Slashdot, The Elections, and Space Exploration 345
We've been putting off coverage of the US elections for a long time now, but with the election only weeks away, we figure its time to let
loose. The stories about the election will be posted under the United States topic, and will stop with the announcement of the winner. Stories that are selected will be very few, so expect to be have submissions rejected. Submissions must have some sort of angle for them to be considered for Slashdot, and we will be brutal: we're not CNN here.
And if you don't care about the election, login and disable the United States topic and you'll be free from this. We're starting this
off with a link from
TOTKChief where you can read NASA Watch's of journal of space-related election news, which is just the first of many issues we think is
relevant in this upcoming election. Read it, make up your own mind, and vote goddammit.
Re:Jessie Ventura, Abe Lincoln, Teddie Rosevelt (Score:2)
Your election in Minnesota was not an electoral college voting system. This is why a third party candidate has no chance of winning.
Re:Yes, VOTE! (Score:2)
Re:The Libertarian position.. (Score:2)
This analysis is a variant on Bastiat's Fallacy of the Broken Window [econlib.org].
To extend Bastiat's argument, if a city were so riddled with vandals that everyone had their windows broken every few days, then window repair would be part of the "cost of living" which is "automagically accounted for in salaries and pricing". Your argument implies that if the vandalism were stopped, then prices and wages would fall in such a way that the net standard of living would not increase -- which is absurd, since it is obvious on its face that people who are constantly beset by vandals have a lower standard of living than people who are not.
/.
Re:The Libertarian position.. (Score:2)
When you pay taxes, you don't "lose the window". The taxes go to pay for things that have naterial value that society benefits from (the degree and type of benefit is usually what people argue about).
It's the same as people who claim that space research is a waste of money because we don't see the benefits on earth. The money we spend on space exploration isn't sent to the sun to be burned up, it's spent right here on salaries for researchers and materials to build equipment. No money is "lost" into space, and no window is broken. Society is no poorer for having spent the money on space (though you can certainly argue the opportunity cost of not spending it elsewhere).
And, to counter your "extension" of Bastiat's argument (which really wasn't Bastiat's argument at all, he was talking about the lost value of the window and the fallacy that replacing it was good for the economy): If an entire city were constantly breaking windows, YES, IT WOULD be accounted for in the price of goods and labor. It would be a predictable cost that people and businesses would have to account for. In modern America, insurance is certainly a cost of living that poeple pay attention to, and it varies from place to place for exactly the reasn you state -- if you live in a place with high vandalism rates, your cost of insurance will go up. If your salary cannot pay the insurance rate, you may well move to somewhere else or find a different job. Many people avoid buying sports cars because the insurance is too high. It's a cost that is taken into account by most people when they buy cars -- how expensive are the repairs, the insurance?
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
Q.Tell me what the trail was.
Re:Bzzt. (Score:2)
What don't you understand about this concept?
To become a politician you must receive the most votes. All politicians need votes to get elected and they will pay attention to any large group of votes (i.e. labor unions, minority groups, the elderly) and they will try and win their vote. Is this not obvious from the treatment of Social Security (seniors are very likely to vote and social security is their biggest issue in general) in this election.
So how would you react as a politcian trying to win an election if you saw that in the past election (or better yet, in the past 2 or 3 elections) that a lot of votes went to a 3rd party? You would investigate why the votes went there and try to win them yourself, right? You might mention the third party candidates name in a speech and talk about how you agree with their position on X because it might win over some of those votes.
In my mind, it is a straight forward conclusion that voting for a third party candidate will have two effects: either it will increase the stature of that third party candidate, or it will help push the main party candidates towards the positions on issues you care about.
Now, lets look at what not voting for a third party candidate will do. The winner of the election and the loser will not see any opposition that applies to both of them and the next election will likely become even more partisan. Finally, the third party candidates because they received fewer votes become discouraged, those viewpoints are weakened and evetually they start to disappear .
Vote third part in this election (I suggest Brown, but any 3rd party vote is better than a vote for Gore or Bush).
Re:Bah, another president, another crook (Score:2)
Vote?! Hah, yeah right. (Score:2)
Vote for YOURSELF this election - plug in, log on, and drop out.
Shrug.
Re:why? (Score:3)
What is the consequence of this? Maybe the losing party will look at the results sand say "Well, gee, if we had Nader's vote, we would have won."
So what do they do the next election? They take on a platform that will hopefully woo the Nader (or Brown, or Perot) voters.
This is precisely how Populist and Socialist positions were incorporated into the Democratic Party, how Dixiecrat positions were incorporated into the Republican Party, and how deficit reduction became a major issue for both parties after Perot's performance in 1992.
A third party doesn't have to win; it just has to do well enough to scare the Establishment.
/.
Gore's "Information Superhighway" (Score:2)
Re:Vote, dammit! (Score:2)
My general opinion is that if you vote for either of the two whatsisnames that get all the publicity, you probably are brainwashed and you probably made your decision by watching television.
Ask yourself one question:
If I could vote for anyone I want, who would I vote for?
Well, you CAN vote for anyone you want. So quit being so brainwashed.
Just my opinion.
Re:Gore's "Information Superhighway" (Score:2)
Really, so when was the internet created? It should be a simple question, since it can only be created once.
Was it the first connection between DARPA systems, the invention of TCP/IP, the opening to the public?
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
Q.Tell me what the trail was.
Re:Gore's "Information Superhighway" (Score:2)
'net (which might have taken off a decade earlier with lower taxes instead of higher spending)
Of course, you have plenty of evidence that with lower taxes the Net would have come up 10 years ealier, right? Nevermind that most of its infrastructure, most of the protocols have been developed thanks to gov't funds.
Of course, with all that done, you can fantasize all you want about your bloody "taxpayer's money".
--
Re:Bzzt. (Score:2)
Also, ask people walking down the street why they are voting for who they are voting for and you'll probably get all sorts of stupid reasons. Like those brain-dead survey groups: "Oh, he seemed nicer" "I like the environment n stuff" "He is for guns and I like guns" "He's 'tough on crime'"
Seems to me the "mass majority" of people have bought into the millions of dollars of marketing and hype and have no friggen idea why they're voting! Why do people buy the shoes or clothes they do? Image, that's why.
Re:Jessie Ventura, Abe Lincoln, Teddie Rosevelt (Score:2)
How would that have changed the Minnesota election? What is it about the electoral college voting system that fundamentally prevents a popular third party candidate from wining an election?
Re:Gore's "Information Superhighway" (Score:2)
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
Q.Tell me what the trail was.
