Howard Dean to Guest Blog for Lawrence Lessig 1246
Ethanol writes "Starting Monday, Professor Lawrence Lessig (whom we all remember from Eldred v. Ashcroft) is going on vacation, and his weblog will be guest-hosted by Democratic presidential candidate Governor Howard Dean. Could this be a sign that a serious contender for President (tied for first for the nomination in the latest polls) has his head screwed on right about copyright law?"
Well he has my vote (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Well he has my vote (Score:5, Interesting)
I may not think Bush is the best option, but the better of two evils Dean is not. Basically Dean has repackaged himself to appeal to the far left which, because of the centrist nature of modern politics, has been disenfranchised by the dem party.
You could say hes trying to pull a reverse bush; solidifying his base with the democratic hearland and then moving out to centrists on specific issues... he'll probably make the push sometime six months or so before the election.
HOWEVER, there's a fundamental problem with that plan; the left isn't nearly as cohesive or well organized as the right, and he's depending on a skittish bunch.
He'll lose, but he'll guarantee no other democrats win either.
-rt
Re:Well he has my vote (Score:5, Insightful)
At least the main things involving slipping with Clinton were women's panties. With our Chimp In Chief they involve things like wool and eyes. It's amazing how "outraged" some people managed to get over Bill's sex life, yet here the reasons for the Iraq war are being systematically deconstructed, and no-one seems to give a damn. Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
Re:Well he has my vote (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The White House didn't pay the paper boy? (Score:4, Funny)
They haven't found Saddam Hussein yet either, but no one says he didn't exist.
Re:The White House didn't pay the paper boy? (Score:4, Informative)
Except...we have seen Saddam before. Actually the man (Donald Rumsfeld) who you qoute (without giving proper credit) has met Saddam in person. So we know he exists. The problem is that weapons inspectors did not see any WMD in person. In fact when we went to war all we had for evidence were satelite photos of weapons labs that later turned out to be stations for blowing up hot air balloons. Ties between Bin Laden and Hussein have been unfounded. Documents about Iraq attempting to obtain uranium from Africa have been proven to be falisified.
Re:The White House didn't pay the paper boy? (Score:3, Insightful)
My point is, the fact that we haven't found anything yet, and that the weapons inspectors found nothing, doesn't mean anything. Obviously these things were so well hidden that we should not expect to be finding them.
Case in point -- A couple weeks ago, an Iraqi scientist turned over a bunch of nuke parts and documents to the US army. These were all left over from Iraq's nuclear weapons program. He said Saddam had ordered him to keep the
Re:The White House didn't pay the paper boy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The White House didn't pay the paper boy? (Score:4, Insightful)
This solid evidence has now disappeared in a puff of pixie dust and Donald Rumsfeld is saying, "We may never find WMD's" now.
I was always under the impression that going to war was a solution only to be used under the most compelling and immediate of causes.
Check the history. (Score:5, Insightful)
We didn't care about him killing his people when we were the ones selling him weapons. But now you think that it matters?
And where do you get off claiming that Bush is demonized more than Saddam? No one is saying Saddam is better than Bush (well, no one outside of Iraq).
The problem is that the CIA had already CHECKED the "information" MONTHS before Bush used it. The CIA even told the British that the info wasn't good. But Bush needed something scary to push this war so he used information that was known to be bogus.
As for this being another "Vietname" or "quagmire", check the body count since Bush claimed the war was "over".
No, we did not have any "moral, legal and political justification for removing Saddam Hussein".
We couldn't even get the UN to vote to support our invasion.
As for those Iraqis being "free" now, wait until the first "elections" are held. Wait until they elect a radical Islamic priest.
You'll never forget the image of those Iraqis and Saddam's statue. That's because our government doesn't want you to forget it. It was shot with a narrow lens so you couldn't see the US tanks and troops surrounding that "crowd" of Iraqis. It was all a publicity stunt.
And you fell for it.
http://www.counterpunch.org/statue.html
And you're the one talking about closed eyes?
Re:Check the history. (Score:4, Insightful)
Incorrect. People who don't know the situation say this because thats all they know, but this is what happened: The Americans gave satellite inteligence to Iraqi, to support their war against Iran. Iran, which at the time was arguably a worst regime than Iraq was supported and funded by the Soviet Union.. In essence it was a Cold War by proxy. After the Gulf War, Sanctions were imposed on Iraq; out of the West it was France and Russia that continued trading with them, and had the most to lose from a war. Russia in particular had numerous billions worth of Oil contracts with Iraq. May i remind you, these were set up in the ninties, opposed to the US's, with where in the early 80's.
>>We didn't care about him killing his people when >>we were the ones selling him weapons. But now >>you think that it matters?
Simply because mistakes of the past had taken place, does not mean that we may not correct them TODAY. At the time, support (albeit limited) was to fight a greater enemy -Communism. Many people forget today forget the Cold War, but we won it, and although hard choices had to be made, we're better for it.
>>And where do you get off claiming that Bush is >>demonized more than Saddam? No one is saying >>Saddam is better than Bush (well, no one outside >>of Iraq).
