Al Gore Buzzword Bingo 230
Rodger Crawford writes "Apparently Al Gore has a history of latching on to high-tech buzzword. So much so, that 3 years ago, MIT student played a friendly game of 'Buzzword Bingo' during Gore's graduation speech. "
I figured we might as well go with the trend and just continue
ripping on the yutz. I've never been so excited to vote
against someone before *grin*.
Yes. (Score:1)
all Yiddish words are spontaneously
improvised Yiddishisms.
bad science (Score:1)
> 1. Gore thinks "human civilization is now the
> dominant cause of change in the global
> environment." Nevermind the sun, the oceans,
> volcanoes, and other natural phenomena that
> actually do control the environment.
Human activity *is* the major factor in climate change. It is the only element of the equation that has changed dramatically in the last ~50 years.
> 3. Gore's "strategic goal" is to "eliminate the
> internal combustion engine" by the
> year 2020. This particular kind of engine can be
> found in automobiles, trucks,
> vans, and a whole host of labor saving devices.
Whats wrong with this? The IC engine is a dirty, polluting, *inefficient* way to produce mechanical power. Whether you accept the Greenhouse theory or not, the health effects of polution are reason enough to do away with it. Ask anyone that lives in a smog prone area like L.A., Mexico City, etc. Better alternatives like fuel-cells, hybrid engines, etc. are in production or prototye now.
> 6. Gore favored a government crackdown on the
> tiny trickle of electricity used by
> devices like television sets, whether
> they are on or not, because it results in a
> steady emission of carbon dioxide.
Good! Its absolutely ridiculous that many consumer devices are designed with little or no regard to their energy efficiency. The trickle wattage that these devices consume even when not in use costs you and me money!
> 15. Gore advocates that the United Nations
> consider "the idea of establishing a Stewardship > Council to deal with matters relating to the
> global environment." In other words, give the UN > total control over the actions and decisions of
> sovereign nations worldwide. Meanwhile, the UN
> already has a plan for "global governance"
> complete with the ability to tax nations, set up > its own permanent army, and now has an
> international court which can indict and convict
> American citizens.
Oh yeah! I hear the Black Helicopters coming! Join your neighborhood militia and move to a remote compound to defend your women-folk.
Write in Larry Flynt (Score:1)
This is why I'm tempted to, instead of vote for the lesser of 2 evils, I may just write in the only public figure that I have any respect for anymore: Larry Flynt.
He is 1) honest about where he's been and what he's done (and not a fucking hypocrite like just about every politician) 2) understands human nature better than most people are willing to admit and 3) would unite the democrats and republicans against him, making congress get something done for the first time in its history. I realize that his sounds like a joke, but believe me I am serious. I'm curious to see other peoples opinions on this.
Clinton/Gore are tech-hostile (Score:1)
- They propose the Clipper chip & key escrow to ensure that government can expand its ability to spy on its own citizens
- They vigorously oppose even moderately strong crypto products
- The Gore 2000 campaign (at least we think algore2000.com is legit) is willfully abusing the Open Source legal requirements [opensource.org]
My impression of Gore -- since his 1988 presidential campaign -- is that he desperately wants to be a candidate for the future. He thinks posing as a tech-literate will help him. Anybody else remember Gore posing with Crays during the '88 campaign?The US Republican party has its flaws, too. In particular, the GOP has been silent about consumer protection from database aggregators, etc. But the GOP has stronly supported giving citizens the strong crypto they need to ensure their privacy in our wired world, while the Dems have actively pursued measuers that would reduce citizen privacy, like the universal medical identification number.
Gore doesn't care about technology, tech workers, intellectual property, and definitely not individual rights and privacy.
Basis for Voting (Score:1)
-Steve
Drug "war" (Score:1)
If you get caught with a kilo of cocaine, you are sent to jail for life with no possibility of parole. This is mandatory drug sentencing.
If you murder somebody, however, you get out in about 15 years (on average).
How do I know this? Well, my brother works as a prison guard. I would like to thank your little party for keeping the streets safe and the mafia in power. I've also moved to Boston, and taken my 6 figure a year salary with me.
Quotes from Al, speaking on technology (Score:1)
From their own words, you can decide about the social and technological capacities of these two men. The last quote by Gore, where he talks about "extra people" in Africa, is totally a killer for me.
Al : "We have also fallen victim to a kind of technological hubris, which temps us to believe that our new powers may be unlimited. We dare to imagine that we will find technological solutions for every technologically induced problem. It is as if civilization stands in awe of its own technological prowess." [Beware the prowess of the geek, warns Al.]
Ted : "It is certain that technology is creating for human beings a new physical and social environment radically different from the spectrum of environments to which natural selection has adapted the human race." [The creativity, charity and agape of geeks being not a part of natural progress of mankind!]
Al : "Today, most of the world is looking the other way, pretending to notice industrial civilization's terrible onslaught against the natural world
Ted
Al : "Just as a drug addict needs increasing doses to produce the same effect, our global appetite for the earth's abundance grows each year. We transform the resources of the past into pollution of the future, telescoping time for self-indulgence in the present." [Damn, I always knew that pollution was caused by Geeks! Thanks for your insight, Al.]
Ted : "Technological progress marches in only one direction; it can never be reversed. Once a technological innovation has been introduced, people usually become dependent on it, so that they can never again do without it. Not only do people become dependent on a new item of technology, but even more, the system as a whole becomes dependent on it
Al : "No goal is more crucial to healing the global environment than stabilizing human population [growth]
Ted : "The industrial revolution and its consequences
In short, their message is, Fear technology and the prowess of geeks, at whose feet lie technological hubris and all causes of "extra population" and ecological waste. I have only this to add: If this man gains control over our right to build internet communities and our right to create new wealth for mankind through open source, we are all doomed in a big way.
Write in Larry Flynt (Score:1)
The lesser evil?!?!? (Score:1)
> Democrats == Control our money
> Republicans == Control our morals
Hmmm... Wasn't it Tipper Gore the VP's wife who formed the organization to censor "filthy" songs? Looks like the Dem's want to control our morals as well.
GOP not doing anything (Score:1)
If they so strongly support it, why do we still have this insane crypto export restrictions? The GOP is in control of both houses of Congress, so if they really cared about this, they would've done something about it by now.
The lesser evil?!?!? (Score:1)
Democrats = Big Government.
Republicans = Even Bigger Government.
As you probably know, the biggest fiscal deficit in United States history was run up under Republican President Ronald Reagan and his extremely big government policies ("Star Wars" defense system, drug war, Iran/Contra, etc.).
Clinton, despite some tendancy towards big government, has actually reduced the size of government from its high under Ronald Reagan.
Republicans are NOT for smaller government!! (Score:1)
Ronald Reagan's failed "Star Wars" defense system cost billions of dollars. His illegal Iran/Contra affair cost us quite a bit more. The war on drugs took billions more.