Re:Self-censorship is bad (Score:2)
Check out: www.adbusters.org
Re:Bzzt. (Score:2)
"Voting for someone you're pretty sure won't win isn't "throwing your vote away." A poster on Slashdot long ago said "It's not a horse race." You're choosing who you think is the best person for the job, not "the lesser of two evils.""
In my opinion (and I'm sure many disagree), Browne is the best person for the job, and Bush is the lesser of the two evils (strangely enough, I've seen many say the same for Nader/Gore). But, can you explain why it isn't throwing my vote away? Or why we shouldn't vote for the lesser of two evils?
"You, and the rest of the country, have more than two choices for President, Governor, House and Senate members, etc. It's just the largest two parties have done a good enough job of skewing the electoral system in their favour that other voices almost never get a chance to be heard"
Yes, I'm very aware of this.. and it disgusts me.
"I suppose that Jesse Ventura guy in Minnesota doesn't exist - after all, he's not a Republican or Democrat, so Minnesota voters must have thrown their votes away. "
As it happens, I'm a Minnesota resident. Minnesota is generally known to be a liberal state, so my vote for Bush may be as equally futile as it is for Browne (I sound like I'm on your side now, heh).
"Even if your favoured candidate loses, your vote shows there are some people who believe a candidate is right. The more people who vote their conscience rather than just stay home because "it doesn't matter," the more it proves to others that non-Republicrats might be worth listening to"
If my favored candidate loses (i.e, Gore wins), I'm doomed to further expansion of the government, more programs, more taxes, etc. This seems to be an issue of principal versus practical effects. I'm still finding it difficult to see positive practical effects of voting 3rd party.
However, I'm only 19.. and though I thought I was final in my decision to vote for Bush, your post has forced me to re-consider [again - I already went through this Browne vs. Bush thing in my head before]..
Self-censorship is bad (Score:2)
It's easy to take this too far, though. Sure, you don't want commercials blaring at you from every surface--but neither do you want to be unaware of options OR lose your critical thinking skills.
When my wife and I watch TV together we generally leave the commercials unmuted--so we can mock them. We don't just say things like "nice hair, stupid" (although we say that, too)--we also point out the logical contradictions or hidden assumptions (it sounds boring when put like that, but really the race to be the first one with a snappy-but-accurate one-liner is fun).
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Re:Vote, dammit! (Score:2)
Re:Why so angry with the Lord? (Score:3)
Not even as omnipotent as me with a Hummer and a postmount
"And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
-- Judges 1:19
I think we've moved on past needing HIS help...
Re:Gore's "Information Superhighway" (Score:3)
Bullshit. A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader.
Re:Bzzt. (Score:2)
Um, it may not really be my team.. but it's the team that matches MUCH MUCH more closely with mine.
Just got my absentee ballot... (Score:4)
Listed as running:
Harry Browne - Libertarian
Pat Buchanan - Reform
George Bush - Republican
Al Gore - Democrat
John Hagelin - Natural Law
James Harris - Socialist Workers
Denny Lane - Vermont Grassroots
David McReynolds - Liberty Union
Ralph Nader - Progressive/Green
Howard Philips - Constitution
It's too bad that most of these people haven't gotten any press, I would be interested in knowing what other than Bush, Gore, Nader, Browne and Buchanan think. Does anyone know what the others stand for?
It's just too bad that no one other than the 2 major parties have a chance in winning, their ideas are so stale...
Re:Defund NASA if you want space explored (Score:2)
"Defund NASA if you want space exploration" - will private companies fund space telescopes that don't make them any money? Will they fund new deep space engines in tests? Will they spend money to send probes to the outer planets or comets?
No to all three - because a private company needs to spend money to make money. Exploration has never been funded from the private sector. NASA does explore space...as well as it can with it's budget.
Re:Jessie Ventura, Abe Lincoln, Teddie Rosevelt (Score:2)
Re:Yes, VOTE! (Score:2)
From the FAQ "Your vote helps decide which candidate receives your State's electoral votes. It is possible that an elector could ignore the results of the popular vote, but that occurs very rarely."
I want someone to give me a good reason why I should vote for the president. As long as we have The Electoral College [nara.gov] I will not vote for president.
No. (Score:2)
That proves nothing but apathy. Apathy does not cause change but promotes the status quo. If you want to enact change you must do something.
No. An election boycott does not entail political apathy. If coupled with grassroots political organization, it means a rejection of the corporate-dominated politics in favor of true democracy.
Re:Bah, another president, another crook (Score:2)
You can do this in Nevada as well. Unfortunately it doesn't have the real effect it does in Sweden, but I would say that none of the above winning 50% of the vote would be a serious issue of interest to many. What I would really like is for none of the above winning to mean that the office goes unfilled. That is, if the voters didn't find any of the candidates acceptable, that none of them would get the job. The thing is, though, it's very likely that one of the 7 candidates on the ballot (in the case of the presidential election) is close to your views. So there's seldom a reason to vote none of the above if you've researched the candidates beforehand. This doesn't necessarily apply to local offices, though; often candidates run unopposed, and that's where none of the above really comes into play. Unfortunately most states don't have that option.
Re:the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Score:2)
Americans are crazy violent motherfuckers, that's why.
That is serious, really. If you just magically whisk away all gun-related crime, you will STILL have murder/assault rates five to eight times greater per capita in the US than in Canada. So it seems that the problem is not actually guns then, yes?
In reality, it's just plain demographics. If you compare Canada against a population of similar size and demographics -- say, Idaho, the Dakotas, and Kansas -- you'll see that crime rates are pretty much the same.
EMBRACE THE EVIL! (Score:2)
Good thinking.
Re:Yes, VOTE! (Score:2)
Want to eliminate corporate financing of campaigns? Make airtime free. Think the media corporations won't go for that? That's too bad. We own the airwaves, not the corporations. We can take them back if we want.
Re:To all third-party voters.. (Score:2)
Re:Defund NASA if you want space explored (Score:2)
This is a dangerous idea that I often see expounded. I can agree with the idea in some emotional terms, but the economic terms are harsh:
The Constitution states that the government should promote "useful arts and sciences". Few things are more useful in terms of science than space exploration. The project I work on promises to make unbelievable advances in fiber optics and human prosthetics--and yet we're underfunded and threatening to slip our schedule far out into the ISS service life. It's great to be commercial, but it would be nice to have government funding on this as well.
Let's just get rid of Dan Goldin.
--
Re:Bzzt. (Score:3)
It isn't possible to get such a system while the existing parties hold power. The only way to get from here to there is to get a third party into power by voting for them.
Pretty dismal.