Don't care
>>The problem is that the CIA had already CHECKED >>the "information" MONTHS before Bush used it. >>The CIA even told the British that the info >>wasn't good. But Bush needed something scary to >>push this war so he used information that was >>known to be bogus.
Lets be honest here, the chances of find WMD in Iraq were always slim. Especially considering Saddam had about 8 months of time to get rid of them, while the US and Britain were arguing endlessly in the UN. What is clear though is that he did in the past possess them, use them on a civialian population, and was actively seeking more. Whats more, the recent advances in the Israel/Palastine peace process would not have taken place in the presence of the Old Iraq.
>>As for this being another "Vietname" or >>"quagmire", check the body count since Bush >>claimed the war was "over".
Though the recent body count has been disturbing, I would hardly by any stretch of the imagination call it a quagmire.
>>No, we did not have any "moral, legal and >>political justification for removing Saddam >>Hussein".
Actually we did... The allied victory in the first Gulf war stipulated a number of conditions for cease fire. These were, among many, that Saddam destroy his WMD program and accept and comply with its obligations to the UN. As of 1991 these had been broken, along with 11 mandatory resolutions -none of these had been met. Action was not only legal, but necessary if the UN's command was to mean anything.
>>We couldn't even get the UN to vote to support >>our invasion.
The lack of a UN vote was not in part to the opposed countries "care" for their fellow man -France the week earlier had hosted Mugabe of Zimbabwe, in contravention of an EU travel ban- but because of there own interests. The two vocal dissentors, France and Russia, had significant multi billion dollar Oil contracts with Iraq, both of which they would have lost without Saddam in power.
>>As for those Iraqis being "free" now, wait until >>the first "elections" are held. Wait until they >>elect a radical Islamic priest.
Elections = free democracy
Islam theocracy = not free democracy
Go figure
>>You'll never forget the image of those Iraqis >>and Saddam's statue. That's because our >>government doesn't want you to forget it. It was >>shot with a narrow lens so you couldn't see the >>US tanks and troops surrounding that "crowd" of >>Iraqis.
I checked the history, and it says otherwise. (Score:3, Insightful)
Note that the nations who most supported him are the very ones that opposed the war.
More in the same vein [angelfire.com]
Re:Well he has my vote (Score:5, Insightful)
That's called creating a straw man. It's a fallacy of logic, to summarize it is taking someones words, then giving them new meaning. Usually followed by an attack on the new meaning.
rant rant rant rant
That's just my summary of you beating the hell out of the strawman.
Now you are attacking the person, and not their argument. Another fallacy of logic. Ontop of it, after your strawman, and a part of your personal attack, you complain about anyone with opposing views being illogical.
rant rant rant rant
Summary of the rest of your words.
Can someone mod the troll down?
Re:Well he has my vote (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not sure about you, but I don't like it when the reason we do something keeps changing depending on political winds. I didnt like it when Clinton changed stories, why should I like it when Bush does?
This is not about Bush vs. Hussein! What sane person said Hussein is a great leader? There are plenty of petty tyrants and mass murderers out there, but we see fit to ignore or even aid them, depending on national security.
We just dont like liars, or at the very least, people who change their stories. I would be 110% behind this if Bush said from the beginning "While there is no link between Hussein and 9/11 we need to do this, because people are dying and we have the moral obligation to protect people from mass executions". Did Bush say that? no, he said "Hussein poses an IMMINENT threat to the US" he was the one who brought the sense of urgency of attacking, saying the UN inspectors were either too slow or not doing their jobs. Is it any wonder some people criticize the administration for not finding the WMD when they disparaged the UN inspectors so much for not doing so themselves? I find it funny that NOW the administration is saying "finding evidence for WMD programs WILL TAKE TIME". Isnt that what Hans Blix was saying all the time? But we had to push him aside and attack anyway?
How can you say for sure the world is a safer place for Americans? There was no link between Hussein and: 1) Al Qaida 2) Nuclear materials
3) (for now) WMD. So how is the US safer?
Pardon my cynicism, but I find it hard to believe that republicans (or rabid pro-Bush supporters), who think nothing of dismantling social welfare programs (I'm not saying this is good or bad) are all of a sudden so concerned about the welfare of another country's people. Heck most conservatives would support legislation to BLOCK these same Iraqis from immigrating to the US, so I find it laughable that they show so much concern for their well-being.
Re:Well he has my vote (Score:5, Insightful)
Blather, blather. I didn't hear "your ilk" complain about that before the glimmer of war sparked in Dubbya's eye, the opportunity to showcase our fine military machinery, the greatest army on earth, yada, yada. I saw no holy indignation when 800,000 Rwandans killed each other, no urge to send in 200,000 troops to stop the savage butchery. Nor did I hear you complain about the goings on in the Congo, or in Liberia. Sure, let's set up some committes and feasibility studies about whether we SHOULD send some troops in. Where are Rummies snap "three minute decision[s]--and the first two just to get coffee" now? And how much did the indignation lead to military intervention when my country was exterminating Jews by the millions? Remember what it took for the US to mobilize its military? Yeah, having its interests threatened directly.
If you want to do good--and Lord knows Saddam was one draconian bastard worthy getting rid of--do so blindely, impartially, and consistently. When the very people you're trying to help ask you to please stop helping quite so much, maybe it's time to re-evaluate your strategy.
