Bush Says Americans 'Ought to Have' Broadband and a Pony by 2007 1078
wrttnwrd writes "George Bush is calling for universal broadband by 2007. He doesn't say how, or who's going to pay for it, or who's going to build it, but hey, isn't almost good enough? (for all of you Boondocks readers out there)" First step to universal broadband: don't have your Justice Department argue against communities providing their own broadband service. And don't forget the pony!
SO? (Score:2, Insightful)
This, much like the Bush anti-terror policies are all about getting Bush a win in 2004. They are not about solving they problems at hand.
Grandiose vision (to be forgotten after Nov. 2) (Score:3, Insightful)
Whoop-tee-doo. (Score:5, Insightful)
Only a coincedence... (Score:4, Insightful)
But hey, wouldn't universal broadband be kewl!!!!????
Read my lips, no slow connections? (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, lets consider phones... The USF for telephone service assures that everybody can get access to POTS. But, it's exactly Plain Old Telephone Service, a dialtone. Any advanced services are not included in the subsidized rates, so customers are on their own if they want Caller ID, Call Waiting, or Three Way Calling to work. Cellular customers have to pay into the USF fund because they are connecting to the phone network, but they get no subsidies out because cell service is most definitely above the universial level of service. However, this also means that cell network operators are not responsible for getting their networks extended into areas where they don't think it would be profitable to operate.
The other key thing about phone service is that it only costs about $5 to get the hardware you need to fully enjoy all of the features of Plain Old Telephone Service. Sure, there are more expensive telephones are the market, but those all ofter additional features beyond what it takes to interface with the telephone network. It's not an unfair burden to expect somebody to be able to afford to buy their own phone hardware. But, just what is the minimum feature set of a computer to enjoy the Internet? Is Lynx a good enough browser, or do we have to assure that the subsidized level of service can deliver Mozilla?
And, just what technical definition of "broadband" will the subsidized service use? Afterall, DSL and Cable Models come in various speeds of upload and download last-mile links, and how congested the network is after you get off the last mile is also variable and hard-to-quantify. The debate as to what would be defined as "Plain Old Broadband Internet Service" is far from settled.
Bush is giving off a nice thought for an election year proposal... but it seems like this is so lacking in details it can't exactly be taken seriously yet.
no no (Score:4, Insightful)
The much despised "tax and spend" policy... (Score:5, Insightful)
...has been replaced by a bold new "don't tax, and spend" policy.
That's just wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. All Americans ought to have it.
When GWB proposes spending government money on this, please get back to me.
Re:Whoop-tee-doo. (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. There's a big difference between a "policy" and a "plan" coming out of a political type. Saying that you'd like to see something doesn't quite get as much done as proposing a specific law that would cause that something to get done.
And this is an equal opportunity problem that afflicts the left and right equally...
Good plan. really. (Score:3, Insightful)
In bold print on the first page of the long-term conservative playbook is a tactic called "Starving The Beast". It goes like this:
* lower taxes (especially for your friends) to the point where a fiscal train wreck finally ensues.
*declare that "raising" taxes (returning them to a prior level) would destroy the economy, and that the only solution is to gut Social Security and other unwanted New Deal programs.
"Starving the beast" is no longer a hypothetical scenario -- it's happening as we speak. For decades, conservatives have sought tax cuts, not because they're affordable, but because they aren't. Tax cuts lead to budget deficits, and deficits offer an excuse to squeeze government spending.
Second, squeezing spending doesn't mean cutting back on wasteful programs nobody wants, like missile defense.
Finally, the right-wing corruption of our government system -- the partisan takeover of institutions that are supposed to be nonpolitical -- continues, and even extends to the Federal Reserve.
But yeah, ubiquitous broadband is a great idea, if he actually meant it.
You're no FDR (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree people should have broadband, but Bush needs to let ECONOMICS drive that, not legislation. When demand is high enough, providers will answer. Until then, there are plenty of other issues our government needs to take a look at.
Here's a hint, turn your head East.
Re:Only a coincedence... (Score:2, Insightful)
dude...you need some perspective here...
Vietnam....56,000 dead americans....
Iraq....550 dead americans....
so stop being over dramatic, it hurts your argument.
Re:Such an unbiased article summary (Score:2, Insightful)
cf Rural Electrification Administration (Score:3, Insightful)
Phone service first (Score:4, Insightful)
Mr. Bush, what have you done with your time? (Score:0, Insightful)
<rant mode="troll">Mr. Bush, I'd like to point out that you've had nearly four years to involve yourself in such domestic progress. You've spent hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars on war and completely forgotten us. Those resources could have sent us to Mars. Those resources could have improved our nation's quality of life by providing services like broadband. There's so much that could have been done, yet the emphasis was purely on destruction.
Frankly, Mr. Bush, you need to can it. A pile of false promises that could have been done will not win the American people. You've already lost. You, sir, are a miserable failure.</rant>
Re:You're no FDR (Score:5, Insightful)
If the Iraq war is the only government-funded project he can come up with, we've got a serious problem...
Re:That's just wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
RIAA will be happy (Score:2, Insightful)
Broadband for everyone? That's just what RIAA needs to stop the music pirates. I heard that 50 million figures for p2p networks are way overblown, but with the help of W they will become a reality.
I say, kudos to the president Bush.
Re:Read my lips, no slow connections? (Score:4, Insightful)
I haven't read the actual speech, so I could be wrong, but I think he called for something even more loosely defined than 'broadband'. He could just be talking about some kind of nationwide 56k dialup scheme. It is unlikely he actually knows, or that any of the people adivising him actually know (and I'm not just saying that because it is Bush-- there are very few technically saavy politicians at all). They probably just took a poll and said, "Gee, people want faster internet. I wonder how we can make this work for us."
I Don't Get It (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, this is a news site, right? We just wouldn't make things up out of thin air to push our agenda here, would we?
I ask this because the Pony part seems unbelievable to me.
Re:Only a coincedence... (Score:2, Insightful)
Even one is too many. Just because it isn't as bad as vietnam doesn't mean it isn't really bad.