I have an idea, but it's so wacky that I don't think it'll take off. The third parties are wildly different from one another, but this is one thing they can probably all agree on: election reform to make it possible for third parties to get representation. So... if all those parties (with wildly different idealogies) could somehow get a primary and put forth a single candidate and get their power bases to support and vote for that candidate (even though many of hem might hate that candidate (e.g. I'm a libertarian and I hate Nader)) then perhaps that candidate would have a chance of getting elected. Then, there would at least be some real power which could be used for election reform.
I'm just dreamin', aren't I?
---
I'm going to vote for... (Score:2)
Re:Bzzt. (Score:4)
"When you elect a representative or a senator or a president and you send him to Washington, do you expect him to vote what he believes?"
Most people will say something along the lines of "Of course!
"So why don't you?"
And that is why I will not vote for Gore or Bush, and have to figure out who I really support. I don't agree with a lot of what Nader says, but damn, I can actually believe in the guy instead of wondering what he's really thinking behind that mask.
Re:Gore's "Information Superhighway" (Score:2)
Or if Ronald Reagan had stated that he took the initiative in creating the B2 bomber.
Sorry, Gore took credit for more than he should have. He helped get funding for it, but that was all.
safe states for protest vote (Score:2)
One major concern I've seen among potential protest voters is that they'd like to support an Nth party candidate instead of "the usual guy", but don't want to risk "the other guy" becoming president because of their lack of support. The main example I've heard is "I like Nader, but a vote for him is a vote for Bush, and I'd feel awful if that happened".
My friend Justin Boyan sent me the answer. http://hotlinescoop.com/ [hotlinescoop.com]. If your state favors either Bush or Gore by at least 10 percentage points, then feel free to vote however you want. Statitically, your one vote is not going to change the outcome.
The only places that can affect the final tally now are the "swing states", with a 5% margin or less. Your chances of moving the electoral count are well above epsilon, although still less likely than winning Ben Stein's money [futility.com].
Some states will decide what happens the next four years. Other states can decide what happens after that. Vote! (but not for Bush).
different kinds of intelligence & stupidty (Score:2)
Parties Don't Matter As Much As Candidates (Score:2)
-----
Re:US Elections... (Score:2)
Simple. The US is a pretty big dog, and has a track record of using underhanded pressure to get their way globally. If we do something totally whacked, (or rather, our leaders do) you better bet they're going to lean on everyone else to follow suit.
Ralph Nader supports open source (Score:4)
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,39295-3
Re:Bzzt. (Score:2)
Yer welcome - I've done my good deed for the day, back to Mozilla shilling now:)
In my opinion (and I'm sure many disagree), Browne is the best person for the job, and Bush is the lesser of the two evils (strangely enough, I've seen many say the same for Nader/Gore).
Probably because Nader, Browne and Buchanan all have something called an "opinion", which I think candidates for the Big Two aren't allowed to have anymore. Pretty sad, really; I tend to respect a candidate more if s/he takes a position and maybe even proposes actual solutions, even if I think the opinions and solutions are just plain bad (*coughBUCHANANcough*).
But, can you explain why it isn't throwing my vote away? Or why we shouldn't vote for the lesser of two evils?
A vote is as real as a slap in the face. There's no such voting category as "protest voting" or "voting against". When you put that mark down (or pull that lever, whatever), it's taken to mean you choose that candidate to do the best job possible. If you vote for someone because they're the lesser of two evils, not because you think they're the right person for the job, you're lying to yourself and your country.
Even if Nader/Browne/Buchanan get 5 votes total, those 5 votes still show support. Vote Browne if you think he's the right man for the job - even if it's a losing cause now, losing causes need support before they become winning ones, and voting is the best show of support you can make - because in the end, it's the votes that decide who is president. Not how much money was spent, or who had the flashier commercials. It's that vote tally at the end. I bet if all the people who voted for one of the Big Two out of resignation voted their conscience instead, I wouldn't have to make these kind of posts.
Voting for a dork just because they're a Republicrat with a chance of winning now just gives them more support and weakens the cause of third parties in the future - like I said, there is no such voting category as "protest voting" or "voting against" on the ballot, just "voting for".
If my favored candidate loses (i.e, Gore wins), I'm doomed to further expansion of the government, more programs, more taxes, etc.
Yeah, but are you going to vote for someone who you still disagree with just because they're not the other guy? Put it this way - it looks like things aren't going to go your way immediately this election (never does - change takes time and work), so you might as well vote for who you feel is right and prove to others trapped in the two-party lie that there are alternatives to vote for.
This seems to be an issue of principal versus practical effects.
Yeah, and practically, things still aren't going to go the way you want for a while yet. Best to at least start the work toward the future you want, rather than truly waste your vote by picking someone you don't support and take support away from those you think deserve it.
I'm still finding it difficult to see positive practical effects of voting 3rd party.
Adding support to a 3rd party gives them backing for the next election it can build on. There are legitimate financial benefits related to party support that someone else (I think in this thread) mentioned. Practical effects != immediate satisfaction. I know we all want change now, but short of an armed revolution and coup d'etat it just doesn't happen that way, and the violent solution usually wrecks things for a long time afterward in ways the revolutionaries never intended. Hey, that's life, do what you can.
However, I'm only 19.. and though I thought I was final in my decision to vote for Bush, your post has forced me to re-consider
I'm 20. I've voted once before in a local byelection, but this is the first time I'll be able to vote in a federal election (oh, I should mention - there's a very good chance Canada will have an election called in the next week - might even have been called as I type this - which means we'll vote very soon after you do - this will be rather interesting).
Glad to hear something I said has had (what I think is) a positive result. Hope you come to a conclusion you're comfortable with, whatever the consequences.
-------------
Re:Good thing there are only two people running. (Score:2)
Re:Gore's "Information Superhighway" (Score:2)
Damn! Microsoft bashing aside, he really knows what he's talking about. Contrast that with the exaggeration and self-congratulation of Gore and the obscenely ignorant "internet turns hearts dark" Bush. Is there anybody here who *isn't* convinced Nader is the best choice as far as internet/IP/software issues are concerned?
(BTW, I am pro-Nader, but didn't know anything about his internet/software stance until reading this article - which just made me like him even more!)
Story submission (Score:2)
----
Re:Bzzt. (Score:2)
Why not? This isn't a popularity contest, and you don't win a stuffed animal if you "choose" the winner. This election is not going to be decided by 1 or 1000 votes. Whether you or I vote for Browne or Bush has absolutely no effect on who will win. When you vote for Bush, you are explicitly saying, "yes, I do want more socialism, just not quite as much as Gore wants". When you vote for Browne you are rejecting the mainstream big-government parties, and if enough people do that they will eventually take notice.