> You and your ilk have offered nothing but criticism. No solutions.
Au contraire, my ilk and I have proffered our view of the Right Way for a long time, and it involved treating the root of the problem, not its symptoms. There are very simple and tractable causes for why the Arab world hates the West, but in particular the US. Remove those, and you're well on your way to mend things. But that would involve putting the Big Stick down and talking, something people with Big Sticks are loath to do. We're asking Isreal to refrain from retaliaton after suicide attacks in order to facilitate dialog and not endanger the peace process, yet how willing were we to do the same after the towers came down? Maybe a moment of introspection, of oh-my-God-how-come-they're-hating-us-so-much, instead of reaching for the guns and assuming with a mere shrug that they were simply jealous of "our way of life."
> United States had moral, legal, and political justification
Morality is a funny thing--it only means something when the majority agrees on its definiton. Otherwise I could define it as me coming over to your house and taking your car. The US forfeited its moral authority through inaction in many other similar cases.
> I'll never forget the images of those Iraqis beating that Saddam
> statue with the shoes off of their feet
Hmm, they seem to have forgotten them, because they're quite keen for us to go back home. Which brings up another interesting thing--the indignation amongst those American Righteous in favor of "the war" at the Iraqi's thanklessness for their own liberation. That begs the question, what exactly was the motivation behind this "liberation"--to earn thanks and admiration, or to merely help in an altruistic fashion?
Re:Well he has my vote (Score:3, Insightful)
This country, for decades, fed the power structure that kept Hussein right w
Re:Well he has my vote (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah. Wouldn't it have been so cool if the administration had actually - oh, I don't know - used them to justify going to war? But no. We didn't go in because Iraq had violated the UN resolution. We didn't go in to "liberate" the Iraqi people. We went in because Saddam had a dangerous stockpile of weapons of mass destruction and had recently purchased nuclear material to build a nuclear capability.
Whoops. No weapons of mass destruction. Oh, and it turns out he didn't purchase nuclear material. Our bad.
But, you claim, we helped the Iraqi people! Yeah, but when are we going to help people in Cuba, North Korea, China, Africa, Palistine...
There's plenty of evil in this world, and we can't be the policemen to the world. Did we help improve the situation in Iraq? Probably. (There's still plenty of time for us to mess things up. I hope we've learned past lessons and will remain there long enough to allow Iraq to become a stable representative government.)
Unfortunately, in reality, the ends do not justify the means. Likewise, a poor means does not injustify a good outcome. It is possible to believe that Iraq is better off without Saddam while also believing that the actions taken to remove him were poorly chosen. One does not contradict the other.
Re:Well he has my vote (Score:5, Insightful)
You would have a point if the Iraq war had been justified in terms of "We need to remove Saddam because he's mean to his people." It wasn't. The entire war was predicated on the supposed threat that Iraq posed to the United States, and its status as a "terrorist state" with massive stockpiles of "ultimate weapons" (President Bush's words.) Tony Blair even told the British parliament that Iraq had the capability to launch an attack on the UK in as little as 45 minutes. It's been months now since the fall of Baghdad, and the only thing we have to show for this war is a piece of a nuclear centrifuge that some guy buried in his backyard before the first Gulf War. That may justify the war in your eyes, but the families of the hundreds of American servicemen (and women) killed in this conflict might have some different thoughts.
I'm glad that Hussein is gone. Dead or alive, let's hope he rots in peace. But all of this "Well, Iraq wasn't much of a threat to us, but look at the mass graves! Look at the torture devices!" is Monday morning quarterbacking. It's great that the Pentagon has media-savvy people that are able to invent scary-sounding nicknames (i.e., "Mrs. Anthrax") for the people that it kills or captures, but at the end of the day I would have had a lot more respect for the administration if they had just been honest about things. Hussein was a brutal dictator, but the world is full of brutal dictators, and the last time I checked, the United States wasn't drawing up plans to invade Burma or Zimbabwe.
You sound partisan, bitter, and illogical.
Whereas you are obviously objective, clear-headed, and perfectly logical.
Everybody is sensible, so long as they say things that you agree with.
You have built your platform on the hopes that the United States will fail in its endeavours. That is disgusting.
I can't speak for the original poster, but do you want to know what's really disgusting? I have six friends who are in harm's way in Iraq right now. What's disgusting is people like you who implicitly suggest that I want to see harm come to them to prove a political point. I have no desire to see the United States will "fail" in any of its endeavours. That doesn't change the fact that there are endeavours that I would have preferred us to avoid in the first place. See, if it were up to me, these guys would be sitting in my living room and drinking beer with me instead of being stationed in a country populated by people that hate them even more than they hated the dictator that they just got rid of.
The world is a safer place for both Americans and Iraqis today than it was a few months ago, and it cost fewer lives than anyone estimated.