Why do I suspect that if... (Score:5, Insightful)
Howard Dean had proposed this, we'd be seeing tons of posts on how visionary it was.
I loved "independent" thinkers.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Has anyone guessed (Score:1, Insightful)
This is as out there as the Mars plan (Score:4, Insightful)
The amount of switches needed to put everyone on ground based broadband is nuts. I live out in an area where there is no cable TV, and a sparse population, so there is no highspeed option. And you can't consider Satellite an option yet, because 2 way is too expensive for a single household, and one way you still need the expensive dialup account.
Canada promised to give highspeed access to everyone by about this time, and the project just needs technology to catch up with consumer will.
I also don't think it is a good idea to give everyone and their dog access to highspeed Internet. With the inherent insecurities in the Internet's design, it is stupid to give attack capabilities to people who are unable and unwilling to keep their computers free of worms and trojans. The very safety of the Internet relies on some people not having quick service to the net.
Re:Only a coincedence... (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't like that math. I don't like this president, and as a registered voter, I'll do what I can to get him gone.
Re:Only a coincedence... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, if Bush was as Christian as everyone of the right thought he was he would do something about the treatment of Christians in China, yet he doesn't.
Lastly, if he isn't doing what is necessary to protect our borders how can he say he is protecting us from terrorists? If you can just drive/walk across the border with a bomb/SAM all the antiterror checks at airports will not do a damn bit of good.
Unemployment (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I Don't Get It (Score:5, Insightful)
So, making a statement that "All Americans ought to have broadband." is something that nobody's goign to disagree with, and is not something he can be called for not following through on. More or less, he's said nothing newsworthy at all... he's just trying to get the geek vote without offering much in return.
Your mistake. (Score:5, Insightful)
He just wishes to be stay in power and will damn near say anyting to stay in the whitehouse.
More importantly... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Only a coincedence... (Score:2, Insightful)
small mistake (Score:3, Insightful)
The unemployment rate is going down ... the current rate is better than in most other industrialized nations and is about the same as clinton's during his first term.
It's just that with all the, ahem, "technological advances" we've made in the past few years, reporters now have a much easier time finding unemployed workers to interview every single night than they did a mere 10 years ago. Ain't technology grand?
Re:That's just wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Name one project that GWB's actually proposed spending government money on during his term, other than Iraq.
That's right. Nothing. He's left a long trail of unfunded mandates, or mandates whose cost will only be felt by his successors. Makes him look suitably visionary, and sabotages the government of the next generation. What a President.
Turns out almost isn't good enough.
Re:Good plan. really. (Score:1, Insightful)
2) Things like welfare and unemployment aren't needed in their current forms, all they do is encourage people not to work (not that it wasn't a good idea, it just was executed wrong)
3) Missile defense programs are vital, just because you lock up/kill all the criminals in your city doesn't mean you can leave your door unlocked.
4) I can probably name 3 times as many left leaning "nonpolitical" organizations then you can of right leaning non-politicals.
5) I don't like the idea of the Mars mission either, but that has nothing to do with GWB. (NASA is bloated and inefficient, but no one wants to do anything about it). We do need to get to Mars, but NASA won't be able to do it.
Go ahead, mod me down, just make sure you mod down all the rabid anti-bush (troll, flamebait) comments as well. If you don't, well then you're a hypocrite.
Re:The much despised "tax and spend" policy... (Score:5, Insightful)
What good will universal broadband be for Americans when Michael Powell is given juristiction over it and shuts down teh b00bi3z?
Re:Good plan. really. (Score:2, Insightful)
In fact, squeezing often means cutting back on "small government for the people" programs, like real Medicare or Veterans' Care while, carefully and clandestinely, increasing welfare for your corporate buddies. Which is, amazingly enough, exactly what Bush has been doing.
And please use the proper terminology. This isn't a part of the conservative playbook. Its part of the playbook of the neo-conservatives or, if you actually look at their policies and match it up to traditional political parties, the fascists.
Re:We have universal phone service (Score:4, Insightful)
Broadband for everyone probably means broadband taxes for everyone.
Re:Whoop-tee-doo. (Score:3, Insightful)
The policy details often follows the vision.
In this particlaur case, I think America's CEO is blowing smoke, but you don't always start by proposing a law.
Re:Only a coincedence... (Score:2, Insightful)
By order of George W Bush, all photography of coffins returning from Iraq is prohibited. They don't want pictures showing the cost of the Iraq adventure to go spoiling their election plans.
What they were keen to show pictures of was Bush playing dress up on an aircraft carrier, at least until Democrats said that playing soldier made the issue of his being AWOL during his national guard service fair game. After that story finaly made the mainstream media the footage looked more like 'Dukakis in tank' than 'Top Gun'.
Another picture we were allowed to see was Bush presenting a fake turkey to adoring troops. The fact that the photo-op meant that most of the troops on the base were required to have 'meals ready to eat' for their christmas dinner must have gone down really well. Visiting the troops might have appeared more sincere if Bush had taken the time to attend just one funeral of one of the soldiers killed in his war.
I hope that the GOP keeps on hammering Dick Clarke for several more weeks. The troops in Iraq must love hearing why they are stuck there rather than finishing the job they wanted to finish in Afghanistan.
Oh and I am sure that every member of the US armed services just loves the way that Halliburton has been granted multi-billion dollar no-bid contracts by Halliburton ex-CEO Cheney.
This article is flamebait (Score:2, Insightful)
For my part, I don't care whether you like George Bush or not. (I do, but that's my opinion, and nobody says you have to share it.)
Seriously though Michael, if you want to show ANY sort of objectivity on this kind of thing, don't make such statements--they totally sound like flamebait. There may be pros and cons to the idea of communities providing their own broadband service, but I wouldn't know it from listening to you, michael. I don't see any facts backing up what you say, either.
However, all this aside, I think there IS a legitimate case to be made that it is better to have private business (corrupt as it appears to be right now) do such things than have governments attempt to create a virtual government-run monopoly. After all, I'll agree with you ANY day that our Big Business Community(tm) is corrupt. But by that same token: why on earth should we simply to assume that the government is totally free of corruption?