Bah, another president, another crook (Score:2)
Who here really cares about who wins this election anymore. It's come down to the point where people are voting for one just to keep the other candidate out! Sure as hell says a lot about our wonderful "democracy" when our candidates are Dumb and Dumber, in any particular order. Oh yeah, and a few other candidates who'll get a couple of dozen sympathy votes each.
Face it folks, our once proud nation has lost its way. Rather than serving the people, our government has tried it's damdest to become our ruler instead, starting with the imposition of the 16th Amendment, making it "legal" for them to steal from us with impunity. This century has seen the Government steal more and more power from the people, all in the name of liberalist "protecting the children" legislation that violates our God given Constitutional rights.
As a citizen of America who was once proud of his nation before he saw what it was really like, I urge all right-thinking Americans to boycott the election and prepare to fight to regain control of the Government. If we don't fight back now, an already bad situation will end in tyranny and oppression the like of which we haven't seen since we overthrew the English.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Re:Bzzt. (Score:3)
Re:Bzzt. (Score:4)
So I urge you, vote Browne if you believe in the Libertarian ideas. If only to give the Republican party a kick in the ass and a wake up call. Many progressives will be doing the same with Nader. Democrats have also abandoned progressives.
This is the first election I can vote in, and I thought Bradley was a decent candidate until I found out about Nader. It is an utter crying shame and disappointment when I see kids my age, college kids, high school kids, fall into the two-party mentality trap, and choose a candidate like they are choosing a soda brand. It bewilders me when polls show Gore has a humongous amount of young people supporting him. I want to turn to those kids and say "wake up!". If you want to get active in politics, get active with a burgeoning party that respects you and that you can make a difference in. Don't get sucked in by the two parties that don't really give a damn about you and are only using you and throwing you away.
Re:Jessie Ventura, Abe Lincoln, Teddie Rosevelt (Score:2)
You must have a lot of blind faith in the people you elect.
"If you haven't read the latest edition of my Blind Loyalty booklet, you need to do so and then you will fully understand that we really have no idea of who is getting elected in this country at any level. The facts speak for themselves. If these electoral college delegates, or electors as they are called, allegedly cast their vote for a candidate according to the popular vote which comes in electronically, then that vote is being manipulated by our rigged elections.
If an electoral college delegate is under no obligation or restriction, which they aren't, to cast their vote according to the popular vote results coming in, who do you think a Republican or Democrat electoral college delegate will vote for- a Reform Party candidate for President? In a pig's ear. "
The key is getting 3rd part electoral college delegates in there. Until then, a vote for a 3rd party candidate for President is a wasted vote.
I ask you this: Where did all those votes get Ross Perot, besides on a Trivial Pursuit question?
Re:To all third-party voters.. (Score:2)
If only Republicans and Democrats are electors for the EC, you are NEVER going to get a 3rd party candidate to win! The deck is so heavily stacked against it. It is utterly ridiculous.
They are under zero obligation to vote for the popular candidate. As is common in the House and Senate, they will fall in line with the party, and vote thusly.
I don't see how you aren't making the connection here. I'm not trying to be insulting, I apologize if I'm coming off as such, I'm just trying to be realistic.
It's not gonna happen unless major changes in the election process happen.
Re:Bzzt. (Score:2)
Running the country is not an easy job. Just like any other job, there are things you need to know, and most people don't know them. When I choose to elect someone, I want somebody who is informed, smart, and knows about how things work. I want somebody who will spend time studying the laws because I don't have enough time. The majority is rarely right, and when it is it's usually by accident. I want somebody who will realize most drug laws are bad and vote that way, regardless of what his constituents believe. (Or maybe he'll figure out that they're good and have better evidence than I do. Not likely, but it could happen, and I'll respect that.)
For this reason, unless a candidate is a Communist or a Nazi, I will vote for the honest smart man over the man who agrees with me every time. I'm even starting to wonder about my exclusion of Communists and Nazis. I am sick and tired of lying being considered a normal part of the political trade, and I am sick and tired of wondering what those things the President just said really mean.
If a direct democracy is ever implemented, it will be the end for this country, or whichever country it is that does it. Remember, even if you are of perfectly average intelligence (whatever that means), half the people in the country are dumber than you! Even if you could spend the time required to make effective decisions for the country, your education is almost certainly to be in the wrong direction. What do you know about how things really work? (Just in case you're a lawyer or something, well, quit whining and run for President already!) I'm scared enough at the idea of having my next-door neighbors help decide who the next President will be (although I fully support this idea), and the idea of having them involved directly in important decisions is frightening.
There are more reasons than the technical ones as to why we have a representative, instead of a direct, democracy.
Yes, VOTE! (Score:5)
1) If they get a certain percentage of the vote this election, they get more official money and recognition in the next election and more power between times
2) It's a form of protest. If you are sick of the system as is, protest vote for a third party.
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
The Party *Matters* (Score:3)
One mistake I think a lot of people make is looking solely at the candidate, rather than the beliefs of the party. Obviously the candidate matters, but I think the party actually matters more. Let me explain.
Despite what the popular press would have you believe, Presidents simply don't have that much power. They have most of the foreign policy power, but most of the domestic policy power lies in Congress. Presidents can suggest legislation, but all bills are ultimately written by congress. The President only gets the ability to do a thumbs up or thumbs down on the whole package (unless he eventually gets the line-item veto). That's why you see weird things get attached to bills, because a President is reluctant to down an entire bill over one pork-barrel project.
Bottom line, even if you don't like a particular candidate, vote for the party anyway. For example, I don't think Bush is the best possible candidate in the U.S. However, despite my reservations about the religious wing of the Republican party, I would much rather have conservative, limited economic government policies than the Democrat's "socialism light". Without economic freedom, all other freedoms are just an intellectual exercise.
And by the way, don't let anyone tell you that there is "no difference to the parties". That is just idiocy. Anyone who says that is simply ignorant and is just parroting things they have "heard" with no rational thought.
--
Re:Why so angry with the Lord? (Score:2)
So I take it you will hold the writings of Issac Newton, and Albert Einstein higher than the words of the Bible. If you're so sure that science proves religion to be outdated then why were two of the greatest scientists in history also devout believers in God?
Instead of spouting your completely unconfirmed by science opinion that God does not exist, how about giving some proof? In fact, you cannot prove one way or another that there is no God. Neither can I. But I have personal experience of Him and while I can't prove that scientifically, for me that's all I need. I don't try to convert anyone else, and likewise, I don't appreciate people telling me my beliefs are nothing but fantasy.
I watch the sea.
I saw it on TV.
Re:Doesn't anyone else think...... (Score:2)
I looked it up myself: from Title 10, U.S.C. (Score:2)
U.S. Code, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Section 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia
So even if you're not in the active duty military, reserves, or national guard, there's a good chance that you're a member of the militia. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that the framers intended that the militia be armed and capable of using those arms effectively -- hence, "well regulated."