You've got to be kidding me. At my workplace, some co-workers and I were scheduled to attend a May conference in South America, and the trip was cancelled out of war-related concerns for our safety. It has never been more dangerous to be an American traveling abroad, and the Iraq war only made this worse. The primary contributing factor in the 9/11 attacks was fundamentalist Muslim hatred of the United States, and if you have evidence that the Iraq war helped to mitigate this, then I confess that I would be curious to see it. I want to be clear about this: I do not subscribe to the theory that the United States deserved the 9/11 attacks because of our foreign policy; it was a heinous and cowardly attack that no nation on this planet deserves. But our foreign policy in the past year or so has done much to fan the flames of the same hatred. And for who? For what? Saddam Hussein? This is a third-rate dictat
Re:Well he has my vote (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not trying to troll here, but it would be very ironic considering the US has rejected identifying the permanent tribunal [iht.com].
The tribunal can charge Americans all they like, but the US will not identify any charges, findings, convictions, or sentencing of the tribunal that they do not wish to identify.
To put it bluntly, if some leading member(s) of GWB's administration were charged by the ICC (International Criminal Court), said member(s) of the administration would tell the ICC to bugger off. Charges by the ICC? Possible but unlikely. Anyone from the GWB administration answering to the ICC, cold day in the seventh ring.
Re:Well he has my vote (Score:5, Insightful)
mr. bush, to a decent enough extent, has rose to the occasion.
for that i thank him, and regret nothing
I hope you know that Iraq had absolutley nothing to do with 9/11. So either you're just some dolt who wants to see someone else suffer because it makes you feel better or you're a racist. I hope you know that 7000 innocent Iraqi's died in the war. Now there is probably some equivalent Iraqi dolt over there just like you, hoping for more destruction and will in turn kill Americans. Now bacause of people like you, the violence will never end.
Re:Well he has my vote (Score:4, Insightful)
1) It could well be about the oil *if* the administration doesn't care about the financial solvency of the government, or considers it secondary to the financial wellbeing of the corporations that directly and indirectly are responsible for the administration's current power. Given the fact that the president has authorized contracts with a value of well over $7 billion to Halliburton, for example, without consideration of some rather inviting competing bids is something that indicates that this may be the case. If one considers the economic policy of this administration as a whole, including what should have been a scandalous "stimulus" package to Enron execs and tax initiatives that should speak for themselves, one begins to see a sense of financial priorities that does not have the United States and its citizens at the top of the list.
2) I think what the poster intended to say- or *should* have intended to say, had he or she been thinking more clearly- is that the sex life of any person should remain private and free from scrutiny unless it brings harm to parties involved. Clinton's indiscretions do not meet that test (as repugnant as I find his behavior).
One more thing: The cost of investigating Clinton's sexual activities and the entrapment that ensued was $40 million with some Congresspeople complaining that Starr was underfunded. Those exact same Congresspeople have attempted to eviscerate an investigation into the causes of the most heinous attack on American soil since the Civil War (Pearl Harbor was nothing to 9/11, in my opinion- may be the New Yorker in me talking). Clinton: $40 million. 9/11: $5 million, and it was a truly epic battle to get even that much. The same people were involved in supporting the Clinton investigation and denying support to the 9/11 investigation- and Bush and the members of his administration supported both.
That's hypocrisy.
Re:WE WON THE WAR (Score:5, Insightful)
I think many liberals in the US are simply not convinced that the war has been won. A battle, yes. Saddam is indeed out of power. But the war?
Is America better-regarded on the Arab street for having toppled the regime? (I have a feeling many Americans would be surprised by the answer.)
Is Iraq better off today than when Saddam was in power? Today, mind you, without electricity, water, fuel or a police force that can guarantee the safety of daughters and sisters?
Is America's military better off today, being stuck in a very sticky situation as they seem to be, while every day the Arab media cries "occupier" in shrill tones across the middle east, further cementing the viewpoint that sees America and Israel as conjoined twins?
Assuming that Bush was right about everything so far -- that Iraq had so-called weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam and his sons are dead, that the WMDs have gone to Syria or Iran and that Al Qaeda was linked to the Iraqi government (and I have my doubts about all of this), is America's population safer today now that none have been found? (Bush-ian conclusions: Hmmm, no weapons found yet... obviously they are in Syria and Iran... but Saddam and his sons are dead... so who is holding these WMDs in Syria or Iran? Well, Iraq was linked to Al Qaeda...)
It's obvious that the US has a lot of military might and has beaten up the Iraqi government and infrastructure. But does this really translate into a justifiable claim of "we won the war" on the part of Americans?
Which war?
The much-touted war on terrorism? Certainly not.
The PR war against international hatred of America? Not bloody likely.
The war against Iraq? Oh that's right, America was there to "liberate" Iraq (well, once the WMDs disappeared), not to wage war on it.
I suppose America won the war against Saddam Hussein and a few of his spoiled sons. Congratulations.
No one says hes far left but the far right news (Score:3, Interesting)
If you look at Fox News, or any of the other conservative news stations, they will say hes far left because they'd rather you vote for him than for Kerry or Gephart, the real far left.
Dean is actually a moderate, but thats what I want because I'm an independent, not a liberal.
Re:Well he has my vote (Score:3, Insightful)
> He is on track for dismantling Social Security and Medicare.
We can only hope. I'm convined that Social Security is the biggest scam in the history of mankind.
