Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
The Internet United States

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!
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bush Says Americans 'Ought to Have' Broadband and a Pony by 2007

Comments Filter:
  • Phoneless in America (Score:3, Informative)

    by cookie_cutter ( 533841 ) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:31PM (#8697649)
    Before that, maybe the U.S. should first tackle the phoneless problem, seeing that there are 5 million households(5%) without a phone [](pdf.
  • Re:A pony indeed (Score:5, Informative)

    by cperciva ( 102828 ) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:31PM (#8697656) Homepage
    "Some Americans have yet to receive their forty acres and mules."
    This is not recorded anywhere in any historical document. This is a legend that has been passed on over the years.

    Not quite. During the civil war, General William Tecumseh Sherman issued an order to provide some blacks with 40 acres, and for the army to loan them mules. However, he had no authority to do this, so his order (and promises) were worthless. p
  • Re:SO? (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:35PM (#8697685)
    The rationale behind classifying a job as a 'manufacturing' job, is almost completely arbitrary and rest almost soley on whether in the early 1900s (when jobs first started being classified on this basis) was peformed mainly by men (and thus a manufacturing or 'real' job) or was performed by women (and thus not a manufacturing job.) Anything involving food prep was done mainly done by women at the time and thus not a manufacturing job.

    Think a little before you post.
  • Re:You're no FDR (Score:4, Informative)

    by dancingmad ( 128588 ) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:41PM (#8697733)
    A large part of why Bush isn't interested in that issue is that he's driving hard to win Hispanic voters (along with Jeb) in Flordia, which for both parties is a key battleground state.
  • Re:A pony indeed (Score:5, Informative)

    by Lord_Breetai ( 66113 ) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:44PM (#8697757)
    This is not recorded anywhere in any historical document. This is a legend that has been passed on over the years.

    If it is a legend then I don't know what to make of this:

    From Order by the Commander of the Military Division of the Mississippi, January 15, 1865 []:

    "The three parties named will subdivide the land, under the supervision of the Inspector, among themselves and such others as may choose to settle near them, so that each family shall have a plot of not more than (40) forty acres of tillable ground, and when it borders on some water channel, with not more than 800 feet water front, in the possession of which land the military authorities will afford them protection, until such time as they can protect themselves, or until Congress shall regulate their title."

    Nothing about mules, but still...

  • Re:Unemployment (Score:5, Informative)

    by cperciva ( 102828 ) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:46PM (#8697779) Homepage
    5.6% unemployment: Low for Clinton, High for Bush.

    The Bureau of Labour Statistics doesn't agree with you [].

    During Clinton's term in office, the unemployment rate dropped from 7.5% to 4.0%. During the first three years of Bush's term, it rose from 4.0% to 6.0%.
  • by div_2n ( 525075 ) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:53PM (#8697834)
    Choice quote: "make sure that as soon as possible thereafter [that] consumers have plenty of choices" What do you think that means? I can tell you.

    In Kentucky, they are pushing state deregulation of telcos to encourage new investment in broadband in new areas.

    The result? They will charge competitors more thus pricing out competition allowing them to charge exhuberant prices to consumers.

    I expect this is an announcement of similar steps on the federal level.

    In the end, these are attacks on small startups and consumers in the form of ruthless monopolistic practices on the part of telcos and high prices for consumers.

    But this is what big business is all about and Bush is a big business kind of guy. Thus I am perplexed why the common man would be so in favor of him but that is another discussion altogether.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:55PM (#8697848)
    How does this get modded as insightful? You just admitted that you didn't read the speech.

    I saw him deliver it. He said "broadband." Repeatedly.

  • by An Onerous Coward ( 222037 ) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @05:56PM (#8697855) Homepage
    A few points.

    First, we're up to 591 [] now.

    Second, America's large-scale deployment lasted from 1965-1973 []. So the 56,000 casualties were spread out over eight years. While I'm glad that we're only losing around 600 troops a year rather than 7000, "It's not as bad as Vietnam, so it must be okay" doesn't strike me as a healthy perspective.

  • by loraksus ( 171574 ) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @06:05PM (#8697918) Homepage
    "What you mean is the lazy still won't work."