And for those with short memories, the best kept police states of the twentieth century have been those where only the government had the right to keep and bear arms. Perhaps the folks who don't like the U.S. Constitution, INCLUDING the Second Amendment, would prefer to have lived in the utopias of Stalin's U.S.S.R or Hitler's Nazi Germany?
Re:The Libertarian position... is a joke (Score:2)
you mean "with all the taxes you save from the rest of the LP platform, you can buy a package of services on the open market about half as good as what was available when everyone was pooled together. We've heard of economies of scale, but want no part in them".
The implicit assumption behind your argument is that there is no loss in the transfer of your money (through tax collection) to the government, and then no loss during the transfer from the governmnet back to you. That cannot be true and in fact is the reason why even with "economies of scale" the government cannot compete with you purchasing something directly for yourself.
Furthermore, this system incorporates loss in the fact that these "economies of scale" provide identical "packages of service" to those who receive them. Yet some individuals have different needs that others, so some loss is guaranteed.
From my point of view, it is difficult to imagine the government ever doing anything as efficient as an individual. There is a large amount of beuracracy (sp?) involved in government that makes almost everything inefficient and unfair.
Why not leave private those things that we individuals can do best?
BTW, my political bias is towards libertarian positions, if you had not figured it out, but I don't understand how anyone anywhere can believe the government is more efficient and effective than an individual.
Re:Gore's "Information Superhighway" (Score:2)
I remember back in 1994 or so when some Internet books had forwards by Gore. Gore knew about the Internet and was pushing for more use of it even during the time when the Internet was really used for the DOD or Academia.
He didn't explain himself well in that infamous interview, but his role in government defintely helped, not hurt the progression of the Net.
US Elections... (Score:2)
...but is it really news for nerds? I get enough crap about the US elections on TV these days... and to tell you the truth, I couldn't care less...
I can't affect your election - I just would like to know the outcome...
Re:Jessie Ventura, Abe Lincoln, Teddie Rosevelt (Score:2)
I'm not a history buff, so I can't really comment on those.
I do recommend you read this however:
http://www.devvy.com/thrdprty_200003 03. html [devvy.com]
Re:Bzzt. (Score:2)
Maybe the ideas are just bad ideas? Nah, that couldn't be it.
--
Yes, I did read the whole thing... (Score:2)
Re:Bzzt. (Score:2)
but instead the solution is (somehow) getting a preferential voting system.
Did it ever occur to you that the ideas of the third parties are simply rejected by the mass majority of people? I love it; if no one like your candidate, then it must be the system's fault.
--
Re:To all third-party voters.. (Score:2)
The Electoral College is seriously flawed and does not give third party candidates a fair chance at winning. But life isn't fair, I suppose.
"Opponents of the Electoral College system also point to the risk of so-called "faithless" Electors. A "faithless Elector" is one who is pledged to vote for his party's candidate for president but nevertheless votes of another candidate. There have been 7 such Electors in this century and as recently as 1988 when a Democrat Elector in the State of West Virginia cast his votes for Lloyd Bensen for president and Michael Dukakis for vice president instead of the other way around. Faithless Electors have never changed the outcome of an election, though, simply because most often their purpose is to make a statement rather than make a difference. That is to say, when the electoral vote outcome is so obviously going to be for one candidate or the other, an occasional Elector casts a vote for some personal favorite knowing full well that it will not make a difference in the result. Still, if the prospect of a faithless Elector is so fearsome as to warrant a Constitutional amendment, then it is possible to solve the problem without abolishing the Electoral College merely by eliminating the individual Electors in favor of a purely mathematical process (since the individual Electors are no longer essential to its operation).
Opponents of the Electoral College are further concerned about its possible role in depressing voter turnout. Their argument is that, since each State is entitled to the same number of electoral votes regardless of its voter turnout, there is no incentive in the States to encourage voter participation. Indeed, there may even be an incentive to discourage participation (and they often cite the South here) so as to enable a minority of citizens to decide the electoral vote for the whole State. While this argument has a certain surface plausibility, it fails to account for the fact that presidential elections do not occur in a vacuum. States also conduct other elections (for U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives, State Governors, State legislators, and a host of local officials) in which these same incentives and disincentives are likely to operate, if at all, with an even greater force. It is hard to imagine what counter-incentive would be created by eliminating the Electoral College. "
Source: http://jceb.co.jackson.mo.us/fun_stuff/electoral_
I recommend you go to Google and search on 'third party candidates electoral college'. You'll find a lot of interesting reading.
Re:The Libertarian position.. (Score:2)
Of course, you're right -- I'm not really suggesting there is a direct, linear relationship between taxes and costs and salaries, that everyone will always make the exact same amount under any tax system. Im just trying to point out that taxes are (in general) accounted for in the equations of living.
In your example of HR calculating how much they will pay a person -- the simple truth is that no company is going to pay the janitor enough to buy a mansion. If taxes go down so that everyone's disposable income goes up, it very well may happen (as you state) that the cost of goods will rise as supply cannot meet demand (if everyone has an extra $10,000, there aren't enough new cars for them all to buy). So lowering taxes will give us all more money, but inflation will rob it of some value.
Which means, at the end of the day, everyone still has the same buying power. The janitor still cannot buy that new car because the guys making more than him are willing to pay more for it than he has to spend (they got $15,000 back in taxes, compared to his mere 10,000).
"If you reduce taxes, you'll reduce prices, but you'll also reduce wages."
Why? This doesn't follow.
I misspoke -- if you reduce taxes, you'll reduce the cost, though the price may well stay the same (or go up, as you point out). But, according to Libertarian frictionless economics, if the cost goes down so should the price, because everyone knows that only the government keeps the market from being perfect.
A very significant portion of our current GDP is being used by government, which is decidedly more inefficent than the free market. Transferring a significant chunk of change back to the more efficent system will generate a significant economic improvement all around.
But that's not necessarily true -- the government has an economy of scale that an individual doesn't. As much as medicare gets criticized, the truth is that it is more economically efficient (it spends less on overhead and more on patients) than any private insurance group.
There is no law of nature that says government==less efficient than private. If there are cases where it is true, then by all means we should take advantage of them, but stating flatly (as most people do) that with less taxes we'd all have more money assumes, essentially, that the government offers no value. And value is a matter that has to be taken on a case-by-case basis...
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
Q.Tell me what the trail was.
