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."
Is anyone surprised by this? Anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, these are the same folks who were willing to commit an act of treason [townhall.com] to get back at someone who dared speak the truth concerning the blatent lies the President used to lead us into this mess in Iraq. Why should anything these people do surprise us anymore?
Everyplace you look in Bush's record, you'll see a constant pattern of lies, deception, stupidity, selfishness and tribalism. Bush Jr. has never, ever been about what's best for the United States or its people. Americans will be paying for this particular mistake for decades to come -- anyone who thinks that the seeds of anti-Americanism and economic ruin that these arrogant, short-sighted little men have planted won't come back to haunt us is a fool.
Re:Is anyone surprised by this? Anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well duh. Bush failed at absolutely everything he did until his 40's when his father became president; I don't consider winning the fraternaty bong contest a glowing success, although some might. Then he accepted gifts and help from people wanting to get close to his dad. So why on earth would anybody think a failure until age 40 and drug addict would do well as president? I guess if you want a figurehead who's easy to manipulate he might be a good choice.
And now look where the country is: the military can't even recruit poor blacks anymore, the deficit and debt are at ridiculously high levels, the world hates us, gas is expensive (partially due to less oil as a result of the iraq war), the constitution is ripped all the hell, the schools are failing mostly because of "no child left behind." And maybe our very democracy is at the brink of failure.
It's totally predictable based on the man's track record -- I mean jesus christ if you have a visa or family overseas then get out while you have a chance.
Re:What a silly thing to get upset about. (Score:5, Insightful)
The shame is that the President is removing the people who *should* have input into this sort of thing based on personal retribution.
This isn't an area where partisan politics should play any role whatsoever. The message being sent here is that if your company wants to remain "in the game" with the competition, you'd better fall in line and support the President and vote GOP. It's nothing less than the use of the executive power that We the People entrusted the President with to force compliance with the GOP party line. This isn't how democracy operates.
The sad thing is that you can't seem to see this.
Re:What a silly thing to get upset about. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:What a silly thing to get upset about. (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:You're right, it's just whining (Score:5, Insightful)
People are being purged from a completely non-partisan position. This is for a technical conference. There are no politics involved here. Whether or not someone likes Bush has no bearing on their ability to serve competently at this conference. NO OTHER PRESIDENT HAS EVER DONE ANYTHING THIS EXTREME.
This isn't a good thing. Bush supporters should not be cheering this, it makes them look like brainless automotons who don't analyze a single aspect of the administration's polities yet stand behind them 100%.
Shock and Bah (Score:4, Insightful)
The current administration values loyalty over all else.
The current administration brooks no dissent.
The current administration carefully scripts, stages and choreographs virtually every major public event.
The current administration is unwavering in their conviction and utterly unapologetic for their actions.
This is par for the course, folks. If you want a seat at the table, you're going to toe the line, period.
Re:Shock and Bah (Score:4, Insightful)
- The current administration values loyalty over all else.
- The current administration brooks no dissent.
- The current administration carefully scripts, stages and choreographs virtually every major public event.
- The current administration is unwavering in their conviction and utterly unapologetic for their actions
I *will* be modded as troll, flaimbait or whatever, but there are other governments that fit this criteria,All of these were/are totalitarian regimes. How is it that in US people still call their goventment a "democracy"? I mean, if there is no dissent, there is no democracy. Period.
And now rebublicans want to change rules because a handful of judges (less than 1 or 2% percent of appointments made by Bush) are not getting though the senate!! Over the last two or three decades, there were over 30 judges filibustered/vetoed, 80% by the republicans...
But, I guess, as long as Americans can have their assult rifles for "home protection" they will be happy....
Re:Shock and Bah (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Shock and Bah (Score:5, Insightful)
And what views does the President have on signalling protocols? Do you honestly think the things discussed at these meetings have anything to do with Republican or Democratic views? Do you really think Bush (or Kerry) could even follow the discussion, much less have meaningful views?
