a Democratic president! Sounds like a pretty good reason to donate heavily to the Democrats in the next election to me!
    The only explanation I can find for the Bush administration's short-sighted behaviour is that these nut-jobs must honestly beleive that the world will end in a few years (Rapture/Armegeddon), so nothing they do matters anyway...
  • I'll tell you. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dragonfly ( 5975 ) <jddaigleNO@SPAMmac.com> on Monday April 25, 2005 @06:10PM (#12341556) Homepage
    Kerry wouldn't have done the same.

    Find me ONE other instance of a Presidential Administration (other than George W. Bush's) denying access to an event based on which political campaigns people contributed money to.

    This is a blatant violation of the first amendment. More discussion from this morning's thread on Ars. [arstechnica.com]
  • Well duh. (Score:1, Interesting)

    by crimoid ( 27373 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @06:11PM (#12341574)
    'We wanted people who would represent the Administration positively, and--call us nutty--it seemed like those who wanted to kick this Administration out of town last November would have some difficulty doing that

    Sorry, this isn't a Bush thing. This is a political thing. Every Administration does something like this to a certain degree. I'm not saying that it is the right thing to do, rather it just happens.

    Want to change things? Pass laws that prohibit political contributions from all business entities. Restrict contributions to individuals problems like this virtually vanish.
  • The sense of outrage is crushed by the lack of a decent political system to accomadate it. Who's going to actually stand up to our politicians? Commies? Democrats? There are no real non-money biased political organizations out there that anyone can even remotely consider mainstream. The system is designed to stamp them out, look at the green party. And the Libertarians. And of course, look at Ross Perot. There's no room for dissent beyond the approved dissent, and we need major change, and we have no leaders because of the smear-based media. The US is lamed by its politics now instead of uplifted, because we've become so shallow.

    Hand me one too. Make sure it's not a Bud, though, I just can't stand that piss-weak stuff. It's nowhere near as fast as a good northwestern Imperial Stout, either.
  • by Nogami_Saeko ( 466595 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @06:13PM (#12341600)
    Well, Americans also voted them back into office - and that's nothing they can blame on anyone but themselves...

    So to the liberals, I say this, "Get your shit together and get them out of office next time..." For all of the liberal documentation of corruption, lies and deception, the republicans are far, far, FAR better at media manipulation than the liberals are. And until the liberals fix that oversight and work the "spin" a bit better, they're not going to be back in office.

    Hell, Bush has done things a helluva lot worse than Clinton ever did, and he's getting away with it without a second glance by the media. They just label anyone who disagrees with Bush a "traitor" and move on... Nice "free" country...

    BTW: Anyone notice how Bush's brother is going out of his way to start looking like the president? Similar hair/clothing styles, mannerisms, etc. Anyone wanna guess who the republicans are gonna try and field for the next election?

    God (cawf cawf) help you all...

    N.
  • by MillionthMonkey ( 240664 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @06:17PM (#12341666)
    Quite correct -- essentially what the Bush adminstration is telling these telecom companies is that they won't be allowed to send a representative to a conference UNTIL there is a Democratic president! Sounds like a pretty good reason to donate heavily to the Democrats in the next election to me!

    No, that's not what they're saying at all. They aren't preventing all Nokia engineers from attending, just the engineers from Nokia who sent personal donations to the Kerry campaign.

    This is a very frightening aspect of it- a donation to Kerry can hurt your chances of employment in the tech sector later on. One might imagine this will have a very chilling effect on non-corporate political donations in the next election.
  • Re:Shock and Bah (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dark_requiem ( 806308 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @06:18PM (#12341684)
    You could replace the word "current" in each of those lines with the name of any president in, say, the last 150 years, and you'd still be dead-on. This isn't a new thing, it's politics as usual.

    All states naturally devolve to tyranny. It's just a question of time.
  • by AK Marc ( 707885 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @06:20PM (#12341710)
    Golly, the president doesn't want his rivals representing him.

    What rival? John Kerry was not removed. The punishment was for having an opinion. That is the point. You speak up? You get punished. What good is the Freedom of Speech if using it gets you fired? Being fired for performance is one thing, but being fired because of how you are presumed to have voted is unacceptable.

    You are allowed freedom, as long as you are agreeing with Bush. I can't help but wonder what your opinion would have been if it were Democrats firing Republicans.
  • by TCQuad ( 537187 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @06:30PM (#12341842)
    Kerry's campaign spokesman Chad Clanton made an obvious threat against Sinclair Broadcasting after they announced they were going to air an anti-Kerry documentary.

    1) That was a hypothetical statement by an aide not important enough to get out of Fox News duty; Bush has actually done this.
    2) The Kerry spokesman's statement was made in jest, if you've actually seen the clip. I was watching Fox News when that aired and have been amazed by how frequently it has been quoted, since it was really an inocuous comment.
  • Re:Well duh. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by FungiFromYuggoth ( 822668 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @06:30PM (#12341845)
    Perhaps you should spend more time reading the article and less time dismissing it?