Overall, Reagan ran up the biggest deficit of any President in United States history, more than tripling the total federal deficit.
And you call that spending reduction?
standing military illegal? (Score:1)
Get your facts together (Score:1)
Either way, one might also consider whether the fall of the Soviet Union is even a good thing. Then, there was a big country with nuclear missles pointed at us. Now, there are lots of nuclear missles being sold off to random people we don't know anything about. Is having a nuclear missile in the hands of terrorists supposed to be better than having the USSR pointing it at us?
Al Gore Would Be a Nightmare Incarnate (Score:1)
As for the drug use, when asked whether he had used marijuana or cocaine when he was young, George W. Bush dodged the question, saying it was not relevant to his campaign. So he probably has.
GOP not doing anything (Score:1)
->If they so strongly support it, why do we still have this insane crypto export restrictions? The GOP is in control of both houses of Congress, so if they really cared about this, they would've done something about it by now.
Bouth houses of Congress also voted in favor of the ban on partial birth abortion. Clinton vetoed it. Clinton would veto any ease on the restriction of cryptography. Louis Freeh, has been the mose crypto-hostile FBI director in history, he just so happens to be buddy-buddy with the perjurer in chief.
LK
Basis for Voting (Score:1)
I would not vote for him on the sole basis that he's made all these idiotic claims about inventing the internet. Instead of coming back and saying "Sorry, what I meant to say was that I fostered the development of the internet while I was in congress" or something like that, he's never retracted it. In fact, he an Billy Boy never admit to doing anything wrong or making any mistakes. It really is a shame.
Maybe we could organize a "Geeks For Libertarians" campaign?
The war on drugs IS insane (Score:1)
i sure hope that you sweep the floors and empty the garbage at Motorola, but I think that I see here a classic case of denial. You can stop whenever you want to, right? It helps clear your mind, right? That is the only explanation for such a non-sensical comment. Using drugs DOES make you a loser, whether you use them for acceptance, low self-esteem, the inability to deal with reality, psychological problems or the inability to determine or care about right and wrong. It is wrong for a reason, and not because of the mafia. You benefit (if it's appropriate to use that word) from the majority of people that don't use drugs, who drive down the street not stoned, who show up for work everyday and produce, who raise kids who learn that drugs are bad, addictive and no solution for anything. So just keep the windows clean, the floors vacuumed and remember to lock the doors on your way home. What a looser. I mean luser. I mean losur. I mean LOSER.
What I see here is a classic case of someone spewing classic FUD because they know nothing of the issues. Try to educate yourself [normal.org] on a topic before calling someone a loser for understanding it better then you. Either that or post as an AC so there isn't a permanent record of your foolishness.
(The post I'm replying to flames a Motorola employee for admitting to smoking pot.)
This discussion may be off-topic, but Slashdot is still a good forum. It is a good forum because the war against marijuana consists almost entirely of FUD. Slashdot readers are some of the best FUD fighters out there. Here's an article that should disgust even the most conservative Slashdotters.
http://www.norml.org/news/index.shtml# story2 [norml.org]
Todd
---
Every 45 seconds, another arrest for using Linux. 695,000 last year. It's time for a change.
-- National Organization for the Replacement of Microsoft with Linux.
Every 45 seconds, another arrest for Linux. 695000 last year. It's time for a change.
Why Voting Against? (Score:1)
I'm happy to hear that he's aware of the open source community, at least he didn't stare in wide eyed wonder at a supermarket check-out scanner.
Republicans are NOT for smaller government!! (Score:1)
That second sentence is false. Jerry Brown ran in the Democratic Primary in 1992 on a flat-tax platform. Granted, he didn't win the primary, but he was a candidate.
No, not more union stuff.. (Score:1)
--
McCain/Bradley 2000! :) (Score:1)
The face time he gets during the Kosovo War is valuable (this is not to say that he has the White House in mind when he goes on Larry King), but it's too late for him to run. Gore (PMRC, Gore '88, "Mister Environment" books, "Mister Technology" speeches, VP and "co-president"), Bush (First Son, "ownership" of a baseball team as a platform for "family values", Governor's races as test runs for the White House), and Dole (numerous cabinet posts, Bob Dole's almost-co-president, and a high-profile Red Cross gig) have been preparing for 2000 since 1980-something; people like McCain and Bradley were too busy being statesmen -- their Rolodexes and coffers are now empty, and their name recognition is puny compared to the Big Three, which is remarkable considering one's a Hall of Fame athlete and the other's a legitimate War Hero.
--
Need a Humor Transplant, Aaron? (Score:1)
Which "radical leftist party" would this be? Being as radicals and leftists are completely excluded from the political entertainment discourse in the United States, this must be some party that is barely a bliplet on the national radar. Is it the Socialist Workers Party perhaps? The CPUSA? The Wobblies? Don't leave us hanging...
--
In defense of Bob Barr (Score:1)
They probably are, in fact; a truly honest politician would have a difficult time getting elected these days. A truly honest politician doesn't toe the party line on every issue, and doesn't maintain that he/she has always toed that party line when he/she in fact hasn't. A truly honest politician isn't afraid to admit that his/her "team" doesn't have a monopoly on right answers and truth.
For instance, here in Georgia it was brought out that Bob Barr who is pro-life et cetera et cetera had an affair and forced his ex-wife to have an abortion...well first off, it was a matter of public record that he used the 5th amendment when questioned on this in his divorce proceedings. Well, since he used the fifth and clammed up, and subsequently accused bill clinton of perjury (notice bastard clinton's name not in caps) - does that make him a hypocrite? Well accoording to most leftists I hear, yes it does. However...because one realizes past mistakes and changes his mind does make him a hypocrite and using a constitutional right is not the same as lying either.
It doesn't take a leftist to call Barr a hypocrite. He didn't actually plead the Fifth -- he invoked some clause in state law that would have left him with a vastly inferior divorce settlement (since it was a divorce proceeding IIRC, and he didn't want to go into any detail about his mistress). He stonewalled about his previous wives and mistresses; he stonewalled about the abortion; he stonewalled about his speech(es) to the CCC. He later did his lame mea culpas, once enough people (of all political and apolitical stripes, including Flynt's investigators) confronted him.
But he can't be all that bad; Geraldo seems to have taken a liking to him, plus he wasn't always the hardcore right-winger he paints himself out to be -- there may be hope that in the future he can just be an intelligent, open-minded legislator instead of a disingenuous grandstanding blowhard. I'll keep watching and crossing my fingers.
--
Is Perot really a geek? (Score:1)
--
No. (Score:1)
On the twin anniversaries of Three Mile Island and the Exxon Valdez you say this? Some things are beyond human control, but things like the cleanup often depend on human intervention. Speaking of which, you might recall President Hoover's hands-off policy after the crash -- it exacerbated the situation. He got voted out, the power of his incumbency was outweighed by the power of the inadequacy of his proto-Libertarian solutions. FDR at least stopped the bleeding; I wouldn't call him a rousing success, but he did a better job than his predecessor. Why is it we never bring Hoover into these arguments? FDR's first term didn't begin until 3 1/2 years after the crash; much damage had already been done.