Cool (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Only a coincedence... (Score:1, Insightful)
You're allowed. Thing is, what you're doing isn't protesting. It's just whining. In order to protest, you have to (#1) be educated about the issue, and (#2) offer a thoughtful argument.
Fortunately for you, whining is also allowed here. Unlike in, say, Iraq under the Saddam regime.
Do you think Vietnam was a justified war?
I do, yeah. It was a war that was worth fighting. It's just that it was poorly fought. The people who had to live and die under the past 30 years of communist totalitarianism in Vietnam suffered needlessly. It's a damn shame.
Shall we drag out this occupation until the number dead == deaths in Vietnam?
If necessary, yeah. But we learned important lessons from Vietnam, so that won't happen.
Incidentally, it's not an occupation. In order for it to be an occupation, the US government would have to be in charge of Iraq. It isn't. So it's not an occupation.
Then we can in good conscious bring our soldiers home
The phrase is "in good conscience."
The point being I will complain about the hundreds of Americans dying in Iraq because it is wrong, just as Vietnam was wrong.
No, my dear friend. The point is that you will complain about anything at all without first learning what it all means. Yawn.
The larger point, of course, is that you are allowed to complain. It reminds me of those "Bush = Hitler" commercials that caused so much controversy a few months ago. Because, of course, if Bush really had been like Hitler, the people who produced those commercials would have been dragged out into the street and shot.
The mere fact that those commercials existed is proof that they were wrong.
In the same way, the mere fact that you're exercising your right to complain without the slightest concern about the facts demonstrates why it was important for us to go into Iraq.
I do not expect you to understand this.
Re:Your mistake. (Score:5, Insightful)
Conservatives want to limit the size and power of government, even (especially?) when the expansion looks like it's being done for good reasons.
Conservatives like to balance budgets.
Conservatives believe in military action but only when it's supporting US interests.
Conservatives, like Bob Barr and Newt Gingrich, are speaking out against the "USA PATRIOT" Act.
This is going to be a tough election for conservative voters. Both candidates are far from conservative.
Re:Phone service first (Score:3, Insightful)
Given BB to every house, VoIP can be used for phone communication.
Personally, I think it may take a government mandate to get the phone companies to take out the twisted pair infrastructure and put in fibre to every home.
Re:I Don't Get It (Score:2, Insightful)
__________________ wants broadband for every home in America.
He'd naturally support it, because it was a good technology cause. If the blanks said "Kerry", we'd hear a flowerly article praising him. But when the blank says "Bush", he's mocks the idea.
Michael, grow up.
Re:Only a coincedence... (Score:5, Insightful)
How about jobs to pay for the broadband (Score:3, Insightful)
That would be much more useful, with how jobs are flying out of the country at a frightening pace.
Re:Only a coincedence... (Score:3, Insightful)
IF the papers only display things on gay marraige then thats all people will think about. After time people would associate Kerry as pro gay marraige which would hurt him since the majority oppose it.
It called divide and conqueror, and republicans play it real well. In 2002 it was national security. Bush put out one press release after another about terrorism and securing Iraq. THe voters then only thought about that which favored the republicans.
Re:Why do I suspect that if... (Score:5, Insightful)
If Howard Dean said it, we could bitch about how that it would mean more taxes regardless of whether he made mention of it. With Bush, this is the nth package he's talked about which would involve a good deal of spending without raising taxes. Given that eventually we can't load ourselves enough money to allow for all the programs required with the current tax level, there seems no indication that taxes will go up, and no indication that current programs will be cutback, all of the above either leads to George Bush being a huge liar about really supporting all the programs he talks about or he's setting up for rampant inflation/a recession.
Personally, though, I wouldn't believe any presidential candidate who was offering such things, nor do I think it's the government's business to fund such. Ie, I'd be just as much against Howard Dean if he supported it. (The only way I can take exception to that is if there was good proof that the telecommunication conglomerates were unfairly holding back broadband to cause intentional overpricing in which case there might be a basis for an anti-trust case which *might* eventually lead to ubiquitous broadband, and the would-be President could push towards such a case.)
Re:Unemployment (Score:5, Insightful)
I sure as hell don't support the republicans (or the democrats for that matter), but implying that the president has anything but a minor role in the immediate economy (especially during thier first term in office) is silly.
Just another Unfunded Mandate (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Unemployment (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Only a coincedence... (Score:3, Insightful)
obviously you think emotionally, not logically.
Re:Only a coincedence... (Score:3, Insightful)
And, right at this minute, I'm going to yell louder about Iraq, because unlike heart disease research right now a lot of people are also yelling and there seems like there's a good chance of stopping the problem cold, and soon.
Heart disease research I can support over time as usual, the issue of the moment is Iraq and so I will talk about Iraq. This does not mean I've given up on heart disease research or any other topic, but merely that
Re:Only a coincedence... (Score:5, Insightful)
If anyone is likely to react incorrectly and ban gay marriage, it is old white men. The only reason they wouldn't do that is if it were (gasp!) illegal to ban it.
As for why states shouldn't be allowed to define it seperately: What part of FULL faith and credit do you not understand?
I'm so terribly sorry that you don't appreciate democracy.
The old white men are part of our democratic system. One of those brilliant checks and balances: They'll follow the law, regardless of popular opinion. This makes nasty things hard to do quickly, thus making it less likely that wrong things will be done in haste. If they're right things, eventually they will be done.
People complain about judges only when the check/balance is not working for them. Guns would be illegal by now if not for old white men.
Not against co-ops. Against runaway GOVERNMENTS. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's an interesting interpretation.
Especially given that they're NOT arguing aginst broadband operated by co-ops. (Which, by the way, the explicitly support, along with broadband supplied by other little companies, even if it competes with their "big business buddies".)
They're arguing against broadband companies run by county and local GOVERNMENTS. And even then they're only arguing against them when they're implemented in violation of the objections of the STATE governments from which the smaller governments derive their powers and mandates.
The issue was STRICTLY whether an FCC regulation allowing "any entity" to operate a broadband company free of state regulation could be used by cities, counties, and the like, as arms of their state, to escape control by their state legislatures and constitutions.