    One of the prospective attendees was rejected for a personal $250 donation to the Democratic Party.

    I don't hold out much hope, since you apparently didn't make it to the third paragraph of a three paragraph article, but you should read up on the K Street Project [washingtonmonthly.com] to see that, in fact, things are different now.
  • Re:Shock and Bah (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 25, 2005 @06:31PM (#12341853)
    Yeah, I know. Godwin's law.

    But my mother, born in '23, who's been watching Bush's antics has stated specifically that he and his crowd are acting just like the Nazi's did in the years leading up to WWII. The Germans of the time responded to Hitler in much the same way that people, now, are responding to Bush.

    She's old, but she's definitly not senile.

    Scary.
  • by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Monday April 25, 2005 @06:33PM (#12341868) Homepage Journal
    This information is all public- you could get info on how much your neighbors had given before the election. Everything's supposedly public, but the grouping of it all is a little hard to track. There's a website out there somewhere that has all this data mapped out.

    I was stunned when I heard, some years back, that W. had $70 million in his campaign war chest before most of the public even heard he was going to run for president. Up to that point most of us would have been thinking John McCain would be running against Al Gore.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 25, 2005 @06:34PM (#12341876)
    IT'S NOT DIPOLOMATIC WORK.

    Geeze, these are fucking engineers. Or they're supposed to have been anyway. Who knows whose donations bought these seats now. For all we know now they're relatives of whoever gave the most money to the Republican party.

    All the Republicans blabber on about this, and all they are doing is showing their ignorance. No president, liberal or conservative has done anything like this to an Engineering Commission before.

    In hindsight now, it's hardly a surprise, given Bush's administration strongarming scientists into interpreting the results "their" way. It's become apparent that no field is safe from backstabbing and political maneuvering. How much longer before we become "tattle-tales" and start ratting people out to save our own hides or just to get the other guy in line for your promotion out of the way.

    We could even call it the Blue Scare this time around.
  • by John Seminal ( 698722 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @06:38PM (#12341913) Journal
    The sense of outrage is crushed by the lack of a decent political system to accomadate it. Who's going to actually stand up to our politicians? Commies? Democrats? There are no real non-money biased political organizations out there that anyone can even remotely consider mainstream. The system is designed to stamp them out, look at the green party. And the Libertarians. And of course, look at Ross Perot. There's no room for dissent beyond the approved dissent, and we need major change, and we have no leaders because of the smear-based media. The US is lamed by its politics now instead of uplifted, because we've become so shallow.

    Hand me one too. Make sure it's not a Bud, though, I just can't stand that piss-weak stuff. It's nowhere near as fast as a good northwestern Imperial Stout, either.

    You are mistaking the USA form of government. We are not parliment, we don't form collations. There is only one winner, everyone else is a loser.

    That does not mean a group can not influence an election, they often do. Clinton never would have been elected president if not for Perot. Perot stole 10% of the vote from Bush, giving Clinton the presidency. Some believe Ralph Nader took the election from Gore. Maybe if some of the far left liberals did not vote for Nader they would have voted for Gore. Look at how close Florida was. How many Nader people are there in Florida? Enough to make a difference?

    If you want to change politics, start with campaign finance reform. Right now we have two parties, and nobody else. Part of the problem is the two parties collect money on a scale that nobody else can match. The second thing you must change is the debates. With the exception of Perot, no third part candidate gets a chance. And since Perot cost Bush, candidates are even more sensitive about giving a third party a voice.

    I don't think we will ever have a third party president. But I hope we can elect a few third party Senators. But with a senate seat costs rising to 10 million a seat, who knows if Joe Sixpack will every get elected.

  • by mliikset ( 869292 ) <mikelist@tds.net> on Monday April 25, 2005 @06:44PM (#12341986)
    One thing that has me outraged is that he has apparently reneged on his campaign of decency, legal gay unions have been shored up in New York, California and Connecticut, abortion shows no sign of being halted and schools still can't make you pray, but the christians have taken off their political goggles, and can't see that he chumped them in a big way.

    Kinda vindicates my opinion of American christianity.
  • by Vicissidude ( 878310 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @06:46PM (#12342014)
    The beliefs of one's church do not necessarily match the beliefs of the individual. One can easily see that demonstrated from all the PopeTV going on these last few weeks. Liberal Catholics have bemoaned the election of Cardinal Ratsigner to due to his conservative views.
  • by Rostin ( 691447 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @06:54PM (#12342108)
    it doesn't seem to occur to any of them that this move will come back to bite them in the ass just as soon as there is a non-Republican majority...

    Isn't that precisely the reason it's called the "nuclear option"? You know, mutual assured destruction, and all.
  • by Truth_Quark ( 219407 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @06:54PM (#12342124) Journal
    the system - and this move, which should help to dissuade contributions is a very good thing.