I should also remind you that Milton Friedman, great man that he is, isn't God.
Go ahead and rant and rave. I, like Louse, am not a fan of the revisionism of fundamentalists. We'll see how the truly-invisible hand of history deals with your solutions and your truisms. And your excuses.
--
Change a noun here, and a noun there... (Score:1)
See you at the virtual barricades, maaaaaaan!
Rah rah rah!
I hope you read this tripe of yours in 20-30 years; I can hear your embarrassed semi-laugh right now, in my mind's ear. Groooooovy!
Maybe you should have prefaced it with: "I was drunk when I wrote this / forgive me if it goes astray..."
The "Slashdot political mind"? WTF? That "mind" seems even more selfish, childish, and uninformed than the electorate at large, and you wish to swell their egos further? Take your little revolution and go back to the sandbox. Technology progresses by leaps and bounds, but humans don't. Deal with it.
Rah rah rah! Hooray for our team!
--
Beer is freedom. (Score:1)
The worst excesses of capitalism come from its robber barons and leading lights -- modern-day examples include Bill Gates, Phil Knight, Michael Eisner, the late Sam Walton (RIP) and literally hundreds of others, large and small. They draw at least some of their power from the absence of government interference, not from government's help.
A Republican ex-General coined the phrase "military-industrial complex"; it came from Dwight Eisenhower in his presidential farewell speech. His cause has been championed for decades by a wide variety of people. This has nothing to do with the Libertarian Party -- did the Libertarian Party invent the internet too?
As for using troops against striking workers, Henry Ford did it in the 1930's, and various manufacturers do it today. It's often a public-private partnership, a collusion between the owners, their security people, and the local authorities. In Ford's case, he paid for his own people to do most, if not all, of the whoop-ass stuff. None of this has much to do with your "point"; the absence of government intervention enabled Ford to try this solution -- laws protecting and enabling labor came after heads were busted open by the rent-a-thugs.
Libertarians do not stand for government support and subsidy of industry. Libertarians do not stand for government being used as the tool of the rich against the working class.
The rich can do a far better job of raping the working class without government getting in the way. This is proven every day in the Third World, where limited government rules, al least WRT to businesses and corporations. By being hands-off with labor-related legislation, and by not holding domestic corporations accountable for their Third World escapades, Clinton and Congress are essentially endorsing a Libertarian way of doing things.
Libertarians stand for the government having one purpose and one purpose alone: the protection of individuals against violent force, threat of force, and fraud.
Fine.
There is nothing in Libertarianism that speaks against labor unions, cooperatives, worker-owned businesses, and other forms of empowerment of the working class. Libertarianism allows for whatever steps a person may take to improve his/her position in the market --- including unionizing or cooperating with others --- as long as those steps do not involve the use of force. The market competition which libertarianism supports permits cooperation within a competitive framework --- whereas the forced, pseudo-cooperative framework which socialism mandates does not permit competition.
Oh that magic shape-shifting word: socialism. Apparently our only choices are "liberty" or "socialism". Is this "socialism" as defined as: "anything I don't like"?
Socialism would end oppression by placing all power in the hands of the government, which is presently the largest source of oppression on the planet --- "whitewashing a wall by painting it black", to quote Hagbard Celine. Libertarianism, by directly undercutting this oppressive force, is in a sense more true to the intentions of socialism than socialism itself is.
Come on. Governments don't have a monopoly on oppressing people. You're just as bad as a Republican or Democrat who gives us the God-ordained Choice A and the evil Choice B, while ignoring a perfectly good alphabet. Get a clue, kid. Isms don't oppress; people do. The problems today don't result so much from an ism, they result from the people in power (be that power political, economic, or both), and even more from the people who elect them or give their tacit approval to them.
Can you tell me which ism is doing damage in Yugoslavia? Which ism is bloddying dissent in Honduras? Or in Burma? Which ism is responsible for life in Chiapas? Or life on Smoky Mountain? Which ism causes a kid to open fire on his classmates? Which ism tries to smuggle a truckload of people into New York, nearly killing and bankrupting them in the process?
I'm a conservative, and I believe in a government limited in size and scope. But I also believe in honesty and accountability; I believe in a democracy that really empowers the bosses -- namely you and me, the voters. I also believe that we, the bosses, should not be as willfully distant and clueless as we have collectively been for the last couple of decades. The real enemy is us, to paraphrase Walt Kelly.
Enough. All you're doing is adding noise to an already noise-corrupted discourse in a multi-corrupted body politic. Wake me when the Libertarian Party (or the Librarian Party or the Veterinarian Party) comes up with some real answers.
--
Here's some Marx for ya (Score:1)
Does a Democrat write stuff like this?
The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors", and has left no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment". It has drowned out the most heavenly ecstacies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom -- Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.
Are these the planks?
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
I don't see any connection here.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
In fact, while income tax is still mildly progressive, there are things like FICA and sales taxes on necessities that pretty much wipe out any progressivity that exists. I wouldn't mind a truly progressive income tax - even if my own ox is gored; the Democrats disagree with me.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Hmmm. I don't think you'll find that in the Dems' platforms.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
I have no idea what this refers to in a modern context. Rebels tend to be in prison anyway.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
And where is this One True National Bank? Considering how much money political parties get from banks (and Clinton has had a banker or two in his administration as well), no sane party would advocate this.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in he hands of the state.
Of course, this was written long before radio, TV, or Henry Ford. Do public broadcasting and public transport count? Not really, since they're far from a monopoly. I find both to be valuable, and they could use more funding, but that's not what Marx is talking about; what he talks about exists in the form of commercial broadcasting, which indoctrinates us all into the "American way of thinking" -- i.e. the religion of consumerism and consumption.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
The waste lands and soil part has been done, by both Democrats and Republicans. The other part has never been advocated.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Sounds a little like that "workfare" buzzword, eh?
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
Since both parties (Donkey/Elephant) pander to the moats of suburbia, while turning the inner city alternately into guinea pigs and sacrificial lambs (depending on whether it's Guinea Pig Season or Lamb Season), I think this is another non-issue.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
Public education -- A Communist Plot! Film at 11! An end to child labor? This is bad? Unfortunately, many of your possessions were made by the hands of kids, and with the blessing of American pols of all stripes. And, of course, both parties (Donkey and Elephant, that is) would like to combine education with the demands of corporations; I myself prefer that institutions of learning be about learning, but the Dems and GOP (and their sponsors) disagree.