If you're doing something scientific, you don't kick the best scientists out because they voted for the wrong party. That sort of action is counterproductive and shortsighted. (And I'll remind you a lot of our best scientists, such as lot of the brains in WWII became "ours" because their countries acted similiarly)
All of those totalitarian regimes didn't allow ANY dissent, didn't allow any other parties (the only legal political party in the Soviet Union was the Communist Party!)
Well gee, I guess since we don't flat out outlaw a party, we're okay then. I mean, it's not like there is a slippery slope here... Maybe we should let all the soldiers who voted for Kerry go home because they voted wrong.
Winning an election means you get the office, it doesn't mean you get to piss all over the losers. Bush won the election by a narrow margin. Good for him, but now he is in charge of representing the best interests of the entire country, not just the people that voted for him. No other president has been so petty, so vindictive. Anyone who wants the title of President of the United States of America needs to put aside this sort of childish crap.
Re:Shock and Bah (Score:5, Insightful)
A successful GOP strategy of discouraging corporate funding for the Democrats would be sufficient to keep them out of the White House perpetually.
This is also novel because it quite clearly proves that the ACLU right about the abuse potential of the new campaign finance reforms. (I never really believed them myself until now).
Re:Shock and Bah (Score:4, Informative)
Of course, both the grandparent, parent and me have now lost the discussion.
Re:unfortunately... (Score:5, Insightful)
it wasn't always this way, just a few years ago our political parties actually had conventions that weren't foregone conclusions.
you are right that the trend is towards more consolidation and homogenization of "the message" but i do personally feel that bush takes it to the next level. with clinton you didn't see things like the jeff gannon incident or the armstrong williams incident. bush went so far as to have the public sign sworns statements that they were going to vote for bush in 2004 or they wouldn't be allowed in to his political rallies, something that has never before happened.
so don't tell me it's just business as usual.
It isn't like that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people believe the same things their parents believed and will have children who believe it also.
It's the same with religion and politics. Mostly because politics comes down to "values" about what is "good" and "bad".
Most people I know who voted for Bush did NOT vote for him because they wanted massive debt, never ending wars and a polluted environment.
They voted for Bush because Kerry would make everything worse. Or because Kerry lied about Vietnam. Or because Kerry wasn't a good Christian. Or because Kerry was a liberal. Or because Kerry was a friend of Jane Fonda. etc.
In other words, they looked for some reason (however non-substantial) to "justify" their voting for Bush.
Bush's message is very simple. He's strong and good. The US is strong and good. Those who oppose him/the US are weak and evil. He will protect you. You need his protection. The bad guys are coming. They're coming real soon. THEY'RE HERE! TERROR ALERT ORANGE! They're gone now. But they'll be back. Maybe with nukes. Bush needs your support to protect you. He is willing to pay any price to protect you from the evil men out there.
Don't laugh. Read through the transcripts of the speeches over the years. Look at how often the "Terror Alert" went up at politically opportunistic times. Yet when was the last time you saw the "Terror Alert" go up?
It's all about fear and religion. The religion of fear. No matter how safe you think you are, you aren't safe enough.
And that message sells.
Even back in WWII it was practiced. Just keep telling the people that the bad guys are coming and that anyone who says differently is a fool who will get you killed or a traitor and supporter of those evil men.
That goes back to the witch trials. Satan has allies. People that look just like you and me. Any actions we take against them are "good". Even if we accidentally torture and kill an innocent person. Because we cannot risk losing this battle.
Re:Ah, yes. All conservatives are SHEEP. (Score:5, Insightful)
Name three evils of Socialism. Seriously. I'm curious to know what they are.
Explain why the US spends more (at least 2.5x more) per capita on health care than any other industrialized country (all of which practice some degree of national health care) but does not have the highest life expectancy, best child mortality (and don't take that as your queue to start talking about abortion) or healthiest population. You call that a good investment?
You wrote no amount of repackaging Socialism, secular humanism, or Communism-lite will work.
This leaves me wondering what does work? How about public education, is that socialism? Libraries? The fire department? How about a political system in which one political party controls everything? Subsidies for farmers? Corporate welfare? Protectionist tarriffs? NAFTA? The largest expansion of the Federal government since FDR? American citizens in prison indefinitely with no access to a lawyer and no charges brought against them?