    Yeah, in about 2 weeks me and 400 other people will be laid off. My friend just got laid off a week ago with 200 other employees.
    Yeah, I'm sure there are oodles of places that need employees.

    What is with all these "everything is peachy, there are no problems" AC republicans?
  • They Lie. (Score:3, Informative)

    by DAldredge ( 2353 ) * <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Sunday March 28, 2004 @06:06PM (#8697926) Journal
    This is the same group of people that think it would be a 'good idea' to reclassify fastfood workers as manufacturers because they 'make things'.

    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
  • by Valar ( 167606 ) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @06:11PM (#8697969)
    I'm sorry for the moderation, really, but it is out of my control. I dug around and actually found the speech (google wasn't helpful, but someone I know actually had a link to speech-- the title indicated that it was about homeownership, but that was only the first half or so), and you're right, it does specifically mention broadband (specifically, not taxing broadband, and providing stimulus to the broadband sector [which I guess would mean subsidies to companies to provide broadband in traditionally unprofitable markets]).

    Can I donate my karma to charity?
  • Re:A pony indeed (Score:2, Informative)

    by sumdumass ( 711423 ) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @06:16PM (#8698017) Journal
    and who will furnish personally to each head of a family, subject to the approval of the President of the United States, a possessory title in writing, giving as near as possible the description of boundaries; and who shall adjust all claims or conflicts that may arise under the same, subject to the like approval, treating such titles altogether as possessory.

    Well from this part of the same document it apears as this was a temporary placement and was subject to the aproval or apointment of the president wich never made it a legal offering as in what we would be led to believe today. But none the less, if it was carried out reguardless of the aproval for deed/titlement by the president, it apears that the promises/obligation in this document were fullfilled at the time it was neccesary and I don't see how it compares to the forty acres and a mule being spounted out today.

    Interesting as it may seem, it only apears that this was writen as a draft by the military to keep the peace durring what was considered a time of ocupation rather then part of the country. The confederate states had to agree to certain conditions before they were allow to regain thier statehood. As we know the Military has more power over teritories than the do over statese and the free citizens of them.

    This article may be the source of disinformation but it still remains an urban legend. The forty acres stated were maximum amoutns rather then the guarentied amounts. I can see how the people over the years would missinterpret this and combined with some political motivation be construed into the forty acres and a mule nonsence we here about.
  • Did you read it? (Score:5, Informative)

    by bstadil ( 7110 ) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @06:19PM (#8698042) Homepage
    If you actually read the report you will find that the majority of the "Phoneless" is young single men.

    Even though this is from 1994 let me guess that the survey asked for landlines and the increase is due to switch to mobile. Second I did a little googeling and it seems the the Phone question was one of the ones targeted as a NOSY question and a few groups were advocating "Just say no" to that one.

    Young men even in the lower income bracket is the one with the most discretionary money.

    Meaning most likely wrong and the portion that is "right" it is of Choice not Necessity

  • Re:In other news... (Score:5, Informative)

    by meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @06:24PM (#8698083) Journal
    The story is a little onesided. Kerry thinks everybody should have broadband, too. Check the CBS article Bush, Kerry see broadband as election issue []. If it asks for a member ID and a password, use "memberid" and "password" respectively. Bush says he wants broadband for everybody by 2007, Kerry 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.?
  • Re:small mistake (Score:3, Informative)

    by loraksus ( 171574 ) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @06:24PM (#8698085) Homepage
    yeah, ok. I'm just imagining that my job, and the job of 700 others is going to Canada by the end of April.
    Fuck, I'm not. /waves a tiny American flag.
  • Re:That's just wrong (Score:3, Informative)