So there you have it. It would be nice if those who would demonize Marx -- or call dissenters Marxist -- would actually take the time to read Marx. I started doing just that, as a right-wing adolescent in the 70's; now, thanx to the WWW, I can read him some more. BTW, it's marx.org [marx.org].
--
Libertarianism is neither socialism nor plutocracy (Score:1)
But bosses, in your scenario, would be perfectly within their rights to fire everyone who mentions the word "union". That's the sort of violence (neither physical nor explicit, but still very real, and not uncommon in some countries) in which a Libertarian government would be complicit. The owner of the workplace has all the rights, and those rights override those of the workforce. These are the "rights" that FDR "stole" from Henry Ford. I'm sure you can say that there may be scattered cases in which management will gladly work with labor, but I doubt labor would be willing to take a chance on a Libertarian solution if there is no right to collective bargaining and no right to collectively withhold one's labor. I find genuine labor-management dialogue to be of more overall benefit (to everyone, including the peanut gallery) than the monologues that generally exist; a Libertarian solution, via sins of omission, does more to foster monologue than dialogue.
And what is this but an enhancement of the already-ongoing privatization of oppression? Like the old line about a free press, this is liberty only for those who can afford it.
--
Three already exist (Score:1)
It actually takes us back further, to the Dickensian 19th Century. It makes the 1920's look like a rave.
It gives disportionate power to the wealthy. It's not a well thought out political belief.
But it's actually pretty mainstream, thanks to corporate-funded think tanks like the Cato Institute. They "invest" in our national dialogue by bankrolling Libertarian ideas and their purveyors, and they've been pretty successful -- the fact that they're only a "fringe party" is testament to their success, since politicians (Republicans mostly) have swiped their ideas. The fact that the Dems and GOP pretty much agree on purer (if not "pure") capitalism being "the only way to go" is a sign of at least a partial Libertarian victory. It's also a sign of cowardice, arrogance, and sell-out to corporate interests.
--
Old publicity isn't everything. (Score:1)
Maybe it shows the voters' hatred for Reagan/Bush/Quayle? Maybe his, uh, seductive qualities made up the difference? I don't know.
Bush had actually been in the "public eye" (perhaps better described as the "chattering-class eye" or the "talking-head eye") for 20 years by then. But Clinton had been maneuvering since adolescence: in one of his letters written while "dodging" the draft, he spoke of trying to retain his "political viability" or some such thing. He was a legitimate liberal until he tried to run for office in Arkansas in the mid-70's; with each failure and career setback he became more and more conservative -- these were the seeds of the DLC (the We're Not Liberal branch of the Dems), his main venue in the 80's/90's for positioning himself for a White House run. He also made a long, boring keynote speech at the 1988 Democratic Convention, and made a public pandering ass of himself on C-SPAN doing 1991 photo ops (at a time when he'd promised Arkansas voters, IIRC, that he wouldn't bolt and run for president).
So I wouldn't call him an unknown; McCain and Bradley are unknowns because they were pretty much doing their jobs in the Senate, rather than trying to get on C-SPAN or CNN. Bradley's book didn't get a third of the publicity that Gore's "environmentalist" book got, because it was a real book (by a former Rhodes Scholar), not some "Look At ME!" piece of fluff. McCain's hero status dates back to the 60's -- ancient history, like Bradley's hoop career. McCain's high-profile issues in the Senate were campaign-finance reform (I call him "John Quixote") and boxing reform (he's a fight fan and an ex-boxer); these are very unsexy issues, and he never got any reform legislation passed anyway.
--
Re: (Score:1)
GOP not doing anything (Score:1)
or con about the GOP, even though I don't
really like the Dems; I'm waiting to see
who gets nominated.
But please keep in mind the GOP has _very_
slim majorities in both houses, and isn't
very united, which makes things worse.
Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
The lesser evil? (Score:1)
If you would like to see what my comment is based on, check out the "35 reasons not to vote for Al Gore" link that someone else posted.
If you're just being sarcastic, sorry, I missed it.
The lesser evil? (Score:1)
Or do you mean the Green or Peace and Freedom or Amercian Communist or some other unlikely-to-get-elected fringe group?
Mabye we could use him (Score:1)
`information superhighway'-type statements..which one is it, Al Gore?
Are you for or against technology?
The lesser evil?!?!? (Score:1)
> Democrats = Big Government.
> Republicans = Even Bigger Government.
> As you probably know, the biggest fiscal deficit
> in United States history was run up under
> Republican President Ronald Reagan and his
> extremely big government policies ("Star Wars"
> defense system, drug war, Iran/Contra, etc.).
> Clinton, despite some tendancy towards big
> government, has actually reduced the size of
> government from its high under Ronald Reagan.
Actually, it's:
Democrats == Big Social Programs
Republicans == Big Military
The difference? One's explicitly in the Constitution (read the Preamble).
As for Al Gore, I can safely say that just about any Candidate the Republican Party puts forward will win over him, although I think that a Colin Powell/Jack Kemp ticket would be the best one.
Now if only the Christian Coalition will act more Christian-like this time around (I am a Christian, but can safely say that the Christian Coalition is not a truely Christian organization anymore, despite the name -- threatening to dig up every bad thing Colin Powell ever did because he happens to be pro-choice [I'm pro-life] in '96 doesn't sound very Christian to me).
Jim Cape
http://www.jcinteractive.com [jcinteractive.com]
Instant Y2K labour force? (Score:1)
(For those who don't get it, this is cynical black humour.)
Yutz? (Score:1)
Inquiring Minds Must Know.
"Drugs are bad and must be stopped" (Score:1)
Assuming for a moment that your "drugs are bad and must be stopped" argument is valid, and disregarding pesky issues such as civil liberties, the argument is still flawed. The War on Drugs is not a consistent anti-drug campaign; some drugs (such as alcohol and tobacco) are tolerated, or even subsidised; other drugs are banned. And the latter category lumps together widely different drugs such as cannabis, heroin, cocaine and PCP. The difference between the dangers of marijuana (somewhere on the level of alcohol and tobacco) and those of crack cocaine (evil stuff, that) are quite dramatic.
The War on Drugs is not based on scientific evidence of harm; it's based on superstition and paranoia, and the age-old principle that if you unite the people against a common enemy and sow the seeds of fear, many will be willing to sacrifice any amount of freedom and privacy to win some modicum of security. Additionally, the growing prison-labour industry has many cost benefits, as the People's Republic of China discovered before and the U.S. is discovering now.
Potential for Disaster (Score:1)
-GNU/Eric
The lesser evil? (Score:1)
The morality of taking donations in a Buddist church is up to the Buddists. According to the "35 reason's page, he called it a community outreach, which it probably was, in the broad sense of the term.
So what's the point, if it's not just a religious sneer?
The lesser evil? (Score:1)
Why? I assume taking contributions in a Chrisian church would be better? I don't understand contibution problems, but that summary just reaks of discrimintion.