In your position statement I see a lot of words and passion, but I don't see substance. Terms like "liberal" and "conservative" merely stand in opposition to one another and don't convey much about what you, personally, (morally, I dare say) believe in.
I'd also like to see these conservative forums you speak of where Bush gets slammed, because my account at freerepublic was banned after two posts.
Re:unfortunately... (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this flamebait moderators?? Please try to remember that "flamebait" doesn't mean something disagrees with your personal political viewpoint.
It is flaimbait because it is inflamitory, as well as incorrect. Who coined the term "vodoo economics" in regards to Reagan's "trickle down" theories? I'll give you a hint. They later gave him a job as the Vice President of the United States. They didn't have the "toe the line or you are fired" stance. They respected opinions they didn't agree with and could overlook differences of opinion.
Also, posting an opinion with no supporting evidence that is nothing other than "you are wrong because I think so" is flaimbait. A valid discussion requires examples - I presented of a policy disagreement that was tolerated, where was the troll's example? Oh, they didn't support their postition because they know it is wrong, but they don't like the opinion they were responding to, so they attacked it.
Re:Shock and Bah (Score:5, Interesting)
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
What next? (Score:5, Insightful)
It really *does* seem as if we're becoming more Facist every day (look it up, it's not a troll)
Yes, scary (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What next? (Score:4, Funny)
I'm going to try that one time. It is really ingenious. Say you are not a troll and get modded insightful. (This is not flamebait)
Re:What next? (Score:5, Insightful)
Flamebait? Troll? No, the parent post is really serious.
Wikipedia defines fascism as "exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual, uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition, engages in severe economic and social regimentation, engages in corporatism, implements totalitarianism"
So far, over the last so many decades (no, this didn't start out with Bush), I noticed that the country:
Not all of the features of fascism are getting implemented, but I do notice that this place seems to be getting more and more like an Orwellian novel every coming year. I'm kind of getting a bit scared here.
Re:What next? (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, light-weight brownshirts.
Re:What next? (Score:4, Insightful)
Simply put, it is NOT OK to punish people based on their political donations.
Biting the hand that feeds (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush is biting the hand that feeds him and the Republican party. He will change his mind once the telecom companies start threatening to close their pocketbooks. If not, this will only help the Democrats in the future.
Re:Biting the hand that feeds (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Biting the hand that feeds (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that's one way of putting it. Another way would be, "essentiall what the Bush administtration is telling these telecom companies is that they won't be allowed to send a representative to a conference UNTIL they stop giving money to Democrats and start giving money to Republicans!"
See, they don't have to wait at all. Everything's right with the world. If you donate money to the right party then you are able to participate in designing the telecommunications infrastructure. Or, to put it even more precisely, people who don't give money to Republicans put any chance of participating in government at risk. Darn, I still haven't got it right. How about this: "Legaly bribe your elected officials and you get to play. Everyone else goes home." Yeah, that's about right.
TW
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Biting the hand that feeds (Score:5, Informative)
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...
At least... (Score:5, Funny)
Call me nutty... (Score:4, Funny)
Proof democracy is working! (Score:4, Funny)
ArsTechnica has a good post... (Score:5, Informative)
Read it. Its more informative that the short writeup above.
Wonks versus hacks (Score:5, Insightful)
The wonks are the people who actually know how to make policy -- know what options are on the table, which of them might actually work, which have been tried before and didn't work, and so forth. In immense detail. If you read /., you are probably a wonk (or at least could be a wonk -- if you have a life, you aren't a wonk).
Hacks know one thing and one thing only -- politics -- and they do it 24/7. They are the kids who spent high school impeaching each other on the student council, and then got into college and did the same thing in student government. Now they have a real government to play with, and play they will. Nothing else matters to them. If you know someone who merely claims to read /., they are a hack.
The hacks have triumphed because of the "permanent campaign" that was brought about by C-SPAN and the cable news channels. If a politician thinks that it is vital to respond to everything within a single news cycle, they by necessity surround themselves with hacks -- wonks actually have to spend time learning things and thinking things through! Can't have that now, can we?