    Maybe underneath the plutocracy, there is still an unsmothered democracy that could still be coaxed to life?

  • by Rei ( 128717 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @06:55PM (#12342128) Homepage
    Do you honestly believe that the founding fathers encoded violent revolution into the bill of rights?

    I'm not exactly a gun nut here... in fact, I don't really like them. However, Jefferson wanted to encode precisely that. Here are a few quotes:

    "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the Atmosphere."

    "what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms...The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    Etc. Jefferson was at the view that all governments will inevitably become corrupt, oppressive, and/or unrepresentative of its citizens; and when that time comes, the people must rise up and overthrow it. I think he'd actually be pleasantly surprised at how long America has gone without a revolution.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 25, 2005 @06:57PM (#12342169)
    at an airport in Ft. Worth, Texas in front of a large crowd of supporters in the middle of the night, for a short speech. I got within five feet of the man. I didn't have to sign a loyalty oath to see him, I wasn't "checked at the door" for my party allegiance. I wasn't denied entrance because i'd given money to Reagan in the 80's.

    This administration is the worse ever.
  • Re:Shock and Bah (Score:5, Interesting)

    by msuzio ( 3104 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @07:01PM (#12342202) Homepage
    I believe the difference is, while the administration would like to be able to do all of these things, and does get away with most of this stuff unopposed, the system is not designed to uphold this. The problem isn't the American governmental structure (well, not yet, they haven't wiped their ass with the Consitutition just yet), it is that people are basically allowing them to get away with this. Not out of fear of reprisals (which would enforce the totalitarian assertion), but out of sheer neglect. The country is not being taken away from people's control, they are freely giving it away.

    Despite the probable dirty tricks in the last election, it was a free election. We didn't have people staying away from the polls because they feared being shot by the opposition. We didn't have people being strong-armed into voting for the "one party". Truthfully, it was a close election. Bush very well could have gotten voted out, and if he had gotten voted out, Kerry would have become president, and policies and politics would have changed. I somehow doubt we would have seen Bush declare a coup and surround the capital with tanks refusing to cede power. Such a scenario seems pretty plausible in a truly totalitarian regime.

    We're not in an ideal situation right now by any means, but let's not cheapen things by saying "OMG! We live in Nazi Germany!" or claiming the republic has fallen. If we think like that, then people are going to become even more apathetic.

    Much better to take a real look at things and figure out how to avoid letting things get that bad (because, sure, things could get that bad if people don't wake up). The US could change things if people gave a shit and wanted something different out of their government.
  • by Agrippa ( 111029 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @07:05PM (#12342250)
    What's ironic is the Bush's Social Security reform isnt really all that much different than Clinton's first proposed Social Security reform. But back then the Republicans decried it as unnecessary and horrible, and the AARP came down squarely on their side. There are tons of quotes of Republicans praising and glorifying how wonderful AARP is and and equal number of Democrats railing against it.

    Fast forward 10 years and its literally the same situation reversed, with the AARP squarely on the side of anti-Bush reform Democrats, and now you have Republicans decrying AARP and Democrats praising it. And, its almost the same proposed reforms, down to a similar private account initiative.

    When its all said and done I hope Social Security reform quietly dies and the real issue, which is Medicare reform, sees the light of day. Medicare is projected to run out of money in something like 2012, making it much more of an immediate threat, not just to people who need it, but to everyone that pays taxes.

    .agrippa.
  • by MBraynard ( 653724 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @07:08PM (#12342281) Journal
    You are incorrect prima fascia - if it was a first amendment violation, this would be in court - and it's not and won't be.

    There is nothing wrong with this no matter who does it. All those complaining are doing so out of ignorance. This is a democracy, not some philosopher kings' republic out of Plato's imagination where the wise rule because they are wise. When a President (or his agents - herein the state department) is elected, they are entitled to appoint individuals to office as they seem fit - everything from Sec of Defense down to attendees at international confereces.

    Also, this administration is a capitalist one and as such would not want socialists/marxists helping to shape international policy. One way to determine someone's idiological bent is by their political contributions, and those who support Kerry over Bush either are not capitalists or do not care very much about capitalism, in either case making them inapprorpriate representatives of the United States wherein we elected a President who reflects our views to the contrary.

  • Golly, the president doesn't want his rivals representing him. Oh, for shame.