Think about it. What other scam has screwed hundreds of millions of people out of 15% of their life's income only to give them a piddly amount back if/when the retire?
If people would invest that in anything decent over the course of their lives, they'd be quite rich o
Social Security (Score:4, Interesting)
Social Security is above all a "saftey net" so that children without both parents and those who are no longer productive (elderly) can be housed, clothed, and fed. It is really _not_ a retirement plan. It is a mechanism to prevent widespread poverty.
Social Security is a generational transfer, that is, you pay for the generation of your parents and grandparents (and disadvantaged children) for the society they have built. It has *nothing* to do with retirement, the money isn't locked in a box and isn't invested and isn't saved (although it is often used in the general fund as regular tax money...)
Social Security is an extra tax (15%) paid by the working class (after 80K you don't owe any more social security) so that the very wealthy don't have to shoulder the burden of those who are not yet (children w/o parent) or are no longer (elderly) productive members of society. In times where the take-in is very high and the pay-out is very low (the last 10 years), it is a *huge* boon to the very wealthy since the money collected goes directly into the treasury; with it in the calculation the average tax rate of your middle-income american is *far higher* than those in the million dollar brackets...
If one were to be fair about use of Social Security money, extra money should be used exclusively for the education of the children who later on will have to support you... ie, if you arn't spending it on those in retirement, it should be spent making sure that the next generation is educated enough to compete in the global marketplace so that they (collectivly) can provide the security net for you and your generation. Use of this money for the military and other general spending is a severe abuse of the whole idea.
So. I half agree with you. Social security is a scam to increase the effective tax rate of the middle and lower class with respect to the upper class. And that politicians talk about it as a "retirement account" is absolutely nonsense.
However, it has its purpose. And without social security really awful things would be common in our society... children w/o parents starving and those who have built our roads, infrastructure, and other societial assets being left in the streets to die... ick.
1. Social Security is meant as a humane way to handle those in society who are not yet productive (children
2. Social Security is a saftey net since
1. Social Security is nothing more than an extra 15% tax on those who make 80K or less Social Security is _not_ a retirement plan, money is not saved nor are you necessarly gaurenteed to get that money at any point; it is extra tax... tax that the wealthy don't pay.
The first thing to note is that Social Security is _not_ a retirement plan. The current generation pays for the previous generation.
Re:Riiight (Score:3, Insightful)
> Since when did the waste stand for capitalism?
Since the very idea of capitalism was invented and added to the Western tradition by Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.
> Its the truth, just like people are too stupid for a true democracy.
There is a subtle error there. Democracy is the stupid idea, and America's Founding
Re:Well he has my vote (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't have many people living in the streets, those that do wouldn't be forced to if they didn't have other problems (drugs, alcohol). People shouldn't have problems with getting medical treatment because they mostly don't need to pay for it.
Without the social security system your society will resemble a dog eat dog jungle. Sure, those that are able to work, are healthy and are not unlucky will be getting larger paychecks, but there will be more poverty and suffering. I don't think anyone deserves to live in the street, endure an illness any more than anyone actually deserves to earn a billion dollars a second. Taking care of those that are weak and cannot manage by themselves instead of taking advantage of them is really one of the key defining things of being a human.
Charity and love prevails... (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. A government is not human. Individual people should be in the business of charity and love, not governments.
Re:Charity and love prevails... (Score:3, Interesting)
The government is created by humans and hopefully (in most modern societies) for the people in it. It is not a inhuman structure serving some higher purpose than the people itself.
It is supposed to guarantee the safety and well-being of it's citizens and all the critical infrastructure. It can be argued what various things these include and different countries in th
Re:Well he has my vote (Score:3, Insightful)
he's made the system damn near regressive.
Re:The working class pays most of the taxes. (Score:3, Interesting)
Warren Buffet says the tax cuts allow him to live tax free.
Voodoo Economics [tjm.org]
Odd behaviour (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Odd behaviour (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmmmm, perhaps Lessig trusts him? Or perhaps this is an effort at getting exposure to a portion of the voting public they find valuable to their cause? Given that Lessig has recognition in this crowd (this did get posted on
Given the position the Democratic party is in right now with reasonable candidates, Dean has got my attention. While Dean is not an academic per se, he did go to Yale and then received his MD from Albert Einsten College of Medicine, so one would surmise he can think to some degree, unfortunately missing in certain administrations. Additionally, this guy actually worked for a living as does his wife as physicians so there is a certain intimate knowledge of how screwed up our health care system has become, particularly under HMO's.
All in all, I would say this strategy (if indeed this is strategy) has worked so far. They got my attention, and judging from the almost 400 posts as I write this, they got a few others attention as well.
There's a thing (Score:5, Interesting)
it tells you which president to vote for based on your stance on the issues. I tested it out and it's very accurate. It gave me a reccomendation for green party 100% and Dean 96%. Since I really want Bush out and 3rd parties don't win, guess who I'm voting for? I'll probably read a few of his entries on Lessig's blog, and unless he's really unkosher this seals the deal.
Doesn't that suck? (Score:2)
As for me, I'm a minor. Read: Taxation without representation.