Not a valid goal (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, perhaps important to get certain Homeland Security information out to the public. No, not important to increase the celebrity of Tom Ridge. Not a valid goal.
These twisted motherfuckers just keep getting more brazen.
This is very disturbing (Score:5, Insightful)
This indicates two things: 1) That the republicans can do whatever they want, no matter how immoral or how illegal, and they can get away with it. 2) Partisan politics is being institutionalised. They are willing to take a short term loss (bad press about this story) to put long term pressure on supporters of their opponents. Their goal is to create a work environment where, to get anywhere you will have to be a member of the republican party.
Usually political parties only think forward to the next election. This shows tha the republicans have the goal of making it so they are the only party in america.
Apologists need to look in the *&$%ing mirror (Score:5, Insightful)
They aren't.
If you can honestly defend this action, you have less critical thinking skills than a Jonestown suicide victim. It's not that big a deal, as I don't think it's going to kill too many people just because a few engineers couldn't make it to the meeting, but it is plainly and completely wrong.
If you can bring yourself to think that it is right, then you must correct your thinking. I am sure that I have similar backwards notions in other areas, and I would welcome such corrections from the right source. Some guy on slashdot is clearly not that source, so I'm not asking you to give me the benefit of the doubt. But please, consider that you might be wrong. Double check, just this once.
Attack, no compromise (Score:4, Insightful)
This is nothing new in regards rewarding loyalty and punishing dissent. But, it does illustrate the adminstration approach to dissent. Basically, it prefers to attack rather than to compromise
.Examples:
CIA agent reports no link between Sadamn and Nigerian uranium; reveal the agent's identity.
Need Iraq's oil but you don't want to deal with Sadamn; Invade Iraq.
Hate Democratic Senators filibustering your appointments; Remove the filibuster.
Don't like courts making decision on gay marriage; institute an admendment banning gay marriage.
When dissent is finally quashed, we can finally live in peace under Republican rule. Don't feel too bad though, I hear that an one-party dictatorship has worked well in China
Wrong thing to represent (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:I'm not up on US politics (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm not up on US politics (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, this is a very strange thing to be happening in the United States.
It is a direct violation of the First Amendment, as it seeks to punish individuals in their professions in a direct retaliation for participating in a political process.
This will lead directly to employers checking your history of political donations before they hire you. If you can't attend telecom standards meetings, we'll just hire someone who can.
Re:I'm not up on US politics (Score:4, Informative)
It was normal under the spoils system which was started by Andrew Jackson in 1829 and ended by the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883. [wikipedia.org] That is the wikipedia article with the most information on the subject. You can still do this sort of thing with some jobs, but it is frowned upon because it was such a disaster the first time it was done.
RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Anyone going to tell me.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Anyone going to tell me.... (Score:5, Insightful)
What's wrong is wrong. There are no shades of grey here, not it's ok if someone else did it.
Your excusing bad behavior does not help encourage good behavior.
Re:Anyone going to tell me.... (Score:5, Informative)
Neither Reagan nor Bush '41 would have, either.
Hell, I don't think Nixon would have done this.
Re:Anyone going to tell me.... (Score:4, Insightful)
"anyone in the U.S. telecom industry who had the requisite expertise and wanted to go was generally given a slot, say past participants. Only after the start of Bush's second term did a political litmus test emerge, industry sources say."
Sounds like an unprecedented abuse of power. Somehow, I suspect Kerry would have been a bit more of a pushover about the whole thing and left things as they were before.
Re:Anyone going to tell me.... (Score:5, Funny)
This is exactly the kind of thing I was saying in 1998. "But surely," I said to everyone, "Bob Dole would be enjoying fellatio in the Oval Office if he had won the 1996 election!"
See? I'm fair and balanced.