    Sure, if this is a "Promote the Republicans" conference, you'd have a point. However, this is a forum for telecom providers and the top ones are essentially Banned by Bush(TM) because they donated to a different political party. What's next? The international committee on human rights abuses can only be attended by republicans? Foreign embassies only staffed by republicans? Want a job in the federal government... I sure hope you're a republican! After all, we don't want any rivals working for Uncle Sam, right?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 25, 2005 @07:15PM (#12342349)
    The crack-in-LA reporter was Gary Webb. http://www.laweekly.com/ink/05/04/dissonance-coope r.php [laweekly.com]

    He committed suicide at the end of 2004 after 20 years of being called a crazy conspiracy theorist. But what he really reported (that the CIA did not care whether their LA informants sold drugs) turned out to be true. The CIA admitted it in an internal investigation prompted by Webb's report and subsequent book.
  • by bflong ( 107195 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @07:15PM (#12342352)
    Wow... you sure have things backwards...

    >Are you seriously suggesting that armed rebellion against the government is a right guaranteed by the constitution?

    What exactly is a "right"? Your comment seems to suggest that you believe that a "right" is whatever the government allows you to do. How exactly do you protect your "rights" when the government says: "No, you can't do that any more". I know! You can all just sit down and talk about it! Yeah, that will fix the problem. History has shown over and over again that there is only one way to correct the problem of an overly oppressive government.

    Also, no, I would not expect any government to say "it's allowed in the constitution so I guess we can't do anything to stop you." any more then the founding fathers expected the British to do. Oppressive governments never do. The fact of the matter is that it would take real work and the sacrifice of a lot of lives to accomplish that. Thats really the problem. People value themselves far more then the greater good or doing the righteous thing. Thats why we are all in the situation we are today, a lack of morality.

    And just so you understand my personal position, I don't even own a gun of any kind. I have absolutely no desire to start or join in any "armed rebellion". My hope lies elsewhere when it comes to this worlds problems. This world is beyond hope in my eyes.
  • by daigu ( 111684 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @07:16PM (#12342359) Journal

    Not that I'm a fan of Bush - but Clinton put more people in jail than Reagan and papa Bush combined. In many ways, Clinton was more "right" in respect to "free trade", use of power against foreign countries (anyone remember the delibrate bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade under Clinton?), and so forth than some Republicans at the time.

    Liberal and conservative labels aside, you have a one party system where the two parties are different faces of the same coin. The consolidated corporate media is their propaganda arm - and you get votes by targeted direct marketing campaigns via people like Rove. If it wasn't so fundamentally wrong, you would almost has to admire the efficiency of it.

  • by Overzeetop ( 214511 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @07:21PM (#12342407) Journal
    They can't be good at manipulating the media. The Republicans have told me that the media is all left wing biased, so it must be true. Every time I hear W did this or W did that, I know that - if it was bad - it's a lie by those left wing media nut-jobs, and if it's good, it's only because he has done SO well that the media can't help but admit it because it's so obvious they can't even lie about it.

    Sorry. This call for patirotism is the new McCarthyism. If you're against the leaders, your a subversive terrorist. It too shall pass, I justhope that it doesn't spiral too much farther out of control. Unfortunately, emotions are a great source of power, and the strongest emotions for most americans are hate a fear. President Bush, or at least his advisors, know this implicitly, and have played their hand extremely well. My advise to the Democrats - quit thinking that the rules matter. Quit thinking that if you get caught, you can make the electorate believe that the rules _don't_ matter. They haven't (re)learned how to cheat and get away with it.

    *shrug* I just hope the current administration doesn't screw things up so badly that it will take decades to repair the damage. Of course, I usually say that no matter who is in power...both major sides seem to think that certain extremeist issues are part of "core values". Then again, I'm sure some of my core values are "extremist" to some folks. You just can't win.
  • I like Bush (Score:3, Interesting)

    by YrWrstNtmr ( 564987 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @07:33PM (#12342495)
    OK, let me rephrase that. I dislike him less than disliked Kerry.

    But damn, George. Stop dicking around like this. You're pissing all of us off. If you're not careful, Hilary is going to gain a lot of support in 2008, simply by your screwups.

    And if she wins, we WILL be screwed.

  • by weston ( 16146 ) <westonsd@@@canncentral...org> on Monday April 25, 2005 @07:39PM (#12342540) Homepage
    "It's sort of like with the Senate Republicans considering the "Nuclear Option" of barring filibusters; it doesn't seem to occur to any of them that this move will come back to bite them in the ass just as soon as there is a non-Republican majority..."

    This is the one thing that really actually scares me, because it shows that they don't think there will ever again be a non-Republican majority.

    Think about it for a moment: Why would they think that? Especially considering how close it's really been in many cases.

  • by SideshowBob ( 82333 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @07:45PM (#12342599)
    Does the article say anything about the individuals being excluded because of any actual politicking "outside the border"? Or was the sole reason which candidate was donated to?
  • by Soong ( 7225 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @07:48PM (#12342624) Homepage Journal
    We wanted people who would represent the Administration positively

    Except that it's not about the Administration, it's supposed to be about representing the United States (and our telecommunications industry, in this case).

    They may also need to be reminded that the President is supposed to represent US and we are not his loyal subjects.
  • by Ersatz Chickenweed ( 868568 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @08:05PM (#12342773)
    This shows tha[t] the republicans have the goal of making it so they are the only party in america.