    by cyberformer ( 257332 ) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @06:28PM (#8698115)
    Bush has spent money on plenty of things beside Iraq:
    • The anti-ICBM missie shield, which doesn't work but will give lots of money to military contractors.
    • The prescription drug benefit for HMOs and pharmaceutical companies. He even lied about the cost of this, because other republicans wouldn't have supported it otherwise.
    • The totalitarian information awareness project, well known to everyone here.
    • Enforcement of the DMCA and other corporate-protection laws, also well known to everyone here.
    • The War on Drugs. This included giving millions of dollars to the Taliban (who were very anti-drug) shortly before 9/11.
    • The faith-bsaed initiative, which channels taxpayer's (well, deficit) money towards projects such as teaching creationism.
    • The tax cut to the rich. Okay, so harcore right wingers will say this isn't technically spending, but the effect is the same. And sometimes it is a straightforward handout. Many corporations already paid no tax under Clinton, so Bush made sure that their tax rate is now negative (ie. they get a big tax refund while never having paid the tax in the first place.)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 28, 2004 @07:04PM (#8698405)
    Bush specifically said in the speech that he doesn't want broadband/the internet to be taxed. Again, why don't you guys actually try listening to the speech, or reading the complete transcript before commenting?

    I saw the speech live, and his major points re: broadband were:

    We need some form of universal access to broadband within three and a half years.

    We shouldn't tax internet access/broadband. He was fairly emphatic on that theme.
  • Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 28, 2004 @07:37PM (#8698657)
    1. Anger most of the population

    I know you're just trying to be funny, but let's look at this a little more closely, hmm?

    Newsweek, 3/26: 49% favorable job approval; 47% likely to vote for the president. The other polls are pretty close, within a percent or two. Given that the polls have margins of error of 3-5%, all we can conclude is that about half of the people in the country right now think the president is doing a good job and plan to vote to re-elect him.

    Does that sound like "most of the population" is "angered" to you? Because it sounds more like a very small segment of the population is "angered" to me, that a larger segment is dissatisfied, and that about half are either satisfied or pleased.

    How about a little honesty, huh?
  • Re:A pony indeed (Score:5, Informative)

    by commodoresloat ( 172735 ) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @07:57PM (#8698804)
    Here's the link []. The urban legend is the idea that there was a bill passed recently with this title that gave blacks credit on their income tax as a slavery reparation. The IRS claims to have gotten over 100k bogus tax returns claiming this refund (and apparently they mistakenly did send refunds to many of those). But the story of freed slaves being promised "40 Acres and a Mule" after the end of slavery is not really an urban legend, although the person promising had no authority to do so. And the phrase was used throughout the twentieth century as a symbol of America's failure to deal responsibly with the legacy of slavery.
  • Re:Your Poll (Score:4, Informative)

    by useosx ( 693652 ) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @08:14PM (#8698912)
    Besides, every American knows that Jimmy Carter was the worst President ever.

    But, do you every wonder why [] people think that (11th paragraph).

    Yeah, it's OT but the parent was modded up, so what the hell.
  • by UberQwerty ( 86791 ) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @09:03PM (#8699213) Homepage Journal
    Except the AWOL aligations were false, and the White House proved otherwise. This was a blatent attempt of the Democrats to portray John Kerry as the "war hero" while Bush as a deserter.

    In fact, the White House didn't have a leg to stand on. They talked out their asses for a while until they convinced everyone who doesn't pay attention that they had a case. If you paid attention, like I did, you'd have a different view. To give you some documentation, I googled it. Here's a good article on the subject: -bush-guard-usat_x.htm []

    It's from USA Today. A relevant excerpt (boldfaces mine):

    In an interview that aired Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press, Bush said he fulfilled his Guard commitment and offered to make his records public. Host Tim Russert asked, "Would you authorize the release of everything to settle this?" Bush replied, "Yes, absolutely."

    Since then, White House officials have released only documents concerning whether Bush fulfilled his service obligations. White House statements have not addressed the release of any papers that could show disciplinary actions, medical exams, legal scrapes and the like.

    On Tuesday, the White House released pay records from a military archive in Denver that it said showed Bush was paid for at least the minimum training time he was obligated for in 1972 and 1973.

    But the records showed only what days he was paid for, not where he was or what duty he performed. Neither did they address outstanding questions about why Bush missed a required physical in 1972, forcing him to stop flying, or what happened during a five-month gap in 1972 when Bush didn't show up for training.

    Here []'s another article for your perusal (boldfacing mine, again):

    White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the records "show that he was paid for his service, and you get paid for the days on which you serve."