Hell, no I don't want Jesse Ventura for Pres! (Score:1)
You would not feel that way if you live in Minnesota. We didn't elect a governor, we elected a political whore who's just out to make his own life better.
Case in point -- he recently went to Hollywood to try to get filmmakers to do shit in MN. Sounds good, right? Well, he also took his son with him, and his son just happens to be an aspiring filmmaker. Hmmm...
One of his first actions a governor was to propose eliminating a tax on personal watercraft (he just happens to own three himself). He said something like "I don't see why we should all have to pay extra so the cops can come around and bust us." (the tax was to pay for additional law enforcement to protect public safety, since people tend to be assholes on personal watercraft).
I'm a Republican...and I'm for small government... (Score:1)
No! (Score:1)
Most of this stuff is (Score:1)
Time to get past the concept of "The lesser evil" (Score:1)
Too often, people vote for a Republican to keep out a Democrat or vice versa, when in reality, they do not agree with either party's agenda. You get what you vote for.
I am a Libertarian, both in philosophy and in party affiliation. Most people on the Internet are libertarian (small 'l') in philosophy. "You leave me alone and I'll leave you alone" type of value system. Many would happily vote Libertarian if they knew the Libertarian agenda and they didn't feel their vote would be wasted.
The bad news is that your vote is being wasted in two ways. First, your vote AGAINST the opposition is telling the recipient of your vote that you support his agenda. If you do not, don't be surprised when business as usual is the result. Second, when electing a president, your vote is not even an issue. The Electoral College elects the president, not the people. Your vote CAN be of ENORMOUS value though. Vote for what you WANT in a president, rather than voting to keep someone out of office. That way you are clearly telling them that business as usual is unacceptable. Anything less is a true waste of a vote.
Xitron
Dems & Reps. (Score:1)
Seriously, in the South, the only difference between the Democrats and Republicans is in the number of Black members/voters. Philosophically there's no difference. Just another reason I have to continue living overseas.
The lesser evil?!?!? (Score:1)
Perot??????? How old *are* you??? (Score:1)
Rob should stop making this site (Score:1)
--
Of course no one else will come forward (Score:1)
Mabye we could use him (Score:1)
If he has a genuine interest in courting the technologists' vote, then perhaps we should "give him a clue," afterall.
The lesser evil?!?!? (Score:1)
Democrats == Control our money
Republicans == Control our morals
Forced to choose between the two, I'd go with Democrats anyday of the week, and twice on Sunday.
Forbes... (Score:1)
How has Algore been misrepresented? (Score:1)
Slander involves deliberate misrepresentations of the truth about someone. It is an attempt to make a person look bad by telling lies about them. Where exactly are the lies in a series of direct quotations from Algore's own book? Where exactly are the lies in the post's author putting his spin on those quotes?
I would truly be interested to see anyone attempt to legitimize Algore's appalling remarks about population control. "Quality of life" indeed!! As if he has a right to dictate it! As if he is in a position to declare whether we might have "extra" people! What arrogance!
Here's a tip for Algore: the technology you condemn now is responsible for our long lives now. It's responsible for the eradication of smallpox (note to Algore: smallpox virus is a living organism. Should we destroy what remains of it, or release it into the wild again? A *consistent* eco-whacko like yourself ought to oppose the extinction of a species, right? How about smallpox, Algore? And is it fair -- is it "just" -- is it "decent" -- to cage smallpox virus in test tubes? Shouldn't a *consistent* eco-whacko like yourself favor the return of smallpox to its natural environment -- humans? What about quality of life for smallpox, Al? After all, it's another species, just like us). Technology's responsible for the quality of life we now enjoy. Take it away -- yes, Algore, right back to sticks (but no fire -- that's technology, and besides it pollutes) and no weapons (technology) or plows for planting or...or...or... Take away technology, and we're back to life expectancies in the 20s or 30s. Sounds like fun to me!
war on drugs (Score:1)
Drugs are bad? Thats a wide generalization. Most all drugs have some ill effect on the user, yes. Republicans, it seems, have a fascination with supply-side economics. They try to apply it to out drug "problem", resulting in an artificial shortage of drugs on the street, meaning extremely high prices, meaning addicts turn to crime to pay for their habit, leading to more violent crime, leading to more police action, leading to higher drug prices, and so on. Int this way, the "war on drugs" is *increasing* our crime rate! The solution is *education*: squash the demand for drugs, and the suppliers will go out of business on their own. Of course, that assumes that the truth about drugs is bad enough to scare potential users away, which in some cases (like cannibis which has been scientifically studied for over 200 years) it isn't, but legalization is a subject for another thread...
Do you ewant to hear about "big brother"? Let's talk about the current property-forfeiture laws involving drug cases. Let's talk about the GOP's constant will to "get tough on crime" at the expense of American's civil liberties
Give the man a (little) break (Score:1)
Seems that most folks here seem to accept that Gore's "I invented the Internet" claim has absolutely no basis. I've no great love for the man, but IMHO he probably has as much claim to the Internet as any other politician.
First off, go look up the original quote; "I took the inititive in creating the Internet" is a bit different than saying "I invented the Internet." It's an overstatement, but not an outright falsehood: he had nothing whatever to do with the original ARPANET, but he did have a lot to do with aiding its extension beyond military contactors at a point when DARPA was reducing its funding and becoming increasingly strict as to how the ARPANET was used. He certainly wasn't the only legislator who supported NSFNET (the entity which became the Internet's backbone during its transitional phase), but his office had a major role in forming legislation for it.
Such explanations don't make for good sound-bites, though, and even some original ARPAnauts seem unaware of what transpired in the late '80s and early '90s, insulated as they were at places (like MIT) that were major defense contractors.
Personally, I suspect that a fair amount of Gore's original technophile reputation had to do with his Senate staffers, and that at the time the only "networks" he had an understanding of had initials like "CBS" or "NBC." But he acquired enough of a reputation that as VP he's automatically assigned as the point man for all technical issues that pass through the Clinton administration, from Clipper and V-chip to Y2K. So it makes a certain amount of sense to judge him on his technical savvy (and I think I'm with the majority here is thinking that he's demonstarted none of late). You may be certain that very little in technical policy originates with him; I'd suggest judging him on other grounds.
Al Gore campaign (Score:1)
Well, that drug dealer in jail has good points (Score:1)
Oh, no it was a joke. Didn't know he existed! (Score:1)
The lesser evil? (Score:1)
the Democratic nomination? I'd like to have a candidate that had a personality. I know the Republicans are not going to field anyone worth voting for and the other fringe groups will never be taken seriously in our bipartizen govenment. I'm not looking forward to Gore being my only option, but I'll support him if no one else comes along.
Republicans are NOT for smaller government!! (Score:1)
Spending is only ONE aspect of government. Another is the amount and kind of regulation. This having been said, the difference between Democrats and Republicans can be summed up very succinctly in the following manner:
Democrats: A desire to control what people do in America's boardrooms.