But of course certain rabid Bush-haters just LOVE to lie about it, claiming that the Bush administration is trying to block small broadband carriers, rather than to block governments from squeezing them out, with tax-subsidized unfair competition and conflict-of-interest driven regulatory roadblocks against any little guy that wants to compete with THEIR operation.
its the economy stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Politics blows. I really wish we could evolve beyond it, but some structure (read: flaw) in the human mind just won't allow it.
Damn these simian brains!
Re:Only a coincedence... (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't get it. I thought the war was about WMD, but there aren't any of those. So now you're saying it's about "liberating" these people from Hussein? Since when was it our job to liberate people? Why aren't we liberating the Libyans from Gaddafi? Why aren't we liberating the various African countries from their leaders? Better yet, why aren't we liberating the Chinese from their authoritarian government? Or how about a country right off our own shore, Cuba?
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
> says he wants to spur technologies that will bring broadband
> to everybody. Same thing. However, on slashdot, we're only
> allowed to point out when Republicans say stupid things, not
> when Democrats do. Didn't you read the F.A.Q.?
Simple. Challengers run on change. Incumbents run on their record.
The point is, Bush has been president for four years. He determines the budgets, the direction of Federal departments, and in general tax policy (with the help of the other Republican who have been in power for the past four years). And Bush has done absolutely nothing to make universal broadband a reality in America since he's been president. His FCC has worked to allow more media consolidation, he's cut taxes for the rich (thus reducing the amount of revenue available to fund a public works project), and he was so focused on going to war in Iraq, that his priorities haven't accommodated universal broadband, among other even more serious issues [cbsnews.com].
Kerry is a senator, but he's not president. So he's saying that if he were president, this is a possible works project that would stimulate the economy, create jobs, and help broadband become universal like phone service. Kerry is the presidential challenger, so it's up to him to present his vision for America and explain why he's the right man for the job.
Bush is the presidential incumbent. It's up to him to explain his record for the past four years and explain why that record is good enough that he deserves another four years. If Bush really thought this was a good idea, well, he's been able to do it for four years. It makes no sense for the presidential incumbent to make vague promises about things he has not done anything about for the past four years. But when your record isn't good enough to run on, you avoid talking about it. You change the subject to talk about going to Mars, you make vague subjects about universal broadband, you resort to hateful language about constitutional amendments, etc.
Re:Only a coincedence... (Score:5, Insightful)
You say this like it's supposed to sound ridiculous. In fact, I for one have no problem with polygamy on moral grounds.
The major argument against polygamy is historical, it being the case that multi-partner marriages have seldom been wholly consensual. It is wrong for a man to keep five women as much as it is for him to keep one, if keeping is what he is doing. With two people the chances that the relationship is less harmful is greater. None of this says that polygamy should be illegal or is immoral. In todays world it might even be possible to have perfectly workable polygamous marriages, given our fairly good legal and social system. I think we could do it in this day and age without it being harmful.
And heck if you love your brother or sister?
In principle there is nothing wrong with sexual contact of some kind between siblings, but I agree that it should be generally illegal on genetic grounds. And again, the possability of abuse is rather greater with a member of ones own family. So, while it's possible to have a safe icestuous relationship, I don't think the practice should be legal as at this time I do not believe such a relationship has a good enough chance of being safe.
As for incestuous marriage... why not? Apart from the sex issue, it seems fine to me.
I mean you love each other, or your dog for that matter.
The only reason to ban beastiality is health reasons, both yours and the animal's. Thereis some chance of disease, for one. And I have heard of reports of harming the animal by means of the act itself. The major argument against it is that there are curently no laws of enough specificity on any books (of which I am aware) to protect the animal in such situations.
As for marriage... you can already leave posessions to pets, and you can already sleep with them (more or less). While it may be necessary to exclude such unions from certain aspects of marriage (how would health benefits work?) and thus make the process more of a legal fiction than anything else, I see no problem with it.
The problem is you have no objective morality
I've got news for you, in case you slept through your philosophy classes: There is no objective morality. A few people have tried to define objective morality, and "community standards" are about as close as you can come.
Give me one reason I should trust your judgment?
Give me one reason you need to trust my moral judgements. If I married (say) a goat, it would in no way involve you and thus your moral perspective would be irrelevent.
Why is your view more right than mine?
Why is your view more right than mine? I know, majority opinion, right? Well anyone can see how quickly majority rule gets screwed up. "It's always been that way!"? This veneration of the past, while amusing, does not hold any moral weight. We don't keep slaves any longer, though it is a venerable practice. Give me some real argument as to why your opinion on marriage has any impact on anyone other than yourself and your spous (if any).
Why should any of this be illegal or legal? What buisness does the government have telling anybody what they can and can not do.
None at all, insofar as what people do does not cause particular harm to other people or the government. And maybe not even then.
How does a government decide wht is moral or immoral if the electrical impulses going through their brains are nothing more than chance?
Ah, that's jsut it, y'see.You've hit the nail on the head: The government doesn't decide what is moral, the government decides what is
Your views of right and wrong are abitrary and have no
Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
> 2. Attempt to win them over with cheap internet
> 3. ???
> 4. Pro...Re-election!
Isn't it obvious?
3. Election fraud
Re:Only a coincedence... (Score:1, Insightful)
The Iraq war was not about weapons of mass destruction. It was about a lot of things, and in the real world (not the one fabricated by liberal media and the Demo'rats), the war in Iraq was a continuation of the 1991 conflict of which Saddam surrendered and agreed to certain stipulations. Those stipulations were not met, which led to 17 U.N. resolutions. Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq had not met it's obligations under the previous resolutions. This was the real cause of the second conflict in Iraq. This resolution was agreed to and signed by all members of the UN Security Council.
Iraq had not met the terms of the cease fire and therefore was responsible. This was one point of the war. The second point of the war was his actions towards his own people. He was very cruel , tortured men and raped women.
The other countries you mention have other difficulties, politica, financial, whatever.. they are irrelevant. We cannot treat every nation the same, as we are not treating North Korea the same.