Re:Doesn't that suck? (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically you want a system that allows the voter to express more than just a single choice. There are several systems that would suffice; I myself like instant runoff voting because the process is easy to understand, and it lets me express my preferences in an intuitive "first choice / second choice / third choice" format.
Re:Doesn't that suck? (Score:4, Informative)
It combines the easiness of current voting with the power of ranking systems (either the instant runoff or the Borda) without binding you to order somehow rank everyone who is on the ballot. (Which is an interesting problem in itself... it probably implies computers which means $$$ and even less trust with the current systems than I have in the chad-based systems.)
(See the intereting Discover article at http://www.discover.com/nov_00/featbestman.html for more information about voting systems.)
Re:Doesn't that suck? (Score:5, Interesting)
33% of voters prefer candidate A, tolerate candidate B and detest candadate C
35% of voters prefer candidate B, tolerate candidate C and detest candadate A
32% of voters prefer candidate C, tolerate candidate A and detest candadate B
Common sense says B should win
In our modern current system, B would win unless 3% worth of C voters decided that it was hopeless and they should vote A, in which case A would win
Under instant runoff voting, C would be eliminated and A would win with 65%, unless 1.5% worth of B voted C so that A would be eliminated, in which case B would win with 66.5%. Now that's even more freaky.
I think game theorists have actually proven that nothing works right regarding elections. Some improvements can be made (and I suspect IRV's flaws are less likely to become of practical importance than our current system's) but the real changes we need are an independant media and an informed public.
Dean is actually a moderate. (Score:3, Insightful)
Dean is a moderate who has the balls to speak his mind, but when he was a governer his actions were very moderate.
He almost reminds me of Clinton.
Re:Dean is actually a moderate. (Score:3, Insightful)
Great! Maybe that will help him get elected, and then we might just have someone with integrity in the White House.
He almost reminds me of Clinton.
How I miss the days when the worst thing you could say about the President was that he was getting sexual favors from the wrong person... :^/
(yes, I fully expect 25 people to come up with worse things about him now... oh well)
Re:Dean is actually a moderate. (Score:3)
But there's also the enforcing of murderous sanctions that were, up until the second Iraq invasion a few months ago, killing 5000 children each month (UN and WHO numbers). And the bombings in the illegally enforced no-fly zones which included the bombing and killing of dangerous and [serendipity.li] deadly sheep. [carlton.com]
Of course there's also helping turkey
Re:Dean is actually a moderate. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:There's a thing (Score:4, Informative)
Poverty of choices (Score:2)
Is there really so little difference between the two main parties that the leading candidates for each rate so closely to each other?
Something is very wrong with that... that doesn't sound like a healthy democracy.
(In case you care, the 100% match for me was "Libertarian candidate")
Re:There's a thing (Score:2)
The top democratic candidate I had was Lieberman. Not a surprise - I'd probably throw a vote his way if I had the chance, mostly because I see him as the lesser of the three democratic evils in the race.
I keep thinking to myself, yes, Dean says what he means, but isn't that going to be a huge liability on the international policy front? Kerry has some issues from V
Re:There's a thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Because if you actually care about the issues as you claim, you should really do your best to support those issues. The 3% or whatever of the vote the Green party got in 2000 has done far more to hurt the enviroment than it has to help it.
If you care about the enviroment, and Nader is 100% good for the enviroment, Gore is 50% good for the enviroment, and Bush is 0% good for the enviroment, you should only vote for Nader if you think he has a greater than 50% chance of winning in order to maximize the benefit to the issue you care about. Well, to be technical, you should only vote for Nader if the probability of his winning is twice the probability of Gore winning or more.
I hate Bush for many reasons, and the things he's done and is trying to do for the enviroment is one of them. However there is a small evil and vindictive side to me that can't help thinking "take _that_ Green party!" every time he pulls some new enviroment destroying stunt.
If the Green party wants to transform the state of presidential elections in the US to a greater than two party system, they need to accept that unless a splinter party splits off the Republican side that is equal in size to their own, there is a fair chance that they will be condeming the US to the enviromental policies of the Republicans for however many election cycles it takes until the mainstream realizes that their party is viable. It's apparent that that number is greater than one, and for all we know it may not be less than infinity. Is it worth getting a Green president if there is no enviroment left to protect by the time it happens?
If Nader were smart, he would have tryed to hack a Parlimentary System approach to the problem by making a deal with Gore a few weeks before the election, that if Gore would agree to support certain Green positions (in writing of course) then Nader would tell all his party members to vote for Gore in the election, but to tell the exit pollers that they voted for Nader.
Thus they would have insured that the elected president had at least some intrest in the enviroment, a well publisized promise that he would support some of their issues, and still be able to point to the exit polls as a sign of their strength as a voting block.
Re:There's a thing (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that American voters are forced to engage in this kind of strategic thinking (instead of being able to just vote for the candidate they think would do the best job) shows how badly broken our plurality electoral system is. A truly representative system would allow voters to speak their mind honestly, and respond by electing the most appropriate candidate. It wouldn't force them to play silly games.
Re:There's a thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Smiley face.
Re:There's a thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, I don't know, I always thought that whole separation-of-powers, checks-and-balances thing was a pretty good idea. Keeps us from turning into Iran too quickly.