    That's the proof the white house had, BTW. Pay records. I've heard members of the national guard at the time say that they had managed to get paid without even showing up for duty. We'll assume for the sake of argument that GWB was 'getting paid for the days on which he served,' though:

    The records indicate that between May 1972 and May 1973, Bush served 14 days -- two days in October, four days in November, six days in January and two days in April. The White House offered no indication of why there was a gap in Bush's service from April to October, 1972.

    That's a five month gap. Nobody knows where he was during those five months.

    AWOL----absent for 30 days or less.
    Desertion-----absent for more than 30 days with evidence of no intent to return to duty.
    Five months-----150 days
  • by khasim ( 1285 ) <> on Sunday March 28, 2004 @09:24PM (#8699327)
    #1. Yep, that link says that. Pity it doesn't examine the DATES. :) ph p

    Seems that Bush was seen somewhere he wasn't.

    #2. Okay, you've gone from claiming that Bush did attend funerals to claiming that OTHER presidents did not attend funerals.

    You don't understand this "substantiation" thing, do you? It isn't about what OTHER presidents have done. It is about what BUSH DID and DID NOT DO.

    #3. You say: "It's possible that troops are depressed in Iraq due to a number of factors (heck, they are being shot at), but this does not mean they do not agree with the efforts."

    But you had previously stated: "I know, personally, many marines who see that rescuing 25 million as a worthy cause, and one to risk their life for."

    So, they feel that the goal is worth risking their lives for, but they get depressed over risking their lives?

    #4. "You're taking what I said out of context, which is what you Demo'rats like to do."

    No, what I'm doing is showing that the FACTS do not agree with your story. Clinton's policy of continuing the sanctions is what kept Iraq from rebuilding their military. Which means fewer US troops died during the invasion.

    The "failure" is that there was no plan for AFTER the invasion.

    #5. Which is why Clarke wants ALL 6 HOURS DECLASSIFIED. /

    The GOP and White House can claim ANYTHING (much as you do). That is, until the information is actually released and the facts are available. :)

    #6. Your link refers to Wesley Clark, not Dick Clarke. Big difference.

    #7. You have enough trouble with established facts. I'm not going to get into planning and whether something would have been "better" or not.
  • Re:Your Poll (Score:4, Informative)

    by dbIII ( 701233 ) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @11:13PM (#8699962)
    Carter was a quite good person, and did as good a job at being president as the circumstances were likely to permit
    The Iran hostage crisis got rid of him - he sent in the troops to deal with terrorists, it didn't work, and he lost the election.

    Reagan then showed how he dealt with terrorists - in cold hard cash - with the biggest ransom deal ever made. With the later Iran-contra scandal some of that money came back to the USA to buy weapons.

    As for the ecomomy under Reagan ...

  • Re:Bullshit! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Zeinfeld ( 263942 ) on Sunday March 28, 2004 @11:28PM (#8700055) Homepage
    Mod parent down! The order forbidding cameras at Dover Air Foce Base was ordered by Bush Sr. in 1989 after Panama and kept there by Clinton.

    A ridiculous case of telling a lie with an over-specific truth. Under Clinton the press do not appear to have had any difficulty gaining access since they were able to film the return of troops killed in Somalia, Saudi Arabia and Aden.

    What you are doing here is playing games, the Bush order said that no filming was permitted without prior permission from the Whitehouse. This was always granted refused under Bush I and Bush II and consistently granted under Clinton.

    All this flim-flam about when the order was given is just another GOP camouflage, a way of lying with the absolute litteral truth. And they criticized Clinton for prevaricating about the meaning of 'is'!

  • by fmaxwell ( 249001 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @12:11AM (#8700287) Homepage Journal []

    Go there, read the evidence, and come back when you've finished. I don't have time to lay out all of the facts for you. As to what kind of pressure might have been put on Turpinseed since his initial statement, I don't know, but he was just one tiny piece of the vast stockpile of evidence against Bush.
  • Re:Unfair (Score:3, Informative)

    by spoonyfork ( 23307 ) <spoonyfork&gmail,com> on Monday March 29, 2004 @12:14AM (#8700307) Journal
    Al Gore did NOT claim to have invented the internet. [] Anyone who repeats that false statement is a liar who is quick to believe false statements that match what they think they believe, or want to believe.
  • by schmaltz ( 70977 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @12:52AM (#8700527)
    Remember also, under Mr. Clarke, 5 seperate terrorist attacks took place, most of them under Clinton.