Republicans: A desire to control what people do in America's bedrooms.
While I'm not sure I agree with *everything* the Libertarian party stands for, it does offer a much better approach to government.
The lesser evil?!?!? (Score:1)
possible counteract them. Otherwise...it gets unpleasant."
Well, businesses wouldn't buy the government under a libertarian system...the government wouldn't offer much for businesses to buy unlike now.
People who are rich got there because they KNOW HOW TO INFLUENCE PEOPLE. The difference is that the government forces them upon you, while you can choose NOT to buy things you don't want. (like Windows).
1929 was CAUSED by the government. (Score:1)
in 1929, the Federal reserve forcefully CONTRACTED the money supply. This caused the stock market to crash.
Read my qualifier in that statement.... (Score:1)
One already exists..Libertarian :-) (Score:1)
b) you want privacy
c) you dont like the taxing system
d) you dont like the justice system (exept vs m$)
e) your ruling parties just don't cut it for ya.
f) freedom of speech (copyleft)."
And the Libertarians are on your side on each point
(Except they think that Microsoft should fall by it's own sword instead of the government pretending that IT had anything to do with the fall of Microsoft.)
Republicans are NOT for smaller government!! (Score:1)
Will republicans repeal the income tax?
Will republicans stop sending our troops where they don't belong?
They just want to get rid of LIBERAL programs..they don't want to get rid of their OWN programs.
Who are the liberaltarians (Score:1)
The war on drugs IS insane (Score:1)
Drug induced psychosis is RATHER rare...people generally don't go in "destroy" mode over drugs.
"It is plain to see that you have never been affected by drugs because the only people who advocate making drugs leag are addicts and people who have never seriously used drugs."
Wrong. I've had close friends use drugs at parties..and what I've seen has made me choose to never use drugs. But the legality of drugs won't affect its use, and I've also seen neighborhoods destroyed by the fighting between the gangs.
"It is very few drug users who have not stepped on other peoples rights."
VERY wrong. you cannot tell me that Marijuana makes people agressive, yet most arrests come from possession of marijuana. In the 40's and 50's..all these drugs were legal and USED. Wow...people really remember the drug rampages from back then, don't they?
No. (Score:1)
"Face it, economies are like ecologies: Sometimes they get out of whack, and there's a very painful readjustment."
And like ecologies, there's not a damn thing that the goverment can do execept stay out of the way and let it correct itself.
"So there's a tendency to try to soften the blow. Since we've found things to do which really do help, why not keep it up? "
1. They DON'T work (we have constant inflation, which we didn't have before the federal reserve).
2. Trying to "soften the blow" made the Great Depression last for 10 YEARS instead of a few months. And the current depression in Japan is dragging on for the same reasons.
Of course, since the depression was CAUSED by the government contracting the money supply, (which you never refuted, you just blew off as "couldn't e possible"), they probably felt that they eventually needed to do something to counter it.
oh great, more union stuff.. (Score:1)
Well, right now (in non-right to work states), I can be fired for NOT joining the damn union. If employees WANT to join a union and the management DOESN'T want a union, suddenly they'll be no employees working on production. That would kinda cause the management to make concessions.
"The owner of the workplace has all the rights"
You're damn right, if it's MY workspace. However, if I'm a business, I need people to work in my workspace, and therefore, I'll have to make terms that are ATTRACTIVE to most workers to gain workers.
"I'm sure you can say that there may be scattered cases in which management will gladly work with labor, but I doubt labor would be willing to take a chance on a Libertarian solution if there is no right to collective bargaining and no right to collectively withhold one's labor."
What makes you think that you DON'T have the right to withhold your labor? Simply STOP WORKING if you don't want to. But remember, your manager is a person too, and you're likely to get MUCH more constructive things done if you TALK TO HIM/HER then if you just act childish. If you want to "collectively" withhold labor, then get a bunch of people to agree to stop working at the same time...it COSTS businesses a LOT of money to find qualified workers, and would be in THEIR best interest to try to satisfy the group and end the strike instead of trying to re-hire everybody.
"I find genuine labor-management dialogue"
Why do you think you need a UNION to have a dialogue with your employer? Why work for somebody if you can't sit down with the boss and have a reasonable discussion?
"And what is this but an enhancement of the already-ongoing privatization of oppression?"
How the hell can a PRIVATE industry LEGALLY oppress you? If they take away your property or your life, then they are acting illegally. When the GOVERNMENT does it to you, they are acting perfectly legally and you have no recource.
Only governments can oppress.
The lesser evil?!?!? (Score:1)
Democrats == Control our money
Republicans == Control our morals"
How about
Libertarian == As long as it doesn't doesn't take someone else's life or property through coercion, you're allowed to do it.
Don't you yearn for your natural freedom?
Republicans are NOT for smaller government!! (Score:1)
Republicans just pretend to be libertarians during election day, and then go right back to flaming up the war on drugs, and all their idiotic social conservative movements.
1929 -- A banner year for small government! :) (Score:1)
the whole anti trust thing goes against the basic nature of a free market
True. The "basic nature of a free market" is for some areas of the market to coagulate into monopolies. What happens then is that prices rise, quality plummets, and society as a whole loses in a big way.
The gov't has no damn business in the business world and should get the hell out.
They tried that already. It brought us the Great Depression. Nowadays they're a bit more realistic about it. If you're not selling apples on a street corner, you can thank a lot of people for that (including, no doubt, yourself), but the SEC is not the least of them.
A pure free-market economy operates with just about as much concern for the common good (read "national interest") as a pure centralized economy. As Bill Buckley said, "As ideals approach reality, the cost becomes prohibitive". The free market is no less an ideal than Maoism. It's not as crazy as Maoism, but it's still an ideal. It assumes that reality as a far simpler thing than it ever actually is.
The government has a legitimate interest in trying to avoid monopolies and depressions, just as it has a legitimate interest in maintaining a military. I'm not so fond of the military, you're not so fond of anti-trust legislation, and other people aren't so fond of other things. Realistically, you have to weigh one thing against another and optimize. Imagine if Microsoft manages to kill off the rest of the domestic software industry. Next, imagine how long the US will remain competitive in the world market, against nations which can still produce quality software at a reasonable price. Nations whose networks don't crash. Nations whose navies can go cruising along day after day without being towed back into port because of a divide-by-zero error in a database program. I'm really not joking here.
There's also a lot to be said WRT the notion that a corporation is legally equivalent to a human being, and has rights and so forth. Not everybody sees a whole lot of sense in that.
-j
Give the guy a break, Rob. (Score:2)
Since the best voting strategy is usually "lesser of two evils," I'd wait and see who the GOP nominates before saying who you're voting for/against. Personally, the only Republican I can imagine voting for is John McCain, but he doesn't have a chance in hell of being nominated, assuming he even runs.