Ignorant question here... (Score:2)
Re:Gore's "Information Superhighway" (Score:4)
Gore was instrumental in securing lots of funding for networking in the 80s between Universitites that really poised the 'net to take off. Republicans have ridiculed his statement because he didn't have anything to do with opening the 'net to commercial traffic, as if that is the only thing that matters. Techies have ridiculed him because he didn't invent any protocols, as if the funding he secured in the 80s was irrelevant.
---
Re:To all third-party voters.. (Score:2)
Critics also argue that because the Constitution allows electors to use their discretion, there is a possibility of a "faithless" elector not casting his vote for the people's choice but for his own preference. However, this has only happened seven times and never had a real effect on the outcome of an election. Electors now are usually pledged to support a party's candidate.
This clearly shows that if a third party candidate ever received a plurality of the votes in particular state, the electors are bound to support the candidate. There is simply no evidence of a third party candidate receiving a plurality of the votes, but not receiving the electors from a state. Until you can show me this, then there is no evidence that the electoral college is doing anything to prevent third party candidates from winning the presidency.
Also, its a shame that your only source is Ms Kidd. She clearly doesn't understand the electoral college process since she can't understand why H. Ross Perot didn't receive any electoral college votes:
How come Mr. Perot received 0 electoral votes despite the fact that he allegedly received almost 20 million votes? Mr. Bush took 168 electoral votes with allegedly twice as many popular votes but Perot gets 0 for about half the number of votes Bush, Sr. allegedly received. The why is simple: There are no third party electoral college delegates that I can find in the Electoral College.
She tries to blame the fact that Perot received 0 electoral votes because there are no "third-party" electoral college delegates in the "Electoral College". If she understood the way the Electoral College works, she would know that the reason why he received no electoral college votes was because he didn't receive a plurality in any state, not because of a conspiracy.
Defund NASA if you want space explored (Score:2)
And get rid of the silly treaty about commercialization of moon, etc.
NASA is like any other gov entity: political decisions, not economic/practical decisions. The shuttle has been a huge failure in the latter terms -- no where close to plan. E.g. turnaround times of 30 days, not 2 days, so expensive we can't build any more,
Meanwhile, they have closed down each and every private competitor --> the Chinese and Russians are launcing our satallites.
NASA has no economic reasons for existance, and so we haven't been back to the moon in 30 years, we don't have a moon colony as a base for further space exploration,
Defund NASA if you want space exploration.
Lew Glendenning
Re:Vote? Why?? (Score:2)
You can have one of these, but not both. It's o.k. no one will blame you. The only thing you do by not voting is make everyone else's vote more powerful. From what you said (everyone else goes from evil to dangerously insane), you are a complete fool if you don't vote. And you can still be blamed.
--
Re:Vote, dammit! (Score:2)
You know, representation used to be about every day citizens standing up and performing civil service. Now it is about career politicians blowing millions of dollars to brainwash you into thinking they are the only choice and that you shouldn't vote for another brand.
Sure, it's easy to make fun of him, but where has Ventura failed as a civil servant? Huh? Everytime I hear him he sounds rather competent and seems like he's doing a pretty damn good job. So stop bitching. He's certainly better than the run of the mill egomaniacal career politician.
Re:Yes, VOTE! (Score:2)
-
Re:the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Score:2)
Control. We fought the British and won. How would that fight have gone if no American had owned a gun? Our government is just trying to watch their backs. Keep folks from having guns, and they can't fight back when we roll into their town to violate their other rights.
Re:Vote? Why?? (Score:2)
I think this statement says a lot more about you than the politicians you hate so much.
Re:Bzzt. (Score:2)
While I agree with Platinum Dragon's basic premise, I do have to say that the nature of the presidential election itself has contributed significantly to the dominance of the Two Party Sustem. Individual candidates not only need the widespread legitimacy to overcome the "throwing your vote away" stigma, but they need to do it in each and every state.
After all, we're technically not voting for a single candidate. We're technically voting for the group of electors who will vote in the actual presidential election. If I cast a vote "for Gore," I'm actually casting my vote for the "electors which have been chosen for my state by the Democratic party."
So it's all or nothing. ...in each state. This is why presidents can technically be elected even if they don't have a popular majority. They just need to win in the high-electoral-vote states, and they can come away with a victory no matter what the voters in Rhode Island think of them.
...and third party candidates thus need as much legitimacy spread across the nation as one of the Two Biggies to stand a chance.
Ludicrous, if you ask me.
Of course, my cynicism won't stop me from voting for Nader. I'm too bloody-minded. :)
Re:Vote, dammit! (Score:2)
Remember, the 3rd party problem is a vicious circle:
3rd party candidates get little coverage/money/debates because they have small percentage of the vote
3rd party candidates get small percentage of the vote because of no coverage/money/impression that they can't win
Go back to first step
So, if a 3rd party candidate fits, VOTE FOR HIM! Don't believe the Bush/Gore thing that "a 3rd party vote is a vote for my opponent"!!!!
Re:Bzzt. (Score:2)
Oh well, that's my biased opinion. I'm sure the Reform party wants the Libertarians and Greens to join *them*
Re:Why so angry with the Lord? (Score:2)
My wife has a fridge magnet dropped in by some Mormon missionaries while she was out. It says "The Lord could not be everywhere at once so he sent his visiting teachers".
I guess that knocks omnipresence on the head as well.
Rich
Re:Vote, dammit! (Score:2)
This is not true. There are some very good reasons to have a republic over a democracy. One of the key one's is to protect the minority (or unrepresented) from the tyrany of the majority.
They could have achevied their goal of 'keeping commoners out' by having a democracy that only rich landowners could participate in without the layer of abstraction a republic requires. The reasons for the reforms were _because_ not in spite of government being a republic. What do you think would have happened if the 'wealthy landowners' were given a direct vote to decide if the poor underclass were permitted voting rights?
It was the representitives that the wealthy landowners elected that ulitimately made the decision that the poor were entitled to vote.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship." This quote is by a British professor, Alexander Fraser Tyler, prior to the american revolution. I'm sure this any many other problems with direct democracy weighed on the founding father's minds when they wrote the constitution.
Unfortunately in this day and age a virtual direct democracy has sprung forth through the use of instant polls to track the opionions of the american people. The result is that canidates play to these polls offering the majority exactly what they want at the moment and therefore sacrificing the major reason to have a republic over a democracy.
We are rapidly approaching a dangerous point in the country, where the majority of voting citizens pay nothing into the system (income taxes) but reap the most benefits. As it is, 49% of the population pays 80% of the taxes. Both Bush's and Gore's plans would make that 100%, with 51% of the popluation with no tax burden. Hopefully you see the problem here. The majority can vote themselves whatever additional benefits or handouts their little heart's desire, without feeling any of the price for that benefit. The majority will quickly vote themselves benefits and vote the country out of a viable economy.