The third reason was the attempt of Saddam to assassinate a former president of the U.S. Yes, it was Bush's father, but he was still a former president. Saddam also had ties with multiple terrorist organizations. While we can not prove, yet, that Saddam had ties with Al Qaeda, there is plenty of interesting evidence. Saddam also supported many other terrorist organizations, of interest is Hamas, as they bombed Isreal. Because of Iraq's relation with these terrorist organizations, it's hard to believe that Saddam excluded Al Qaeda.... it just doesn't make sense.
Re:I Don't Get It (Score:3, Insightful)
> the geek vote without offering much in return.
Ironically, he is saying something, but with his actions and not his words.
He's actually saying, everyone should have broadband. So he recognizes the opportunity.
On the other hand, he proposes no funding, no time table, no vision, no structure, nothing. So he doesn't think it's important enough to ask a single member of his administration to look into this. He relegates this to a vague promise.
It's like this. Bush He had his administration immediately work to revitalize their space-based missile program. At the same time, he announced a terrorism task force back in early 2001 (pre-9/11), with Dick Cheney as the head, but the task force never met and never did anything. Since actions speak louder than words, clearly Bush considered setting up a space-based missile program to be more important that preventing terrorist attacks.
So, the fact that he recognizes the opportunity, but he chooses to do absolutely nothing about it indicates the relative priority of the task.
How many died? (Score:3, Insightful)
When did Iraqis cease to count as people?
Re:Unemployment (Score:4, Insightful)
You cannot deny that the economy did much better during Clinton than during Bush.
First term or not, it is hard to deny that the US economy would have looked very different if the country had continued Clinton's policies than Bush's. For one thing, the huge tax cuts for the rich would not have had happened. If these tax cuts are good or bad, we can discuss, but to say that Bush has had no influence on the current economy is plainly wrong.
Re:Only a coincedence... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Your Poll (Score:3, Insightful)
It's all in how you define "bad."
Re:This article is flamebait (Score:4, Insightful)
Second, it's not flaimbait, bacasue the JD did argue against people owning their own broadband service.
"But by that same token: why on earth should we simply to assume that the government is totally free of corruption?"
we never should. However you say it like it's perfectly OK for Bush to be corrupt.
Before you start labeling, my opinion is based on action Bush has done, and has nothing to do with my political beliefs.
Re:Hmmm (Score:1, Insightful)
Yet another fucking idiot who doesn't understand the difference between a direct election and a delegated election.
Go read about the Electoral College, willya? Right now, Election Projection has the president at 290, Kerry at 248.
Re:Read my lips, no slow connections? (Score:4, Insightful)
Your post was intelligent and well thought-out overall, but I'd like to point out that at the time the rural telephone access was an issue, telephones were actually quite expensive. Even in the early 80's a basic telephone would run 30 dollars, and that is in the dollars of the time. My mother was leasing a telephone in the 70's, because leasing was cheaper than owning. If we assume a phone in the 50's was 50 dollars (someone who remembers/has data from that time please chime in), and the median income was 5,000 dollars, then that creates an income/cost ratio of 100 to 1. If the median US income (for 2002) was 43,000 dollars, that would imply an access burden of 430 dollars. Cheap computers can be had inside of Wallmart for that much money, including monitor, and everywhere else for not significantly more.
So yes, while the concept of rural broadbandization seems laughable, the cost to the end user doesn't seem that out of line with previous similar programs.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You're no FDR (Score:3, Insightful)
All the Bush supporters keep telling me how Bush is a 'Man of his Principles', well it sure as hell looks like he forgets what he believes in when it will help he keep his job.
Re:THEY ARE VOLUNTEERS (Score:3, Insightful)
Or something [megspace.com]
But since you, obviously, are wealthy enough to have avoided military service, I guess you can't ask them how they feel [commondreams.org] about being in Iraq.
Re:Only a coincedence... (Score:4, Insightful)
Myself, I'd go so far as to say that the whole fanatical dedication to the "nuclear" family has probably done more to harm it than just leaving the whole issue alone would have. The whole argument is just plain stupid. WTF business is it of ANYONE how two other people live, ESPECIALLY if they don't even know those people?
Oh, to head off the trolls:
1) No, I'm not homosexual. I have friends who are, tho, and I support them in living however they want to. I'm not religious, but I was raised so, and I seem to remember Jesus talking about tolerance towards those who don't live like you, but who are still moral.
2) No, I'm not some "family expert". I don't think one really needs the opinion of "experts" or government officials, or religious people, to raise good kids. Make of that what you will.
3) I'm seriously of the opinon that the whole concept of marriage should be a covenant between two (or three, or whatever) people and/or their church, and should not be any province of the government at any scale, federal, state, local - WHATEVER. It's none of their goddamned business. We have something called seperation of church and state in this country partially for this exact reason. (Yes, I know it can be argued that marriage is not primarily a Christian institution - but in this particular context, WRT to our administration, it is.) The only winners in the legal venue of marriage in this country have been the divorce lawyers.
Get the fucking government out of it. Completely.
End Rant.
SB
Re:Hmmm (Score:2, Insightful)
Bread and circuses. I voted for the guy and I want him out more than anyone at this point. I can't stand politicians that like right to my face about some major issue. You wanna get a blowjob? Fine, but don't lie about it. You want to bomb Iraq cause they tried to kill your daddy? Fine, but don't lie to me about it and say they have WMD. Assclown.
Never said Bush raised taxes on all the poor, (Score:3, Insightful)
And what 'services' are you talking about? I pay for my own education, health care, housing and transportation (and yes, I know education is subsidised, but that ought to come from my state taxes). If you mean the military, I say let's cut back on oil use by forcing public transportation on everyone (and maybe building a few more nuclear power plants) and we'll see how much of a military we really _need_ (apart from the nukes to keep China at bay, which we really do need).
Re:Whoop-tee-doo. (Score:5, Insightful)
Universal health care is a joke. It has to be. Just last week, the big news was that our existing medicare and social security programs are hanging on by a thread. They don't even know how to fund our existing programs when the baby boomers retire. Universal healthcare will be right beside our mars missions and universal broadband as things that are bankrupting the federal government.
Re:That's just wrong (Score:1, Insightful)
There is no such thing as government money.