    Why else would they be so eager to get rid of filibusters? They wouldn't effecively neutralize such a huge weapon like that--one which would definitely benefit them if the political fortunes become reversed anytime in the future--unless they are feeling like they wouldn't ever need to use such a weapon.

    Unfortunately for Americans, the corrupt right-wing strategists are playing their game decades ahead of their counterparts on the other side. Sad to say, but it's a bit like Garry Kasparov challenging a developmentally-disabled kindergartener to a game of chess. It's ugly, unfair, and sickening, and it's time for the opposition to wake up and do something about it.

  • Re:Shock and Bah (Score:5, Interesting)

    by shadowmatter ( 734276 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @08:09PM (#12342810)
    Especially apt:

    In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.
    - Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address
  • by rho ( 6063 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @08:12PM (#12342844) Journal
    I see this term used, "Founding Fathers" quite a bit as if they were a monolithic bunch. They weren't. They were quarrelsome and scrappy, and often disagreed on a number of major and minor issues.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 25, 2005 @08:17PM (#12342886)

    Bush and Co. are absolute geniuses for using people's own religion against them. IIRC, Bush first got the idea of using religion for political gain from Pat Robertson, who does the same thing.

    These people are not Christains, because they are politicans first. They are most certainly not humble, they are dishonest, they worship power and money, and they do it openly but with such skill that people still vote for them. In a way, they could be compared to the notion that Satan is so devious.

  • by SunFan ( 845761 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @08:24PM (#12342936)

    I wouldn't mind so much if GWB actually were Christian. Then, there would be fewer wars, fewer countries would be pissed at us, and there would be much less corruption. There would also be open dialog with Muslim countries, because a true Christian theologian would recognize that Islam and Christianity follow the same God and are religions that developed in different times at different places for different peoples but with a common history going all the way back to Genesis.

  • by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) * on Monday April 25, 2005 @08:30PM (#12343006) Homepage Journal
    The main exception I see is the supremacy of the military. This administration talks them up, but its actual treatment of our troops is contemptable. We've all heard of soldiers injured, discharged, then told to repay their enlistment bonus since they didn't complete their term of service. Or told to pay hospital fees while recooperating from loss of limbs. (The argument was that they shouldn't have gotten a food and housing stipend while living on hospital grounds but not in a hospital room, or something equally lame.)

    Actually, even that's not an exception. Both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy coddled their top commanders while treating the grunts like shit.
  • Sexism (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MarkusQ ( 450076 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @08:31PM (#12343014) Journal

    One point that keeps triggering my sexism detector--look at the gender ratio of the people that have been found culpable in the prisoner torture cases, vs. the gender ration of those that have been publicly acquited.

    Now compare these to the ratio for sex offenders in general.

    Smells awful fishy to me.

    --MarkusQ

  • by MarkusQ ( 450076 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @08:38PM (#12343083) Journal

    If /. search works back that far, you should be able to find me bitching just as loud about Clinton. I happen to be registered Republican, if it matters to you. But I have this funny quirk--I don't think either side should be pulling this kind of stuff on those of us who pay their salleries.

    --MarkusQ

  • by learn fast ( 824724 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @09:05PM (#12343302)
    Here's a list of the topics [washingtonmonthly.com] they would've been working on:

    * Recommendation for 400 MHz bands
    * RLAN in the 5 GHz band
    * Recommendation on harmonized frequencies for property protection
    * Revision to Recommendation PCC.II/REC. 67 (XIX-01) on Low Power Radiocommunication devices,
    * Radio frequency identification devices (RFID)
    * Broadband Power Line Communications (BPL)
    * Refarming of 700 MHz band
    * Answer to Market questionnaire on IMT 2000 and systems beyond
    * Results of the video conference on wireless broadband

    History will be written by the winners. They'll be no trace of the dirty liberal hands that gave $250 to the Kerry campaign on these obscure telecommunication standards.

    The Bush administation's genious is in it's recognition that all our problems, on all levels, are caused by liberal influence. Did you lose the signal on your wireless LAN moments ago? It's a little known fact that when this happens it's probably because of liberal influence.

    Here are some more examples:

    * Rebuilding Iraq [washingtonpost.com]: It's a well known fact that development specialists are mostly liberals. Which is why the Coalition Provisional Authority was wisely staffed almost entirely by young people with absolutely no relevant experience. What one and only one qualification they did all have in common, which no liberal could ever have, was they had all once sent a resume to conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation.

    * The CIA [commondreams.org]: Why couldn't we find WMD in Iraq? Because the CIA is full of liberals. "'Goss was given instructions ... to get rid of those soft leakers and liberal Democrats. The CIA is looked on by the White House as a hotbed of liberals and people who have been obstructing the president's agenda.' said a former senior CIA official who maintains close ties to both the agency and to the White House."