--
You all need to get out more (Score:2)
I still think the article was great, but to take this as Yet Another Gore-bashing Foray (or as yet another chance to fish for proselytes on behalf of the "clueful" "outsider" Libertarian Party) misses the point.
--
Libertarianism is freedom. (Score:2)
Libertarians do not stand for government support and subsidy of industry. Libertarians do not stand for government being used as the tool of the rich against the working class.
Libertarians stand for the government having one purpose and one purpose alone: the protection of individuals against violent force, threat of force, and fraud.
There is nothing in Libertarianism that speaks against labor unions, cooperatives, worker-owned businesses, and other forms of empowerment of the working class. Libertarianism allows for whatever steps a person may take to improve his/her position in the market --- including unionizing or cooperating with others --- as long as those steps do not involve the use of force. The market competition which libertarianism supports permits cooperation within a competitive framework --- whereas the forced, pseudo-cooperative framework which socialism mandates does not permit competition.
Socialism would end oppression by placing all power in the hands of the government, which is presently the largest source of oppression on the planet --- "whitewashing a wall by painting it black", to quote Hagbard Celine. Libertarianism, by directly undercutting this oppressive force, is in a sense more true to the intentions of socialism than socialism itself is.
Libertarianism is neither socialism nor plutocracy (Score:2)
> They stand for people with money buying what
> they damn well please with it.
How do you wish to restrict what people with money buy? Would you prefer that we (I say "we" because both of us, I assume, have money) not be allowed to buy tobacco? Or fur coats? The present regime in the U.S. thinks we should not be allowed to buy Cuban cigars or domestically-produced hemp products. Do you think these are reasonable restrictions on our property rights? I don't.
> I'm considering it, but I'm also considering
> their use of the Pinkertons and other private,
> "free-enterprise" thugs.
A libertarian government, concerned with protecting the people from force, threat of force, and fraud, would by no means have ignored such abuses. "Libertarian government" does not mean "no government"; it means a government whose sole concern is the protection of individual liberties from violation by (once again the refrain) force, threat of force, or fraud. If the bosses hire thugs to attack union leaders, then the thugs are guilty of assault and battery, and the bosses complicit.
> Don't get economic systems mixed up with
> political systems. That's something that really
> bugs me about the U.S.; people think
> "capitalism", "free market", "democracy", and
> "freedom" are all synonymns. They're not.
I never mentioned democracy.
Slaming is fun and all.. But... (Score:2)
If technology is your issue, and your going to vote based on that, I would suggest that you look at the Libritarian Party [lp.org], where your vote against someone will actually count as a vote for your platform. They have a strong stance on Internet Censorship, Cryptology, etc...
Personally, I won't vote for Gore for MANY reasons, I might vote LP, but I am going to wait and see who the choices end up being.
The lesser evil? (Score:2)
Or do you mean Libertarian or Socialist or Natural Law Party or some other unlikely-to-get-elected fringe group?
The lesser evil?!?!? (Score:2)
A republican who believes in evolution? Will wonders never cease?
</SARCASM>
Seriously, the unfortunate reality is that sensible republicans are surrounded by the theocrats; it's an unfortunate fact that the more fanatical one is, the more effort one is going to put into their campaigning and politicking, which is why a small extremist fringe holds alarming sway over one of the two major US political parties. Even though the religiots haven't yet succeeded in turning the Republican Party into a Pentecostal Hezbollah, the party line has to bend a lot to accommodate their prejudices and tyrannical ambitions. And that in itself is more cause to worry than bozotic buzzword dropping.
Why Voting Against? (Score:2)
The war on drugs IS insane (Score:2)
Read the book "Drug Crazy" by Mike Gray.
We've been trying prohibition for the last *100* years on one damn substance or another! IT DOESN'T WORK!!!
We don't need the government to make drug users look pathetic...most do on their own (except the lucky few that know exactly how to handle drug use). However, by making it illegal, you make drug trade VERY VERY VERY Profitable, where the drug people can buy off any one they want, and shoot and kill any competitors while destroying whole neighborhoods in the process.
in the 1920's, the people selling alcohol did so in the same way that people sell drugs in the 1990's.
And finally, people have the RIGHT to put WHATEVER THEY WANT into THEIR BODIES. They DON'T have the right to blame their behaviour on the drug afterwords, but it's MY cells, MY blood, MY body, and I'll do with it whatever I please. In my case, I choose not to do drugs (or alcohol) because I don't want to lose control of what I am doing. As long as I don't hurt anybody else physically or destroy property, HOW DARE they say otherwise?
The Slashdot Political Mind (Score:2)
See, Slashdotters? It can be done.
I saw Al Gore speak in DC a couple weeks ago and all I can say is, I hope they get rid of that horrid World Cup theme song as his campaign song.
Gore is a pretty smart guy and I think people will warm up to him once he gets out from Clinton's rapidly diminishing shadow. I disagree with him in quite a few areas, and he is basically too cautious for me in areas I do agree with, but as an actual possibility to be the next president, we could do far worse.
Question to those who despise Al Gore: are you registered to vote? And if so, did you vote in the last election? I do voter files for a living and I can predict that many of you are not registered, and of those who are registered, if you are under 40 years old you probably didn't vote.
If you want someone better than Al Gore to be in office, then you have to participate.
-------
Well, that drug dealer in jail has good points (Score:2)
The lesser evil? (Score:2)
MIT's hack tradition (Score:2)
Here are some other funny hacks on campus:
Micr o$oft posters [mit.edu]
Anomalous banners appeared upon Gates' visit [mit.edu]
Everyone's heard of the CP car on the Great Dome [mit.edu]. Don't ask how it got up there...you really don't want to know.
Hackers greet the new Institute president [mit.edu]
Boston Pops VU meter [mit.edu] during Esplanade concert
my personal favorite [mit.edu]
We may be nerds, but dammit, we're FUNNY nerds. Browse around hacks.mit.edu [mit.edu] for more.
Speaking of Bill Bradley ... (Score:2)
Bradley is an impressive character, and he had a surprisingly large turnout among volunteers (perhaps 3-1 in numbers over Gore). If you're interested seeing how the man walks and talks in a relatively informal setting, check the C-Span schedule [cspan.org] over the next few days; they had a crew there taping the event. Worth checking out if you won't vote Republican but don't find Gore an attractive candidate.
(Apropos of nothing, having checked the C-Span schedule just now, I find that no less a grey eminence than Jon Katz will be appearing on C-Span tomorrow morning (Sunday, April 10, 1999, at 8:27 a.m., repeating at 12:47 a.m. ET) [c-spanarchives.org] as part of a panel discussion on writing biography. Love him or hate him, it's certain to be better than Sam & Cokie.)
Basis for Voting (Score:2)
My problem with Gore is that he appears to think that he has personal understanding of technology. He has delusions of competence. That's much, much worse than being merely ignorant. One who is ignorant usually knows enough to ask an expert. The poser experts are the dangerous types.