Re:Only a coincedence... (Score:3, Insightful)
He is a modern feel-good selective-bible-reading loud-bible-thumping christian. In other words, he is barely christian at all; rather, he is a part of a large quasi-religious subculture that is very common in the Southern USA.
Christians should accept homosexuality (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, banning gay marriage really has little foundation in divine command, even in Christian belief.
Leviticus 18 deals with homosexuality, and prohibits it. However, there is a huge quantity of other old Judaic law in these sections, containing other commands that are ignored by modern-day Christians, mostly because they are inconvenient (don't eat pork, treat your deceased brother's wife as your own wife, etc).
The idea that Christians have is that Christ established a new covenant, and that the commands they have to obey are listed in the New Testament (which contains nothing banning homosexuality). However, there was an arbitrary mishmash of Old Testament stuff that just happened to be kept and shoved into Church doctrine. It's a serious inconsistency in Christianity -- essentially, there are no Biblical grounds for both eating pork and condemning homosexuality. It's really nothing more than a cultural thing that happens to live on with the church.
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty certain that the most commonly reviled politician on Slashdot is Sen. Fritz Hollings ("The Senator from Disneyland"). He is a Democrat.
IMHO, the flak that Bush and Ashcroft get on Slashdot is very much well-deserved. It's often misdirected, as when Bush does something *stupid* or *wrong* ("Let's attack Iraq to fight terrorism!") and then gets complained at for the number of soldiers dying, when we are doing very well. Invading Iraq was the real problem, but deaths of soldiers is a current and ongoing issue that can be complained about. People didn't just randomly decide "hey, let's hate Bush!", though.
It's kind of like Microsoft. Microsoft frequently catches a huge amount of complaining on Slashdot for doing something incredibly minor. However, Microsoft *earned* a steady and widespread hatred from many Slashdotters from years of screwing customers and competitors alike over. They're simply paying for their original actions in installments.
Want broadband? It's easy (Score:4, Insightful)
How did you get modded up? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm a conservative Republican. I have some pretty strong Libertarian leanings, but given the Libertarian party is fond of putting up candidates like Howard Stern for major political positions, I can't in good conscience throw myself in with them. So, as a conservative Republican, let me respond to your twenty bits o' trollage.
Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, without regard to your occupation, fame, or anything else. However, being a drug addict does not prevent you from also being human, and thus deserving of human dignity and compassion. There is no contradiction here: the "contradiction" only exists because you're unwilling to consider that "the Enemy" (which is to say, me and people like me) may have views which don't reduce down into a three-second sound bite.
The United States shouldn't get out of the United Nations, but at the same time, we shouldn't have any delusions that the United Nations confers legitimacy. The majority of nations at the U.N. are totalitarian dictatorships, and it is beyond me how you can imagine that a bureaucracy of despots can confer legitimacy.
I don't like dealing with the U.N., but I'm fanatically in favor of dealing with NATO, with the European Community, and with basically any other multinational organization composed of free nations.
But until such time as we're able to come up with a better alternative to the U.N., should U.N. mandates be obeyed? Yes, unless doing so would directly and substantially reduce our security. For instance, I think we should be pressing Israel to return to their 1967 borders, as required by a Security Council resolution; and I think Israel is within rights to say "screw you, do you have any idea how tiny those borders are? We could be overrun in a matter of hours!"
Again, there's no contradiction here. The contradictions only seem to exist because you're not willing to view the other side as anything more than a straw man.
Government should relax regulations at all levels. The more laws you pass, the more you're going to inhibit economic development. If you don't believe me, just look at France--or ask JFK, who cut income taxes by huge amounts expecting that it would lead to an increase in tax revenues and a boosted economy. (Both happened, by the by.)
With regard to marijuana... I believe government should enforce the law and I believe the Federal government should, in most things, defer to the states. It's a matter of constant irritation to me that our current administration has sicced the FDA on those states who've enacted laws allowing the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. That's something the Left would do, override local government in favor of the divine wisdom of Washington. Conservatives, speaking generally, strongly doubt the divine wisdom of Washington and prefer to let states and municipalities handle things.
Read some basic economics books, starting with David Ricardo. Until such time as you learn some microeconomics, please don't give people economic advice.
And no, Ricardo isn't some neocon or some colleague of Milton Friedman. He's an 18th-century economist and a peer of Adam Smith. I hav
Re:Only a coincedence... (Score:2, Insightful)
You think he was elected?
Why is this modded flamebait? It's a reasonable, non-vitriolic reply to a scathing, error-ridden post (which itself was closer to flamebait, but is instead at +5).
The best tactic for partisan moderation is to use 'overrated', that way your chance of being meta-moderated negatively is not great. They probably are modding flamebait because they forget this when they get mad.
The fact is that nothing hurts as much or as hard as the truth. What the republicans are reacting to in this thread is the fact that so many people don't believe Bush is a competent leader. Ever since 9/11 they have been looking at polls that say 75% plus of the population believe that Bush is a 'strong leader', 'tough on terror' etc. Its not just those particular views that are part of their core belief system, the fact that these views are near universal is also part of their core belief system
This is why they react so strongly when these ideas are questioned. That is why the mere questioning of Bush's competence results in inflated charges of 'treason' or as they are currently throwing at Clarke 'perjury'. They can't handle the fact that amongst people between the ages of 20 and 40 the idea 'Bush = Liar = Incompetent = Fool = Coward' is not merely a fringe view, it is now the overwhelming consensus.
I don't like ideology, I don't like religions where you are told what to believe. I have not even joined the Quakers because that is too organized for me. What I dislike about what the Republican party has become is the total subservience to dogma. When they accuse us of being blinkered for merely criticizing Bush they are merely projecting their own ideological blinkers that blind them totally.