    Sadly, you don't hear about this because of the liberal media. I didn't do it mommy, liberals did it.
  • by learn fast ( 824724 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @09:28PM (#12343479)
    It's a goddamn pity that the United States has forgotten the brilliance of its Founding Fathers,

    Don't forget the saintly Founding Fathers held many flatly contradictory views amongst each other. As well as many things we consider abhorrent today (read: slaves).
  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @09:43PM (#12343589)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by Aaron Denney ( 123626 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @09:47PM (#12343622) Homepage
    It has been shown throughout history that a weaker force can win and overthrow a dominating military power, if they have outside aid. For the U.S., it was largely French aid.
  • Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @09:51PM (#12343651)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Re:+5 flamebait (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 25, 2005 @10:00PM (#12343712)
    let me enlighten you about how it works. I am a part of the "evil" Bush Administration. I have lots of friends at the White House and Old Executive building. I have probably been over there 50 times over the last 4 years for meetings, tours, or just to visit friends; everytime on, you guessed it, a day pass. There are lots of people who can get you in on a day pass. But guess what, that won't get you anywhere near the west wing without an escort. I have left without signing out on several occasions - sometimes the badges don't work when you swipe out. It happens.

    But thanks so much for playing. Is this the part where the "tolerant" left says the republicans in power are queer, like the dirt they did against Nader? I bet next you'll tell us that some of the White House staff are secretly atheist.
  • by GregChant ( 305127 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @10:07PM (#12343774)
    Actually, it was Alexandar Hamilton in the Federalist Papers who argued against "factions".

    No. Federalist 10 was penned by James Madison [constitution.org], not Alexander Hamilton. Nice try, though.

  • by Scroatzilla ( 672804 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @11:03PM (#12344270) Homepage Journal
    Many liberals have been accused of being out of touch with "how things really are." I would merely suggest that we have documentation of how thing are supposed to be (the Constitution), and things like this as proof that they are not that way. However we got here, we're certainly not going to benefit with this "it's just the way things are" sentiment.

    This "keep your checkbook closed" thing is attrocious. By definition, in a "democracy," every single person is involved in politics, regardless of their wealth or ability to contribute to a campaign. Stop making excuses for the "way things are."
  • by brpr ( 826904 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @11:03PM (#12344274)
    Well, strongest navy maybe, but the British army was not the strongest army in the world by any stretch of the imagination. But as a point of fact, the American revolutionaries lost virtually every land battle they fought. The war was essentially won because they didn't give up, and the British figured out that it would cost more to try to keep hold of America than it was worth (note: America not a major economic power at this time).
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 25, 2005 @11:41PM (#12344571)
    I think he'd actually be pleasantly surprised at how long America has gone without a revolution.

    He'd be horrified.

    Dude, America really isn't THAT bad. While I agree Bush is a horrible president, its only been 5 years since he has been in office. The 2006 election will be here before you know it, and I have a feeling the Republicans will fall hard. They are supporting things that most Americans do not support (IE Terri Schiavo, Nuclear Option, etc). Democrats need to remind voters of this in 2006 or they will fail again.

    While I am personally dissapointed Bush won the reelection, it was still an extremely close race. Most Kerry supporters knew their facts whereas Bush supporters were ignorant (and yes there are actual polls to support this). Most Bushies support the man because they think he's some kind of all-knowing God, but you really think they'll feel the same way about a new guy? The next president will have to earn their hearts and trust. Screaming "TERRORISM" without having unquestioning blind followers first will only lead to that candidates demise.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 25, 2005 @11:47PM (#12344613)
    In fact this move makes the administration look pretty bad.

    As opposed to the mass murder and economic sabotage, which encouraged the popular vote to side with them...
  • by Minna Kirai ( 624281 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @11:52PM (#12344650)
    In fact, we are growing right now at such a rate that today's billions will be a drop in the bucket tomorrow. This is due to sheer growth and expansion, not based on inflation.

    Haha, he ha. Tell another one! Here: In fact, I am growing right now at such a rate that in 10 years, I will be 65 meters tall. That is due to sheer growth and expansion, not inflation.

    Assumptions of eternal grow are moronic.

    If anything, the fact that we can float such a huge debt and that our debtors are fine with the rates is a testament to the power of our nation.

    That's true, and it's something to be ASHAMED of. Where I come from, "bullying" was still considered wrong.
  • by Mskpath3 ( 764785 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @12:02AM (#12344716)
    Excellent post. I'll throw in a few more revolutionary (and other) zingers:

    "Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt

    "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-B.

    "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." -Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788).

    "The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." -Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.

    "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).

    "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.

    "Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion... in private self defense..." -John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).

    I mean, the list just goes on. Paired with the plain-English wording of the 2nd Amendment, only the most blind of idiots can see what the Founding Fathers favored.