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:5, Interesting)
Gasp! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Another History Major! (Score:5, Informative)
"Given the nature of man, factions are inevitable. As long as men hold different opinions, have different amounts of wealth, and own different amount of property, they will continue to fraternize with people who are most similar to them. Both serious and trivial reasons account for the formation of factions but the most important source of faction is the unequal distribution of property. Men of greater ability and talent tend to possess more property than those of lesser ability, and since the first object of government is to protect and encourage ability, it follows that the rights of property owners must be protected. Property is divided unequally, and, in addition, there are many different kinds of property; men have different interests depending upon the kind of property they own. For example, the interests of landowners differ from those who own businesses. Government must not only protect the conflicting interests of property owners, it must, at the same time, successfully regulate the conflicts that result from those who own, and those who do not own, property."
Federalist papers 10
In other Papers he argues that factions are a dangerous thing when used to oppress the minority. So while it wasn't George to begin with it was Hamilton (one of the creators of the US Constitution).
Next!
B.
Re:Another History Major! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems to me that this is blatantly trampling on the basic right to support whichever candidate you choose. Once people start being punished by officials in any way for who they supported in the election then our society can no longer be considered free, as we no longer have the freedom to support a candidate without fear of repercussions from the winner should our candidate lose. This is the first step on the move to a one-party "democracy." It seems that the "approved dissent" as you put it has been reduced from choosing between Democrats and Republicans to choosing between Moderate and Conservative Republicans.
Got anything harder than beer?
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:5, Informative)
In addition to OpenSecrets (Suggested by the other poster in this thread), check out Fundrace.
Talk about anonymity-- Plug in an address, and see who made a $250+ contributution to a candidate, with house number & everything. There's even a button to map the location of the house, which is a little frightening.
http://www.fundrace.org/neighbors.php [fundrace.org]
The databases are not totally accurate-- my own contributions are not anywhere on the list, perhaps because I made a bunch of smaller contributions to multiple groups as I could afford them, instead of one big contribution.
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you really look at American politics, the only people willing to take the mudwar that is a modern campaign are the most driven and focused upon a single goal. This is not necessarily the best trait in a leader of 200 million people, let alone 'the free world,' a title our President has made obsolete.
I'm so angry at the way our politics work I can't even think about it.
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, you are taking into account that little event that happened sometime in the mid-to-late 1800's, aren't you?
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, that is EXACTLY what they did. Having just fought an oppressive and tyrannical government themselves, they wanted to make it as easy as possible for the citizens to overthrow future tyrannical governments. Their letters on the subject make this absolutely clear.
They knew (as you apparently do not) that as every government grows and ages it gets corrupt and tyrannical and eventually must be overthrown if the people are to retain their rights.
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Thomas Jefferson Papers p. 334, 1950)
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this 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." Letter to William S. Smith 13 Nov 1787 (Jefferson, On Democracy p. 20, 1939; Padover, editor)
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive" -- Thomas Jefferson
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go around repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in their struggle for independence." - Charles A. Beard
"The greatest calamity which could befall us would be submission to a government of unlimited powers." --Thomas Jefferson, 1825
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:5, Informative)
I won't address why your precepts are wrong here, as other posters in this thread have done an excellent job already. It's the last bit of that sentence I'd like to correct. "There aren't any [citizen militias]", you say? Well, if you are a male between the ages of 17 and 45 (I assume you are a U.S. citizen from the wording of your post), you are a member of the citizen militia of the United States. Don't believe me? Look here: USC Title 10, Chapter 13, Section 311. [house.gov]
In any case, there are many smaller, slightly-more-organized groups of armed citizens. They have been for a long time and still are occasionally called upon by local law enforcement to assist in emergencies (natural disasters, for example). It's true that a lot of these so-called "militia" groups are crackpot vigilantes (and sometimes white supremacists as well), but they are fortunately a minority. If any of these groups on their own decided to try to overthrow the government, they would be quickly dealt with. That's the whole point; the founding fathers did not envision the citizen militia as a bunch of small groups of paranoid vigilantes. Rather, the citizen militia is simply the entire body of the armed citizenry, who can in dire need, as a last resort, when every other system put in place has failed to secure the rights and fair representation of the people, exercise their will upon the government by force.