-- Greg
Re:Securing funding != creating (Score:2)
--
Re:Yes, VOTE! (Score:2)
Of course, with money comes squabbling and divisiveness, like that which characterized the Reform Party convention earlier this year. I was disappointed to see Buchanan hijack that party; they seemed to actually support practical reforms without all the political idealism/ideology (see, it can be good or bad) of the other third parties.
Re:Bzzt. (Score:2)
People are capable of deciding the smallest issue. They are not capable of deciding ten of them, day after day after day.
Bzzt! Sorry, but thanks for playing. Switzerland has effectively had a direct democracy for some time now, and shows no sign of disappearing.
I'm curious if you have some links to information about this. The pages I found while waiting for slashdot to let me reply to this all seemed to report a fairly standard three-branched representative democracy.
Then why not a scheme where the voter can choose either one? Let the 'representative' become a 'proxy' instead. If the voter is not interested in a particular subject, his representative votes for him. If the voter is interested enough to vote directly on an issue, his vote is counted and his representative's voting power is reduced by an equivalent amount.
With a system like this, everyone is satisfied. The 'dumb' voters you detest won't bother to vote on each issue (and won't want to), while those who want to exercise their rights directly can do so.
Actually, with a system like that, everyone is unhappy. Representatives would become even less responsive than they are now, since dissatisfied people are more likely to just vote directly than they are to try to unseat him, but he'll still hold enough power to effectively drown out the direct participants. The direct participants will be unhappy with this, and people who went for the representative will be unhappy because many of the direct types are making decisions with even less information than usual. I would rather go for a complete direct participation system than a compromise system like this.
Re:Vote?! Hah, yeah right. (Score:2)
But what I'm really P.O.'ed about is the fscking partisanship in Congress. Where is FDR when you need him? The man who didn't care what party his own advisers came from. The man who appointed a socialist woman (scandalous in those days) to Secretary of the Interior simply because he liked her idea of a "social security" system! Now, when Billy Boy took office, he took longer than anyone else in history to make his appointments, because the criteria was that you had to be a FOB (Friend Of Bill)...I.E. bought the position with campaign funds. The only candidate even close to this, even close to being able to work through the partisanship, is Bush. I already voted for him (absentee). And I'd do so again. If anyone can get anything done in Washington, it's not going to be the Big Government Liberal Washington Politician, it's going to be the outsider to the washington scene.
I voted for Bush because I'm sick of Big Government beaurocracy telling me how I need to run my life. I'm sick of my hard earned money being wasted on studies on the effectiveness of watermelon on Dung Beetles. I'm sick of the waste, the scandal, the disgrace of our marines being killed and dragged through the streets of some African country without any action, the partisanship, and the stalemate in Washington. I think that Big Government == Big Brother. And I think it's time we did something about it.
Re:Vote? Why?? (Score:2)
If you have any suggestions for me, I'm more than willing to hear them. I seem to have only three options; Gore, Bush, or frustrated silence.
Re:The Libertarian position.. (Score:2)
But government programs are not efficient. If they were, then socialism would work. Instead, most people are better off under capitalism even with the disparate amount of wealth at the top.
Society is no poorer for having spent the money on space (though you can certainly argue the opportunity cost of not spending it elsewhere).
Exactly, that's the point. No money is actually "lost" in programs that pay farmers not to grow corn, but surely there is productivity that such programs destroy.
Assume your argument is true: taxes are eliminated, and your employer compensates by lowering your salary. That means the company's expenses go down, and their profits go up. What happens to these profits? They either get invested, creating more economic growth, or they go to the shareholders. In the second case, the shareholders will save or invest it themselves, and it means that you will get a better return on your own stocks.
Re:To all third-party voters.. (Score:2)
While the electoral college system causes third party candidates to win zero electoral college votes, it doesn't cause them to lose the election. Nothing about the electoral college system limits the ability of a third party candidate to challenge the two party system. Its the candidate's inability to garner more then 10%-15% of the vote. I challenge you to give me one piece of evidence to justify your belief that things would be different if the presidential election was decided by a strict plurality. There are numerous barriers for third party candidates, but the electoral college system is not one of them.
Re:Parties Don't Matter As Much As Candidates (Score:2)
You are 100% wrong. In the US, you vote for a party's slate of electors, and they vote for the President. In most cases, they are not bound by the popular vote in any way, and are free to cast their vote for whomever they please.
There are documented cases on record of electors not only voting for someone other than their party's nominee, but even voting for someone from another party.
The electors are chosen by the state parties, and are usually party faithful being rewarded for their service. I have been an alternate on this list, I am well aware how the process works.
-
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bah, another president, another crook (Score:4)
Boycott the election?
That proves nothing but apathy. Apathy does not cause change but promotes the status quo. If you want to enact change you must do something.
A vote for Nader or Buchannan would have a chance to make some difference. Neither of them can win the election, they're well aware of that. What it will do, is at the very least send a message to the major parties that they need to pay more attention to the average person.
A third party vote this election also could pave the road to open things up in the future. In 2008, it could be entirely possible that other parties/independents have a realistic chance, if 15-20% of the vote goes toward a 3rd or 4th canidate.
You need three things to make change happen. Activism, Vigilance, and Agreement. If all of these are not there, no change is going to occur.
Re:Bzzt. (Score:3)
"Somehow", indeed. You think the Republicrats are going to implement a system like that? The only way to get something like that in is to give the third parties more power--which means voting for them.
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Re:Bah, another president, another crook (Score:5)
Actually, this isn't entirely far from the truth when you go back and look at which states actually ratified the 16th amendment and which states were counted as having done so even though they didn't. Kentucky's senate voted against ratification, yet they were counted. Oklahoma voted to ratify a substantially different version of the 16th amendment (making provision for appropriation according to census, not the absence thereof as in the official version of the 16th amendment). There's even an argument to be made that while Texas did vote to ratify, it could not have done so according to law, because it would have violated certain provisions of Texas's own constitution to do so. (The interesting part of the argument is whether state's own constitutions can restrict their ability to ratify federal constitutional amendments -- the language of the Constitution is ambiguous and perhaps even approving on this point).
So, then the result is a corrupt central government aggrandizing this power onto itself without respect for the contitutional processes that bear legitimacy. A similar argument can be made concerning the 14th amendment (which was ratified by southern "states" which hadn't been fully let back into the union since seceding) and even the original constitution (which required a smaller number of states ratifying it than even the 3/4 majority needed for amendment under Article V, much less the unanimity required under the Articles of Confederation). But it's sad, none the less.