Re:There's a thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, why have a mere elected President, when you can have a King?
So we have to choose? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do people continue to vote for republicans and democrats anyway?
Re:So we have to choose? (Score:2, Insightful)
Karma is overrated.
Re:So we have to choose? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So we have to choose? (Score:3, Informative)
copyright laws, with a
socialist
welfare state, or bad
copyright laws, and imperialist invasion of countries?"
I beg you to spend a little time reading up on Howard Dean. His
policies are far from a "socialist welfare state".
The choice is simple. (Score:2, Insightful)
2) Because they're the ones who put their name out the most. America isn't too smart, and the average citizen does not look at all possible candidates, only the main ones. IMO, we shouldn't have political parties, because people tend to vote on party lines without even thinking about the person they are elected beyond their party.
Re:The choice is simple. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So we have to choose? (Score:2)
Re:So we have to choose? (Score:5, Informative)
They way you mentions "a socialist welfare state" and puts it up against " imperialist invasion of countries" i get the feeling that you are not very happy about it...
But did you know that when UN classifies countries based and ranks them in their Human Development Index what you propably consider socialist welfare states(as a bad thing) these socialist welfare states top the list?
1.Norway, socialist welfare state
2.Iceland, socialist welfare state
3.Sweden, socialist welfare state
4.Australia,
5.the Netherlands, somewhat socialist welfare 6.state
7.Belgium, socialist welfare state
8.the United States,
9.Canada, somewhat socialist welfare state
10.Japan,
11.Switzerland, socialist welfare state
12.Denmark, socialist welfare state
13.Ireland,
14.the United Kingdom,
15.Finland, socialist welfare state
16.Luxembourg,
17.Austria,
18.France,
19.Germany,
20.Spain and
20.New Zealand
Those I have marked socialist welfare states is those states I consider to be closer to a typical socilist welfare state modell than the United States way of "welfare state". There are of course difrences between them and different "degrees of socialist welfare states".
So please: Don't compare "socialist welfare states " to a foregin policy of "imperialist invasion of countries"
Because your country addappted a political system that in reality only promotes a two party system.not so well actually (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Actually Universal healthcare is doable (Score:3, Funny)
Re:So we have to choose? (Score:2)
Or maybe I'm just wrong. Maybe it's because those ot
Until... (Score:5, Funny)
Until some lobbyist backs up to his house with a truck full of campaign contributions
Let's not get ahead of ourselves here (Score:5, Insightful)
I actually kinda like Dean, but saying that someone is a serious contender for the 2004 election because he's tied for the nomination at this point is kinda like saying your kid has a serious NBA future ahead of him because he's tied for tallest in grade 3.
Re:Let's not get ahead of ourselves here (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Let's not get ahead of ourselves here (Score:3, Insightful)
Better Questions (Score:3, Insightful)
howard dean (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, I haven't exactly caught Dean Fever yet, although we see eye-to-eye on many issues and I'm really impressed with the level of grassroots support that he has. It would be nice to have a president that isn't already owned before getting into office.
But, then, I'd settle for a president that can use the word "imminent" correctly. I think Dean rises to that challenge.
No F'ing way! (Score:4, Funny)
Howard Dean has the balls to be pro P2P?? If he has the balls to make a move such as this, I will vote for him on principle.
It seems these other politicians are spineless, but if he has the guts to do this, he deserves to be President.
Dean was governor of my state... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Dean was governor of my state... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I'm of the opinion that there's not *much* you can do as a pres. to affect the economy too much, but there are plenty of things he hasn't done. Wtih all the focus on the crackdown on Martha Stewart and such we forget that most of the people involved in, say, Enron, are still away scott free. Furthermore, Bush supported SEC chairman Pitt until Pitt resigned from country-wide pressure. Bush should have taken a much firmer stance on all of this.
>>So he screwed us in scientific research how?
Stem cells.
>>So he screwed us in basic civil rights how?
You read
Re:Dean was governor of my state... (Score:3, Informative)
- So he screwed us economicaly how?
He talked the economy into recession... we were doing OK, and he kept saying the god-damned R-word every time he opened his mouth. That doesn't help.
- So he screwed us in scientific research how?
Remember stem cell research? Nevermind any sort of therapeautic cloning research.
- So he screwed us in basic civil rights how?
*cough*USA PATRIOT act*cough*
Topic.. (Score:5, Informative)
From the comment-section on LL's blog:
LL responds:
It's a win-win deal. LL gets someone to blog while on vactation, Dean reach out to a couple of thousand potentional voters. But interesting anyway. Looking forward to reading this blog.
Gonna get me some popcorn (Score:2, Insightful)
Another Candidate: (Score:2)
http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_corporation
/. slow to comment on Howard Dean's web success.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Howard Dean has used the Internet, specifically blogs, better than any presidential candidate. Every day, you can read their official blog or countless other personal blogs that give up to the minute info on what doing on the campaign trail. I have never felt more involved, or informed in a presidential campaign until Dean's.
All this use of blogs and such as created a tremendous amount grassroots support. Unlike other candidates that have raked in 1000s of dollars from big interests, Dean's campaign raised more than any other Democratic candidate last quarter mostly via the web with the average donation being $66 dollars..