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:5, Insightful)
I beleive they realized that military power ultimately trumps any other kind. That the only way to garauntee the government would not become opressive was to ensure that ordinary citizens, if they acted collectively, would be the dominant military force in the country. In their day, that could be acheived (and was, by them a few years earlier) so long as those citizens had access to weapons.
These days, citizens can not become the dominant military force in the country. Unless we have the right to bear nuclear weapons. Which the second ammendment pretty clearly grants. If I'm part of a well regulated militia, my right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Saying, yes, but not those arms is obvuiously infringing. Since that would obviously be insane, we've engaged in all sorts of legal contortions to reduce the second to more sane levels. It would make much more sense to amend the constitution to drop the second, and admit that we have lost that garauntee against oppressive government, so we'd better pay attention. But the Bill of Rights has atained such a sacrosanct status, that that will never happen. So the NRA will keep playing their stupid game of opposing all gun regulation, no matter how sensible in the guise of defending our constitutional right to bear arms. And no politician is going to commit the heresy of admiting that the rights the founders intended to grant in the second amendment are already gone, and nobody sane would want them to still be around anyway.
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:5, Interesting)
>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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:5, Insightful)
Disrupt paychecks? FYI, paychecks for junior grade servicemembers are for booze, hookers, and playstation games. All you are going to get is a lot of pissed off men with rifles. How about instead you try to disrupt the logistics train; oh wait, that'd take a hell of a lot more effort.
You might have something with this. US Servicemembers are men (and women) of honor. However, It'd have to escalate quite a bit before lethal force would be required. Actually, faced with the situation I'd find it rather funny watching the crowd on their asses in super-slime [g4tv.com] engulfed in CS gas. Where's your gas mask?
The problem with your analysis is that you define a soldier as a version of you with a rifle. This is not the case. Today's military is an all volunteer force. Men and women take the titles of Soldier, Sailor, Airman, and Marine because they are motivated to action. You're not dealing with conscripts or mercenaries.
To quote my Drill Instructor from boot camp, "The Marine Corps is a dictatorship designed to defend a democracy." Even in today's connected world, a military is a military. Servicemembers have a drastically different set of social obligations than the average citizen. Don't underestimate the mind-control, those helmets aren't made of tinfoil.
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:5, Insightful)
Attacking a soldier's pay isn't going to have the desired effect either, since most soldiers are going to beleive that the pay thing will get straightened out eventually.
Your last point is valid, but admittedly untested. Most likely when ordered to shoot, most will deliberately aim low (aiming high means the bullet comes down somewhere else), but the panic that the shots create will be the real cause of bloodbath. Consider also the example of Tianmen Square and Kent State. In a prolonged conflict you may see mass desertion, but before that a lot of innocents will be killed.
Armed revolution is messy, barbaric, and causes years of trauma. Do not dupe yourself into thinking that it can be easy.
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:5, Funny)
At first I read that as "urine-made" and nodded my head in agreement.
- sm
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:4, Interesting)
Kinda vindicates my opinion of American christianity.
My question... (Score:5, Insightful)
My question is, what exactly do they have to do to get an exception to Goodwin's law passed? I mean, so far we've got documented evidence of:
- Internal travel documents/no fly lists ("Transportation safety")
- Spying on your neighbor programs ("Information Awareness")
- Arresting people and holding them with due process ("The War on Terror")
- ...and occasionally torturing them (ditto)
- ...that sometimes leading to them dying (oops)
- Supression of dissent ("Free Speech Zones")
- Orwellean double-speak (see above)
- Supression of opposition (Locking the opposition out of the legislature)
- Arresting opposing party candidates weeks before the election (Clark & Badnarik)
- Manipulation of the media (including paying analysts to "support" their policies)
- Fibing to start wars
Ask yourself this: do you suppose the average Hanz Six-pack circa 1940 thought his country was anything like the country we now can't discuss without invoking Goodwin's law?Personally, I think they've earned an exemption...
--MarkusQRe:My question... (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't that country and that party I keep hearing compared to the present situation, but the Empire of Rome as it began to crumble. Spin a globe about 180 degrees and look at a rising economic giant. The US is mired in debt and a stagnating economy while it looks for more ways to exacerbate both situations.