Interesting, but... (Score:3)
If you are still in the dark, cruise over to www.vote-smart.org [vote-smart.org] to get a brief view of the candidates and links to their official sites, or for a cool website concerning the candidates' stances on many issues, check out Issues2000.org [issues2000.org]. Oh, and don't neglect to learn about your local Congresscritters, either, especially since their decisions have a hell of a lot more impact on your daily life than the president's does. Whatever you do, don't just whine about not being able to make a difference, because that's a load of horseshit; even if your candidate of choice doesn't win, at least your vote is officially tallied so that whoever is elected will realize that, although they may have won, there is a large number of people, voting people, who support a different way of doing things and that they do well to find out why so many people voted a certain way. So go out, learn about the candidates and their views, decide who you would like to support and, most importantly:
Vote!
Deo
Vote, dammit! (Score:5)
Don't vote for the lesser evil. Find a candidate you do believe in and vote for that one. You're not throwing away your vote. You're showing that you're fed up with the two main parties. That you are no longer represented by them.
This govenment is not going to be changed overnight. Ralph Nader, for instance, has no chance in hell of winning this election. But, if all the people who believe in his ideas vote for him, instead of voting for the big party candidate that they fear the least, a very clear message would be sent to the government. And then in 4 years, maybe Ralph Nader, or another 3rd party candidate, would really have a chance.
Doesn't anyone else think...... (Score:3)
Doesn't anyone else think we should have a 'ask the candidates' forum on
Re:Bzzt. (Score:5)
This is the Big Lie that's ruined the chances of any third party and wrecked what was once the model of democracy for the rest of the world to follow.
Voting for someone you're pretty sure won't win isn't "throwing your vote away." A poster on Slashdot long ago said "It's not a horse race." You're choosing who you think is the best person for the job, not "the lesser of two evils."
You, and the rest of the country, have more than two choices for President, Governor, House and Senate members, etc. It's just the largest two parties have done a good enough job of skewing the electoral system in their favour that other voices almost never get a chance to be heard - witness Nader not even being allowed to view the debate even though he had a ticket, never mind - horror of horrors - he could actually get a chance to espouse his left-wing, anti-corporate views in front of a nation that believes it only has two choices. And Harry Browne and his Libertarian wingnuts? He absolutely must be kept silent, lest people start thinking they actually have a choice that could result in politicians having less power and individuals having more freedom.
I suppose that Jesse Ventura guy in Minnesota doesn't exist - after all, he's not a Republican or Democrat, so Minnesota voters must have thrown their votes away.
Vote your conscience - vote for Brown (or Nader, or whomeever). Don't give extra votes to people you think are morons just because they're the "lesser of two evils" (even though you have more than two choices!), and don't eschew going to the polls. Elections are the one time when individuals such as yourself actually wield more power over the formation and direction of government than lobbyists and "friends", and it's a shame more people don't exercise that power. Even if your favoured candidate loses, your vote shows there are some people who believe a candidate is right. The more people who vote their conscience rather than just stay home because "it doesn't matter," the more it proves to others that non-Republicrats might be worth listening to.
-------------
Re:Gore's "Information Superhighway" (Score:5)
Dave and Declan,
I am taking the liberty of sending to you both a brief summary of Al Gore's Internet involvement, prepared by Bob Kahn and me. As you know, there have been a seemingly unending series of jokes chiding the vice president for his assertion that he "took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Bob and I believe that the vice president deserves significant credit for his early recognition of the importance of what has become the Internet.
I thought you might find this short summary of sufficient interest to share it with Politech and the IP lists, respectively.
================================================== ============
Al Gore and the Internet
By Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development.
No one person or even small group of persons exclusively "invented" the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among people in government and the university community. But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.
Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective.
As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept. Our work on the Internet started in 1973 and was based on even earlier work that took place in the mid-late 1960s. But the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises.
As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to consolidate what at the time were several dozen different and unconnected networks into an "Interagency Network." Working in a bi-partisan manner with officials in Ronald Reagan and George Bush's administrations, Gore secured the passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in 1991. This "Gore Act" supported the National Research and Education Network (NREN) initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the spread of the Internet beyond the field of computer science.
As Vice President Gore promoted building the Internet both up and out, as well as releasing the Internet from the control of the government agencies that spawned it. He served as the major administration proponent for continued investment in advanced computing and networking and private sector initiatives such as Net Day. He was and is a strong proponent of extending access to the network to schools and libraries. Today, approximately 95% of our nation's schools are on the Internet. Gore provided much-needed political support for the speedy privatization of the Internet when the time arrived for it to become a commercially-driven operation.
There are many factors that have contributed to the Internet's rapid growth since the later 1980s, not the least of which has been political support for its privatization and continued support for research in advanced networking technology. No one in public life has been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving Internet than the Vice President. Gore has been a clear champion of this effort, both in the councils of government and with the public at large.
The Vice President deserves credit for his early recognition of the value of high speed computing and communication and for his long-term and consistent articulation of the potential value of the Internet to American citizens and industry and, indeed, to the rest of the world.
Re:Gore's "Information Superhighway" (Score:4)
In Nader's latest, he really sounds like a slashdotter. He takes what I consider to be all the stands on open access to information while criticizing Gore for taking money from Vance Opperman (former CEO of West Publishing who claim to "own" all the legal opinions in the U.S.) and doing nothing to support open-source:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,39295
Nader points out that while Gore did in fact play a prominent role in early public investment of the internet, he has "coasted on his earlier deeds, [and] he has actively pushed for a new approach to the Internet as something that is far less public."
It's a great debate and really highlights how pitiful the "presidential debates" are when they leave out third party candidates.
Reed never really addresses Nader's arguments and just attacks Bush...
Re:Vote, dammit! (Score:5)
The Republicans were a tiny little third party, with no chance of winning.
In 1860, the first Republican president took office, and the Whig party was all but gone.
That's ten years, folks. Pretty damn short period of time.
Admittedly, things are a tiny bit different, since the Civil War split both parties. But there are an awful lot of things going on now that are splitting the Republicans and Democrats, with people from both parties abandoning them for the Libertarians, Reform, and Greens.
Would you choose only from Windows 98 and Windows NT, because nothing else "has a chance of winning anytime soon?" I suspect for most people reading this, the answer is "no".
However, before you vote for a third party as a protest vote, go do some research. Make sure you're voting for someone who agrees with you.
Make sure you're OK with the elimination of the Microsoft anti-trust action before you vote Libertarian.
Make sure you're OK with 100% taxation of all income over 10x the minimum wage before you vote Green.
Make sure you're OK with increased censorship before you vote Reform. (I'm talking their Presidential candidate only, not their party platform, although the Religious Right can be difficult to shed once they've latched on.)
-