The reason we are going to win and the right is going to lose can be seen on the Web. Go to any of the right wing blogs and you find a fan site which simply promotes whatever today's line from GOP headquartes might be. The left wing blog sites are very different, the typical story for a widely read left wing blog like atrios [blogspot.com] or Kos [dailykos.com] or Josh Micah Marshall [talkingpointsmemo.com] consists of a immanent critique of the right. So say Drudge and cronies will put out a statement by Condi Rice attacking Clarke, the left wing blogs will then show that the statement is in direct contradiction with a previous statement by Cheney, or better yet by Rice herself. Right wing blogs often try to do this, but in order to create the 'contradiction' they usually have to end up doing some malicious editing to present words out of context, and that leads to the second typical story for a left wing blog, the post showing the manufacture of a specious quotation.
Re:In other news... (Score:2, Insightful)
They sound pretty different to me. One comes with a target date and promise of reaching everyone- and it sounds like a 30s era public works type project: may have a worthile goal, but requires lots of money and bureaucracy, blindly adopts a huge monolithic solution, and is rife with the corruption you'd expect ('In order to avoid certain legal complications, the broadband deploying trucks are always rolling').
'Investing in new technology' is vague, but sounds much less heavy-handed. Even if the new technology doesn't bring broadband as we know it to every last citizen, you've probably promoted the invention of some new and interesting things rather than providing a permanent subisidy to the cable laying and maintenence industry, or whatever.
Which plan did you say came from a Democrat and which from a Republican?
Re:A pony indeed (Score:3, Insightful)
It will all be part of Total Information Awareness, [uncoveror.com] which isn't gone since Congress defunded it, it only went back underground.
Re:Whoop-tee-doo. (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:THEY ARE VOLUNTEERS (Score:4, Insightful)
The US is not currently drafting civilians. You do not need to be wealthy to avoid military service, you just have to NOT voluntarily apply.
The military seems pretty straightforward about the "running risks, shooting people" part, they're not lying about it. They may not put it in the harshest light, but I don't see them selling the "Army of One" idea as "cushy job, easy salary". Rather, they try to sell it as heroism.
If you sign up for the military, you do it knowing the risks, regardless of your motivation.
While "I'll never see action" may be a "justifiable assumption", it is still a conscious risk to take based on the odds. You're still signing a contract that says you're willing to risk your life if necessary, and that's your part of the deal, regardless of how unlikely you think that necessity is.
If you wanted to take advantage of the deal and never pay up on your promise, we'll, it was your own bad decision.
Soldier is not the only profession that expects you to potentially risk your life in some undetermined future. We don't normally expect cops to say "well, I never really expected to deal with crime directly anyway" or national guards to neglect duty on the grounds that "I didn't expect to deal with REAL emergencies!".
We don't steal the responsability from their actions by assuming they don't know what they're signing for.
Instead, we expect them to be the proud professionals we need them to be; we're aware they'd rather not deal with the ugly side of things, but we hope they will rise to the needs of the situations they're trained for. We praise their outstanding character and do our best to make sure they can do their work as safely as possible.
In other words, we give them the benefit of the doubt of being decent people who can make their own decisions, good or bad. They can marry, they can have kids, they can join the circus or the military.
But since you, obviously, are wealthy enough to worry about the class issues and make the assumption their social disadvantage makes them defenseless children freeloading on the government, I'd suggest you use some of your ample free time to re-read the articles you link to, which do not support your argument and are actually orthogonal to the whole issue.
Re:Unemployment (Score:3, Insightful)
And what does that have to do with anything? You could, wiht equal validity say "You cannot deny that the economy did much better when Sycraft was a student than when he was not."
When Clinton was president, the economy was on a brief and artifical major upswing. It had been doing well for some time and then the
However it turned out, as any competent economist knew, to be short lived. So many of the
This already had us in a downward cycle, and then the 9/11 terrorist attacks happened. A free market such as ours is highly based on consumer confidence and such a thing shakes that. It lead to less spending, less growth, and more cutbacks.
As in most of history, the president had very litte to do with the economy. While the president's policies do influence the economy, no question, he does not have the overwhelming control most people assume. Actually, the federal reserve chairman has more direct control over the economy than the president except in extreme cases.
So no, the economy wasn't up because Clinton happened to be in office. Nor was it up because Bush Sr. happened to be president before Clinton. It experienced a huge growth becuase of an artifical upswing due to over enthusiam in the Internet. It's downswing then was a result of the repercussion of that, combined with a catastrophic event that shook the confidence of consumers.
You'd do well to take a couple economics courses at your local university. While the world isn't solely motivated by money, a great deal of what happens makes more sense if you understand the basic economic forces at work.
Re:Why is broadband so slow? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why do I suspect that if... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:THEY ARE VOLUNTEERS (Score:3, Insightful)
Being a hero is way down there.
I do think the people who signed up AFTER 9/11 probably wanted to be heros though. Too bad they are just being cops instead. Hopefully that will be heroic enough for them.
Re:HOW TO BE AN AMERICAN! FUCK AMERICA! FRANCE RUL (Score:2, Insightful)
And I suppose eating snails, frogs, rotting cheeses and 1000 year old turds buried by woodland creatures is a better alternative. (Let's not forget the sulfites in the wine, too).
1 - Buy yourself a gun To become a fully-fledged Yank, you'll need to get a weapon. Americans think that having more killing machines magically makes their country safer, and it helps them to walk around saying "I'll put a cap in your ass". Even though the concept of "no guns = no gun-related crimes" is alien to the average Yank, it'll give you a false sense of security in this country with the highest crime rates in the developed world.
"American == Gun Owner" is a common European misconception. In this country only ghetto troubelmakers, Elmer Fudd types, Cops, homeowners, and French-inspired Libertarians own guns. The first and last categories are regrettable, but it's only becuase we respect our constitution and don't change it like dirty underwear as the French do.
On the other hand, we don't have criminally-ispired Islamic ghettos where young women are gang-raped by do-nothings hanging around the hallways of tenements, while the government turns its head. But then again, we are not France.
2 - Put on at least 25 stone Skinny? Medium? Chubby? That won't cut it in the good ol' US of A. Because America has the highest obesty levels on the planet, you'll need to get those rolls of flab built up. Eating 18 waffles with Maple syrup for breakfast (and visiting Burger King five times in a day) is all natural when much of the world is suffering massive poverty. Get fat and fit in.