It has been said that one of the straws that broke the back of the Soviet Union was the cost of the arms race (while Reagan blew huge $ on space-based weapons), bankrupting them. The russians ended up with an $80 billion national debt. Meanwhile, here's the US with, what $7 trillion in the red and borrowing heavily already from China while their momentum builds. In probably 5 years they'll be the big dog and have squat for debt. Where's that leave the US?
Complacency is expensive. Ask any roman.
Re:Debt is okay if you have the means to pay it of (Score:4, Informative)
You are exaggerating a little here. The latest numbers I can find have the the real US GDP at about $10.5 trillion with the national debt at about $7 trillion. That is nowhere near "many, many times our debt". And the economy looks like it is growing at an average annual rate of 4%; decent, but not spectacular. And recent news I have been getting from my broker suggests that the economy may be slowing down. I don't think your optimism is warranted from everything that I have been reading.
As for the rest of your post, I could nitpick some of your other points, but I'll just say that I agree that debt is not a bad thing if you can pay it back. The problem is that GWB seems to be trying to increase our debt as fast as he possibly can. Every time I turn on the television it seems like he is pushing through some new bill that saddles the federal government with more expenditures, many of them not related to the war or military spending. There is no way that your little supply side utopia will ever work if government spending continues to grow faster than tax revenues.
Re:Debt is okay if you have the means to pay it of (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the dumbest sig I've ever read.
Debt is only a good thing when. . . (Score:5, Informative)
Look at the drop of the dollar against all other currencies to see what the world market thinks about whether the USA's debt is a good thing.
Look at the sudden move all over the world to diversify out of all T-bill holdings.
Look at the level of savings by individuals in the USA.
It's a known fact that the US consumes far more than it produces with the difference underwritten by private and public debt. Much of this money is going into financing personal consumption.
Any American who thinks this is a good thing... needs professional therapy.
Re:Debt is okay if you have the means to pay it of (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Death to Goodwin's law (Score:5, Insightful)
The world has seen many fascist regimes, Nazi Germany was only one instance. But even that extreme case had western defenders up to the war - King George, Henry Ford (iirc), the Kennedy father or grandfather (when ambassador to the UK), and more.
A few years ago Free Inquiry published a summary of 14 characteristics of fascist regimes. One copy here [veteransforpeace.org]. I think you can make a defensible case for 13 of the 14 points, with the final item a false negative.
I suggest reading the full article for details, but for the impatient here's the keynotes:
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.)
Most disgusting has to be the recent bankruptcy bill. Somebody noticed that it did not include an exception for servicemen forced into bankruptcy as a consequence of being called to duty. N.B., under current law creditors are supposed to forego collections of any national guard troop called up. But the Republicans in control of Congress had some petty rule that they wouldn't accept any amendments to this bill and they gave the shaft to our servicemen.
(P.S., I know that the sexism point is debatable. We have Condi Rice.... but she's from the oil industry. A supertanker is named after her!!! Some people see covert sexism in the policy on birth control, abortions, even the refusal to accept court rulings on Terri Schiavo's desire to avoid a persistent vegetative state.)
incomplete comparison != invalid (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because a few points don't line up perfectly doesn't mean your point isn't valid. And the US military does get a lot of money, and a lot of use killing foreign people the government blames for its problems. The little guys in the military (regular soldiers) get shafted but that is completely in line with other government policies.
Anyway, most of the Christian fundamentalists who support the current Executive are crypto-sexists at best - they believe the Bible mandates a woman's place below her husband, even if they don't come right out and say it in so many words. And things like restricting access to birth control, sexual health information and abortion are all policies of that administration, and all are more detrimental to women than men.
Re:Death to Goodwin's law (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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
Re:My question... (Score:5, Informative)
Link please?
I think he was refering to Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) and David Cobb (Green) being arrested at the presidential debate. [slashdot.org]
If /. search works back that far... (Score:4, Interesting)
If
--MarkusQ
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Judges/Advisors != Engineers (Score:5, Insightful)
Politics is beyond ugly, its now officially fugly.