I'd rather get medical treatment from someone with no medical training than from someone who thinks he's a doctor. The one with no medical training will likely do nothing, or find someone with medical training. the poser doctor may well break out the scalpel and stare, amazed, at my incredible array of innards. For much the same reason, I'd rather have a president who didn't understand tech than one who thinks he does.
The lesser evil? (Score:2)
It is directly because of voters like you that the "fringe parties" you mentioned are unlikely to get elected.
To stay on topic however, Al Gore seems to jump on any bandwagon that rolls past. The technology bandwagon wasn't the first and it won't be the last. Much like Clinton when push comes to shove he will back down and weasle his way out of whatever promises he makes. I think the Democrats only chance is to put canidate up who will stand behind the issues and fight for what he believes in. You say the Republican party is reactionary, wouldn't Al Gore jumping on the technology bandwagon and using buzzwords when he has no idea what they mean be a little reactionary. Maybe not in the same sense you use it in, but reactionary none the less.
I choose not to reveal my party affiliation but, suffice it to say Gore does not have my vote, if for no other reason than by being un-informed he only proves his ignorance. There are canidates within the Democratic party who would stand a much better chance than Gore, but the status quo says that we must nominate the Vice-President no matter how ignorant he is. I say down with the status quo of both parties and down with ignorant voters.
_______________________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
DON'T miss the Slashdot political boat! (Score:3)
And for good reason. Anyone born after about 1962 or so cannot remember the government bringing together SQUAT. Previous generations have had common threads: the government getting people to work, getting armies together to fight evil, and in its last great collective breath, sending a man to the moon. Generations since then have seen government generating more problems than it has solved. 91% of people born after 1962 feel there won't be any social security money for them. (And they're right; amazingly, the fund is now due to call it quits just as generation X hits 65. Coincidence?)
Slashdotters reaction to all of this is to turn away from government to solve its problems. And it *has* been solving problems -- in spades. We've started by popularizing a concept so revolutionary that it could do away with any collective control of production in an entire industry. Howzat! We've shrugged off the government-for-life model, are busy shrugging off the company-man-for-life model and are establish a NEW model that works better than those dinosaurs.
You're right, Al Gore may well be the best candidate available in the next presidential election. Why doesn't that scare the shit out of you? Point made: if we seek true leadership, we must find it outside of the usual channels. Every one of us has more principles, more leadership ability, more guts and moxie than any politician in the old system. Nobody here is waiting for the USDA stamp of approval on software we write; we've found a new guarantee of quality better than any envisioned before.
And if you haven't "ruled out" Al Gore and every last one of those blood-sucking, egomanical Washington leeches, you may also be stuck trying to make the old models work. So I have one last word for you: if you aren't going to participate in this new model, at least help by getting Gore and his cronies on both sides of the aisle to stay out of the fucking way as much as possible... before they, too, are hit by the cluetrain.
The lesser evil? (Score:3)
Need a Humor Transplant (Score:3)
Al Gore Would Be a Nightmare Incarnate (Score:3)
35 Reasons Not to Vote for Al Gore [anxietycenter.com].
How to Tell the Difference Between Al Gore and the Unabomber [anxietycenter.com]
Apocalypse Gore [junkscience.com]
Not only is Al Gore a pathological liar like his buddy Clinton, he's also full of very whacky and very scary ideas.
The Slashdot Political Mind (Score:3)
The issue at hand is not as transient as Al Gore or the election in the year 2000. It's how this community views itself politically. How does it look at politics? Five years from now, will young politicians in training be joking about computer freaks? I can hear the jokes beginning: "Did I tell you the one about the computer nerd who tried to take his computer into the voting booth?"
And there will be grounds for the jokes. Not because the computer users will be recluses who didn't get a date for the prom, but because they (we) will be sitting on the biggest gold mine of raw power and they (we) will have no idea how to use it or how to control it. This community has only begun to comprehend that this young medium has the opportunity to take control of the staple of politics: images. Who will set the standards for communications over the Internet, Internet2, and its successor? Who will produce the technology and the content? Technology and content do go hand-in hand. (Note the controversy over MP3.)
Does Al Gore realize? He at least acknowledges as much. Does George W. Bush realize this? Who knows? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe he's scheming. I'm not George W. Bush, and I don't know enough about him to judge. (Of course, many of the members of the slashdot community are themselves too ignorant to judge Al Gore, but, hey, he's been VP for seven years. Since we're all naturally good and take not note of what our government has been up to for the past few years [or months? days?], we have the inherent right to judge him for one boast if we damn well please.) I know,though, I certainly am not going to rule out Al Gore until I look around hte political landscape a bit more.
It seems right now that there's reaction to some foreign entity. The electronic world is sending its white blood cells out to kill the political bacteria. I'm just disappointed that we've jumped the gun on him.
Al Gore Would Be a Nightmare Incarnate (Score:3)
> 1. Gore thinks "human civilization is now the
> dominant cause of change in the global
> environment." Nevermind the sun, the oceans,
> volcanoes, and other natural phenomena that
> actually do control the environment.
So I guess Los Angeles has a brown sky because of the volcanoes in the area? That's a good one.
How about
18. Gore has claimed during a 1999 interview with
> CNN's Wolf Blitzer that "During my
> service in the United States Congress, I took
> the initiative in creating the Internet." The
> preliminary discussions for the creation of the
> Internet took place in 1967 and, in 1969,
> the Defense Department commissioned the creation > of the "Arpanet." Gore was 2l years
> old at the time and it would be eight more years
> before he was elected to the US House of
> Representatives.
If this is a reason _not_ to vote for someone, then I guess you should completely eliminate Mr. Potatoe Head.
> 21. Despite the viewing public's disenchantment
> with the television show, "Ellen", starring
> Ellen DeGeneris, an outspoken advocate of the
> lesbian lifestyle, Gore lauded the star for
> "forcing" millions of Americans to "look at
> sexual orientation in a more open light." They
> stopped looking and the show was cancelled.
Sorry, people, you can't vote for anyone who liked a show that was cancelled. Nope, off the ticket. Nevermind that this comment is probably based off of the author's homophobia, and he thinks that people didn't like the show because she was a lesbian.
> 23. Gore is on record declaring William
> Jefferson Clinton as one of the greatest
> Presidents of modern times.
What _else_ is the freaking VICE PRESIDENT supposed to say? "Clinton sucks ass"????
> 32. Both Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, have
> admitted to being "recreational" marijuana
> smokers when he attended Harvard. The
> Clinton-Gore Administration is notorious for
> having failed to stem the flow of drugs into the
> country.
And George W. Bush probably took cocaine. What's your point? You think it's _easy_ to stop drug trafficking?
I could pick apart every single one of these, but I think I've made my point.
Owen Williams
Basis for Voting (Score:3)