    Remember also, under Mr. Bush Junior, the single largest attack ever on American soil took place, completely bypassing all of our massive military defenses -the absolute best on the planet (built to intercept Soviet fighters and nucular bombers, let alone passenger jets, with standing protocols for following FAA hijack intercept requests - and they weren't even called into action, goddammit.)

    Four aircraft, known at the time to be hijacked, known at the time to be way off-course , all candidates for immediate NORAD interception, were allowed to continue flying until all four crashed, three of them into their targets, one of them plunging into the headquarters (!) of said massive military , two of them destroying some of the most prized real estate on the planet, thereby sending the American center of capitalism into a depression. How's that for a military well-prepared to protect us against threats? Imagine if this had been a Soviet nucular attack? Sheesh, we'd all be dead.

    Hell, forget the allegations of a drunken, coked-up AWOL Dubya in the 70's, he was friggin' AWOL on 9/11! Yup, he hung around an elementary school, at the other end of the eastern seaboard, until well after the attacks had taken place, then tucked his tail into Air Force One and ran off into hiding! How's that for a show of military leadership?

    Oh yeah, now that's a president you want to re-elect. Kerry's got nothing on him.

    (Mr. Bush even says he watched one jet crash into the WTC live on TV! [] -then heads on into the school! wow.)
  • by MillionthMonkey ( 240664 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @02:31AM (#8700913)
    "plenty of evidence exists linking Libya's capitulation to overtures made by the previous administration."

    Please provide some sources to support your claim.

    Oh no, a homework assignment! I'll give you the very first hit [] in the first Google search I tried []. It is a story from the Christian Science Monitor, dated September 13, 1999, discussing Libya's attempts to shed its pariah status and the diplomatic overtures that were then taking place between the U.S. and Libya. Looks good enough for you. If you want more, there are additional links in that Google search results page that I didn't look at.

    I might ask you for some sources to support the claim that we have the Iraq War to thank for Libya's concessions.
  • by Wacky_Wookie ( 683151 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @02:52AM (#8700954) Homepage Journal


    Life expectancy at birth:
    Definition Field Listing Rank Order
    total population: 79.83 years
    female: 83.38 years (2003 est.)
    male: 76.44 years

    ( os /ca.html)


    Life expectancy at birth:
    Definition Field Listing Rank Order
    total population: 77.14 years
    female: 80.05 years (2003 est.)
    male: 74.37 years

    ( os /us.html)
  • Body Armor (Score:2, Informative)

    by faitaccompli ( 746192 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @09:58AM (#8702423)
    Kerry actually voted against the purchase of the body armor. Trust me, military folks won't forget that.
  • Re:Unfair (Score:1, Informative)

    by silicon not in the v ( 669585 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @12:48PM (#8704291) Journal
    Oh, jeez, quit being a prick. I use Snopes frequently to debunk myths, but they definitely screwed this one up. Exact quote from Gore, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." They say it's false only because he used the word "create" instead of "invent".
  • Re:Hmmm (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:19PM (#8704650)
    Did they poll representatives of the general population or just likely voters?

    Likely voters. Newsweek polled 1,013 likely voters of both parties during the week ending 3/26/04. Nobody ever polls based on "the general population." They either poll on registered voters or likely voters. The basic techniques for sorting likely voters from everybody else are complex, but they've been in use since the 1950's (Gallup pioneered them), and study after study has found that the models work well. They'll use questions like "how much thought have you given to the election?" and "are you registered?" and "do you know where your polling place is." The answers give you a good idea of who's going to vote and who's not.

    And before you bring it up, the experts say that a sample size of about 1,000 respondents produces a valid study with a margin of error of about 3-5% for an infinite base population. In other words, asking 1,000 people what they think is a good indicator no matter how many people are in the total population.

    Of course, in this case the margin of victory is within the margin of error, so all the polls tell us is that the statement "most of the country is angry" is false. At best, it's less than half.

User hostile.