Engineers != Scientists (Score:5, Funny)
No it isn't. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is, and here is why: Members of the Cabinet, Ambassadors, Judges, etc. are all offices that the President is given the power to fill by the Consitution (provided the Senate gives its consent).
Deciding who is allowed to attend a non-political, non-partisan industry event based on their history of campaign contributions is not a power given to anyone by any law of the United States. In fact, the opposite is true: this violates amendment one of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees U.S. citizens the freedom of speech.
President Bush can certainly appoint whom he likes to those offices which the law allows him to, but he cannot "punish" people who supported his political opponents by denying them access to events for no other reason.
Is that what these meetings are really about? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:In other news . . . (Score:5, Informative)
We aren't talking about diplomatic work, we are talking about standards work.
Here, you don't even have to read the whole article, just read this paragraph:
Re:In other news . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider the alternative - Send people who dislike the president out to do diplomatic work?
Or you could just send the best people to do the job.
Remember the media fiasco when Powell and President Bush merely made conflicting statements?
Yes, because they were discussing whether or not the country was going to !@$@!# go to war!
It is simply not a good idea to look divided on issues when speaking on the international stage.
From the article:
Yes, because if you give a paltry $250 to a Presidential campaign, you're going to create an international fiasco when you say that VoIP should have access to traditional 911 systems, or something like that. The President isn't going to be making any pronouncements from on high about these issues, so let's not get all breathless.
Let's call this for what it is: an administration that values loyalty first and actual job performance second, and has the time and energy to be really childish and petty about the issue.
Another word for that? "Pathetic"
-jdm
Re:Kerry would've done the same thing (Score:5, Insightful)
The Bush administration, on the other hand, is punishing U.S. citizens for exercising their first amendment rights.
Re:Kerry would've done the same thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Sinclair was attempting to violate a campaign law using a thinly veiled categorization of their ad as a "documentary." It was illegal. They knew it. Others knew it. They got called on it. End of story.
No one was threatening them for supporting Bush; they were threatening them for being loose with the law.
I'm so tired of hearing people say things like, "<sarcasm>Oh, it's Bush so it must be evil!</sarcasm>" Yes, as it turns out, a lot of the things that Bush and his administration have done are evil. Sorry if that hurts your feelings, but it is very plain and undeniable. Some people are just afraid to admit it, because it will make them look like an ass for supporting him in the first place.
Re:+5 flamebait (Score:5, Funny)
"Whore" is such a dirty word to use in describing someone who doesn't hold a White House day-pass.
Re:Well duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the administration barring *individuals* based on thier polital past - it has nothing to do with thier competence with respect to a technical comittee.
Mayhap the Administration is ensuring that this "International" comittee is going to choose "standards" that are biased to favour Corporate America? Naw, couldn't be...
Soko
Re:Slashdot presents a good argument in favor (Score:5, Insightful)
Traditionally speaking these kinds of relatively low-level technical spots -have- been filled without a whole lot of view toward political affiliation. Clinton appointed plenty of Republicans to positions like this. Bush Sr. appointed plenty of Democrats, and so on. This isn't a function of poison, it's a function of pettiness.
I don't think it matters what side of the spectrum you call home. This isn't good for America.
When did the US forget? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot presents a good argument in favor (Score:5, Funny)
I can just see it now...
ENGINEER ONE: I think we should allocate more bandwidth in the 400-500Mhz range.
ENGINEER TWO: No, that's not anti-Bush enough.
ENGINEER ONE: You're right, I forgot about our bitter hatred for the president for a second. The protocol should be designed to express our ominous political views.
ENGINEER TWO: What if we shifted the bandwidth to the 750Mhz range?
ENGINEER ONE: That's a little more anti-Bush, but not quite enough...
ANNOUNCER (OFFSCREEN): That's right, if *you* gave $250 to John Kerry, your bitter hatred for the president would have been a detriment to this otherwise productive meeting. If you ever give money to a party not in power, don't expect to take part in the specification of obscure technology protocols. It's for the good of the country.
Re:Bush has Backbone! (Score:5, Insightful)