That's a lofty complaint from a national of a country where the average family spends 75 percent of its income on food, most of it is drenched in animal fat. It leads one to conclude that the reason there are not many Fat Frenchmen, is due to the fact they all die at an early age from congenital heart disease.
Heart attack on a plate, nicotine and spit-drenched stogies hanging from the lower lip, and booze are what kills Frenchmen. Inability to protect yourselves from invaders, and lack of air conditioning will probably kill-off whoever's left.
3 - Learn the lingo We've talked about issues affecting society, but on a personal level you'll need more knowledge (or ignorance as it may be) to fit in. First, forget proper English. Confuse "your" with "you're". Say "must of" instead of "must have". Whenever anything interesting occurs, say "shucks" repeatedly. Instead of clever spontaneity or witty insults, call people "asswipes". It's funny!
You apparently think language is only suitable as a vehicle for insults and vulgarities. If you want to beat the Russians at this game, your culture is already halfway there. It's never the language that is ugly. It's the the people who use it. They just have no class.
4 - Throw away all maps, history books etc. To really feel a part of American society, you must lose all knowledge of the world. Forget where Poland is. Scrap your knowledge of the lengthy Chinese history. Make cretinous remarks like "India? Is that in Africa?". Because ALL that matters is America, and it doesn't matter how pathetic you look to educated people the world over.
And that unfounded French egotism will make you all that more attractive to the world. Your "intimate" knowledge (and subsequent ignorant abuse) of other cultures will not buy you influence and respect you think you deserve.
I love it when the French complain about English being the defacto standard language of world trade and international diplomacy. They are so bitter about losing the cultural influence they once had. Acknowlege your has-been country is no longer what it once was to international diplomacy and world trade. Contribute to the furtherance of Western Culture and put something on the line. If you ju
Re:Whoop-tee-doo. (Score:4, Insightful)
It would not surprise me if the pharmacutical companies started petitioning the federal govornment to start extending the lifetime of pattents as well. Taking a page almost right out of the RIAA and MPAA. They have already gotten buy in from our govornment to prevent other countries from setting up their own drug manuracturing facilities to manufacture drugs for their own populations.
-Rusty
Dial Up for America! (Score:2, Insightful)
Instead of going crazy with the broadband, why not create a system of free dial-in connections that is administrated by the local library system? Imagine: when applying for a library card, your average American might be given a list of phone numbers to a local dial-in server, along with a unique user ID and password. Along with this service, library patrons might be allowed to check out various free software, such as internet browsers or a program that helps walk people through the basics of establishing a dial-up connection as well as teaching them how to browse the internet.
GWB is being so shortsighted here. The kind of people who could conceivable really =need= Broadband can afford to it on their own... nationwide availabilty will slowly evolve as demand increases. The most important thing is not to make sure that the most privileged people can have the highest tech internet access available, it is to make sure that as many Americans as humanly possible have the most essential, entry-level internet access.
Re:A pony indeed (Score:3, Insightful)
Bush says "We're gonna fight terrorism"; invades Afghanistan to overthrow Talebans (OK, good), then all of a sudden invades Iraq, thus sending more recruits to Osama than any ad campaign, and equates all dissenters with friends of terrorism / tyranny / whatever. WTF ?
Bush says: "We must make peace in the Middle East"; says that terrorism is bad and the Hamas freaks should be stopped (OK, good), then all of a sudden pats Ariel Sharon's back and calls him a "man of peace". WTF ?
Bush says: "Every American must have broadband by 2007". Expect him to provide federal funding for optic-fibering the whole country (OK, good), then introduce laws that turn the Internet into a slightly more controlled version of the Sing Sing prison.
Well, at least this will happen if you Americans really hate the rest of the world enough to inflict this guy upon us for another four years...
Thomas Miconi
Sleight of hand (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Your Poll (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you willing to listen to the proof, or are you going to claim it's all biased?
We can go back to the 2000 election campaign for starters. The points that Bush ran on, in no particular order or all-inclusive:
- That we could cut taxes, increase spending, while still maintaining a balanced budget.
- That we could change Medicare without harming it.
- That he would be a Uniter, not a Divider. He would change the tone in Washington away from partisan bickering.
- That we should have a humble foreign policy, more isolationist than a global police force.
Then we can get into all the recent crap...
The numerous times, like this article, where he has said something should be a priority, and then either didn't follow up(no big deal), or did exactly the opposite(as he's done on education and environment).
The whole lead up to the Iraq war. A war of choice, I should point out, fabricated upon the belief that Hussein was a potential threat. With no regard for intelligent, reasoned debate on that choice, and a bullying attitude ramming down the throats of the American people this idea that Hussein had Nuclear and Chemical weapons at his disposal. Coupled with this same arrogant bullying attitude used towards our friends and allies.
Now we have new evidence.
In retaliation against Joe Wilson, Bush outed a strategic CIA operative... e.g. Wilson's wife Valiere Plame.
In order to pass the Medicare bill, Bush lied to Congress as to what it's cost would be. Ok, maybe lying is a bad word, but he told them something that he knew was wrong, and he told the Whitehouse actuarial staff to not answer questions from Congress because they also knew the numbers given were wrong.
And now this past week, Richard Clarke comes out and says, "Despite what this President may tell you, Terrorism wasn't his top priority in 2001, it wasn't even in his top 10 priorities. Bush is trying to claim that he did something where Clinton didn't, but in the Clinton administration it was their number 1 priority. Here's why I say this, here's what happened, here's my evidence."
Then to top of all of this, at the National Press Club dinner, Bush had the audacity to make fun of the fact that he lied to the American people about the WMDs in Iraq. He thinks it's a joke.
I understand your sentiment, I understand that we should respect the Office of President in this country, and this partisan political rhetoric is difficult to swallow. It certainly was when the Republicans were bashing Clinton over and over again.
There's one difference, and this I find truly sad. The charges made against Clinton were fabricated and were done for pure partisan political advantage.
But as a former Republican, I can say without a doubt that the charges against Bush are truly sad, for they are credible.
This President is the greatest buffoon to ever hold this office. Even Richard Nixon didn't stoop to putting our nation at risk for partisan political advantage.