  • by dr_dank ( 472072 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @12:19AM (#12344816) Homepage Journal
    It has been shown throughout history that a weaker force can win and overthrow a dominating military power.

    At one time that was true. In the days of the American Revolution, weaponry was fairly evenly matched. They had muskets, we had muskets. They had cannons, we had cannons, and so on. Today, no private citzens arsenal could come close to the artillery, jets, tanks, and satellite systems that are the bread and butter of todays armed forces.

    If the US has an armed rebellion again, you're making the faulty assumption that the entire US military would willingly turn on its own countrymen.

    You bet your ass they would. If you're taught from day one to take orders and carry them out without question, you're not going to stop and play 20 questions when your superior officer orders you to fire on an enemy position.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @12:54AM (#12345006)
    >They are supporting things that most Americans do
    >not support (IE Terri Schiavo, Nuclear Option,
    >etc). Democrats need to remind voters of this in
    >2006 or they will fail again.

    There were two sides of people in the Terri Schiavo case: those that opposed killing her, and those that didn't know the facts.

    The Republicans were justifiably outraged at what was happening, but when they saw the polls by ABC news showing 75% opposed them, they lost their balls.

    Of course, the ABC poll in question asked, "Would you want to live in Terri Schiavo's condition"? Brilliant example of how to rig a poll to influence a country and kill an innocent woman.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @01:35AM (#12345255)
    You're wrong. It's late where I am and I don't want to spend the next hour explaining in detail why, but sufficed to say, you are wrong.

    Here's the short version:
    Debt isn't always bad, but America's debt right now IS. As of 2003, the public (gov't) debt in the U.S. was 62.4% of the GDP and is growing. Tax revenues are at 50 year lows as a % of GDP while spending is up. America is consuming 6% more than it produces. All of this is entirely funded by foreign investment. These foreign governments have propped up the dollar to keep us buying their goods and prevent unemployment in their own countries (it would be dangerous for China's government if unemployment rose). This can't go on forever. A bubble has formed that looks like it may burst. Markets seek equilibrium and this one is currently seriously out of whack. Think overvalued stocks. At some point, the incentive to sell is too great and once one person sells, everyone sells to avoid being the last one off the burning ship. Consequences for our economy if foreign governments did this would include a dollar collapse, higher domestic prices, a jump in interest rates, a fall in prices of housing, a steep rise in household bankruptcies and, not least, a sharp US recession.

    I have no idea why Republicans defend this president and his asinine economic policies. When will they realize that BUSH IS NOT A FISCAL CONSERVATIVE! He is completely unwilling to make the tough calls that cause some temporary pain but prevent future calamities. Seriously, quit reading whitehouse press releases and educate yourself about international economics and monetary policy.
  • by Gilmoure ( 18428 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @02:36AM (#12345524) Journal
    After all, not calling it a draft has worked pretty well with the Reserves and the National Guard so far.


    As a former Reserve member, who went to war in Saudi in Desert Storm, when you take that oath, you know that there is the possibility that you will be sent to some god-forsaken bit of land to have total strangers try to make lots of holes in your body.

    Hard to call it a draft when it's a volunteer force. I know why I volunteered and what I got out of the deal. When it becomes a requirement for all able bodied young (the old sacrifice their young, ya' know) to 'participate' in some kind of 'federal service' program (not the military, just 'service'), then you might want to think of heading Mexico or where ever.

    Air Strip One has always been at war with Eurasia.
  • by Black Acid ( 219707 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @03:46AM (#12345795)
    George Washington also argued against political parties in his eerily phophetic Farewell Address [state.gov] in 1796:
    In contemplating the causes which may disturb our union it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations--Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western -- whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views.
    One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You can not shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection....[...]

    I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

    This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy....

    It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. [Hmm...sound familiar?]

    There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

  • Actually no (Score:2, Interesting)

    by elucido ( 870205 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @03:57AM (#12345839)
    Communism is only democracy of the workplace. Tyranny of the workplace such as the structure of Walmart, thats capitalism.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @04:20AM (#12345917)
    I've only read the appropriately modded comments because of my settings, but I'm impressed.

    Normally when the comments get firey on the political front there are two sides with equal mod points and one side looks stupid. Both sides have information but one side has links and the others have wht their mate Joe told them down at the pub.

    In this thread however, the non-stupid people seem to have risen to the top, making coherent arguments backed with information. I'm impressed by both the comments and the modding.

    So, that's less depressing than the usual run of comments on political arguments. The subject matter however...
  • Re:Actually no (Score:4, Interesting)

    by fearofcarpet ( 654438 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @09:59AM (#12347538)
    I am one of those weird liberals who like Walmart. If you are poor in America, Walmart is your best friend (ok, maybe unless you work for them?) If you think that Walmart should sell fewer Chinese products, then convince your Congress critters to set trade quotas. If you think that Walmart should pay its workers more, increase the minimum wage. If you think that Walmart should provide free health insurance to its workers, either mandate that all employers offer free health insurance, or create a Universal health insurance program. Why should Walmart not follow supply and demand in its business dealings? Why should Walmart be forced to sell more expensive (domestic) goods Target, or pay its employees more than Target? Walmart is a corporation that should strive to maximize shareholder value. The Government should create regulations to protect workers and citizens. I don't blame Walm

    At the risk of starting a big off-topic rant, I just have to respond to this... If you are poor in America WallMart is great; until they squeeze out local business and hike their prices back up. That is what happened in my tiny freeway exit of a town in Oregon. WallMart moved in and shut down every single local business one by one. That giant red white and blue Borg cube opened a tire center, video rental, grocery section... They put the locally owned video store, grocery store, farmers' market, hardware store, tire shop; everything out of business. Now my little town is dpenednat on WallMart and guess what? They hiked their prices right back up one by one as they shut down each of the small businesses.

    Conginve your congress? What country do you live in? Our congress just tried to stick a feeding tube back in a vegitable despite polls ranging from 75-85% public opposition. Yeah, I'm sure if I walk up to congress and say "please stop taking lobbying dollars from WallMart and pass laws to make them play nice" they'll call a special session and Bush will rush back from his ranch to sign the bill! Hillary Clinton used to sit on the freaking WalMart board of directors for crying out loud.

    Just increase the minimum wage? Ok, I'll go back to 2000 and un-rig the election 'cause GW ain't gonna do it.

    Universial health care? Go back to Canada hippie.. . Here in American we like our poor to suffer! In fact, we seem to enjoy raising taxes on students so we can give $24 billion in substidies to the coal, oil, and gas industries and can drill in ANWR despite overwhelming public opposition. Oh, I know, we'll just force WallMart to unionize. You know, those communist labor unions seem to jive with the neoconservative faith based policy makers. I'm sure they can work something out.

    I think it would be a start to get WallMart to obey the law as written. You know, like hiring US citizens and NOT locking them in the store overnight. Perhaps a little less discrimination, and I'm pretty sure mandatory daily propaganda viewing isn't on the up-and-up.

    FYI congress is trying to levy something like a 27% terrif on all Chinese imports, so when our economy crumbles after China dumps all it's US T-Bonds in retaliation, WallMart will get what's coming to it!

  • Re:Gasp! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by PantsWearer ( 739529 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @11:35AM (#12348511)
    This didn't stop with the last election. Bush has been having "Town Hall" meetings about social security reform using the same kind of pre-screened, "I voted for you, twice", signed-a-waiver-to-get-in audiences that he used during the run up to the election.

    I sometimes wonder if Bush is clueless about what the public thinks, not because he's so unconnected or just plain stupid, but because he never sees anything indicating that there's actually an opinion other than his.

  • by be-fan ( 61476 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @12:11PM (#12348880)
    Kant's legacy, in the political realm, is his insistence that democratic republics are the ideal form of government (to the extent that one is possible), and that republics do not make war on other republics. That's the ideal underlying Bush's actions --- he believes that everybody should have democracy, and his Christian faith kicks in and adds militant evangelism to the mix. Ergo, wars to bring democracy to foreign peoples.

    Of course, he's completely off from Kant's ethical theories, and I don't want to malign Kant by associating him with Bush, I just want to point out that Bush's view of democracy and the role of democracies in international society is a particularly liberal one.
  • by bmetzler ( 12546 ) <bmetzlerNO@SPAMlive.com> on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @12:21PM (#12348972) Homepage Journal
    The result will be a one party system that doesn't call itself a one party system, with enough token Democrats to befuddle the American people into believing they still live in a representative republic (aka democracy).

    This is unprecedented, terribly dangerous, and unsurprising that it would be the Bush administration presiding over this change in affairs.

    I believe that's the position that the Democrats were in most of the last century. The Republicans were by and far a minority party, much farther behind then the Democrats are now even. Now that the Democrats are the minority, it's time for them to whine and cry and scream about how they can't have their power back. Boo-hoo! It's comes and goes as easy as that.

    -Brent
  • Needed: A List (Score:2, Interesting)

    by JohnMunsch ( 137751 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @06:14PM (#12352539) Homepage
    I'm trying to find a list of the members still in the U.S. delegation as well as those added to replace existing members.

    No one in the current administration will ever admit to having done anything wrong, correct a problem, etc. But the members of this committee are supposed to be engineers and/or scientists and well aware of the meritocracy that they are supposed to participate in. They need to be contacted individually and convinced to quit the delegation.

    Also, anyone who accepted the post of an existing member who was kicked off should be well aware of how they got the position and should have already resigned by this point. If not, then people within the telecommunications industry need to know who they are.

    Only if the administration cannot find people willing to participate in this farce will they be forced to stop. Otherwise it will be full speed ahead.

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...