Anyway, I feel that no matter what Dean's positions are (btw.. I think they are great)
campaign finance reform (Score:3, Informative)
Impressions of Dean from a Vermonter. (Score:4, Informative)
I've met our former governor three times (it's a small state, and my involvement in statewide 4-H events gave me the opportunity). He seemed very personable, but actions towards the end of his time here tended to disillusion me (and many Vermonters) about "Howard the Coward" as some called him (especially after he wouldn't sign the civil-unions law publicly, instead of behind closed doors). A man who easily won his first three elections, found the next two more chalenging (many think that, if the Republican candidate - the same woman both times - had been more likeable, he might have lost). It is possible he could not have won another (his hand-picked successor did not).
I just don't know what to think of this move, I fear it is more than likely a political ploy, something we have seen more than enough of in Vermont these last two terms. The Democrats are desperate for the voters that went Green last time, because they know they need them. In Vermont, though, Dean was always very business friendly, too much so for me to trust him on this now. Which is the real Howard Dean? That is the question.
The Dems don't want him or the green vote (Score:5, Interesting)
The dems don't want him, they want their boy Gephart or *shudder* Lieberman. The DLC publically flogged Dean supporters by calling them "the activist elite" [ndol.org] and tried to compare them to politcally impotent ultra-lefties. Dean supports responded back here. [deanforamerica.com]
The green vote simply isn't important. I'm sure that more than half of those votes are permanent third-party protest votes and regardless of what the Dems want you to think it was a bad ballot and a piss-poor Gore campaign that got Bush into office.
Regardless, everyone who isn't in the GOP wants an electable Democrat. I can't see why Dean wouldn't fit the bill, especially with Iraq turing out to be a quite the quagmire for Bush.
Sorry, but there's no ploy. Dean is fighting influencial (read: very wealthy and very connected) members of his own party right now and in interesting ways (appeal to the populace, net-based action, etc) just to get heard.
That's not true. (Score:3, Interesting)
The DLC, and the ndol.org website you linked to is part of the New Democrats. That is the centrist Democratic coalition that was brought together by President Clinton. Neither group is "The Democrats", they are part of the Dems, but not the whole. The Democratic party is not really a or
PRIORITIES! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:PRIORITIES! (Score:5, Informative)
Sen. John Kerry: Voted for
Sen. John Edwards: Voted for
Sen. Joe Lieberman: Voted for
Sen. Bob Graham: Voted for
Rep. Dick Gephardt: Voted for
Rep. Dennis Kucinich: Voted AGAINST, and has strongly criticized
ex-Gov. Howard Dean: never been in Congress, but has expressed concern/opposition
ex-Sen. Mosely-Braun: wasn't in Congress at the time, opposes
Al Sharpton: never been in Congress, opposes
It's simple.... (Score:3, Interesting)
The truth about Howard Dean (Score:4, Informative)
If he is not a liberal, just who is he?
To find out, we have to move past his political machine. Like Bush, Dean is very adept at associating himself with issues and causes that are important for his campaign. Thus for Dean we see his association with Lessig and an apparent concern for "the commons". Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Let's take a look at how Dean compares to Kucinich [bobharris.com], a long time liberal Democrat.
Howard Dean, a subset of the comparison points:
Health care plan
Death penalty
Roe v. Wade
Kyoto treaty
Patriot Act
NAFTA/WTO
"Star Wars" ballistic missile system
Pentagon waste
Medical marijuana
War on drugs
We see that Dean is very much like a "lite" version of Bush. There is very little in Howard Dean that is liberal.
Bush would be delighted to run against Dean who is simply a watered down version of Bush. And Dean comes from Vermont, bringing only 3 electoral votes. Easy campaign, easy victory.
What Bush doesn't want to do is run against a real Democrat who actually represents the tough issues that this country is facing. Or have to deal with a candidate whose home state carries 21 electoral votes.
Howard Dean may look snazzy on paper and in the media, but in reality, he is merely the lite version of Bush and would do little or nothing to actually make America better for Americans. We'd have the same screwed up medical system, giant defense budgets, pollution, and corporatist America that we have with Bush. Voting for Kucinich or for the Greens is change. Dean is status quo, more of the same Bush Doctrine.
Bush lite? (Score:4, Interesting)
But the important thing is that his views usually make more sense once you look into them. For example, he's often labeled as 'pro-gun' -- because he thinks that Vermont, with roughly 3 murders a year, should have a different set of gun laws than New York. That's not entirely crazy, is it?
I've looked into a few other issues that you name:
"Pro-choice, but refuses to make Roe v. Wade a litmus test for federal judges."
I read that interview. Basically, he was saying that he would assess judges based on a wide array of issues, of which abortion was just one. Are you saying Dean is like Bush because he refuses to take a simplistic stance? Come on
"Kyoto treaty
Says we must "take another look," but has "concerns" about some provisions."
Specifically, that the treaty might go too easy on third-world pollution. Is that too soft on the environment for you?
"Patriot Act
Would repeal "parts," but also wants to expand intelligence agencies; praises Russ Feingold as only Senator who opposed the act, ignoring Kucinich's vocal House opposition, falsely implying no other candidate opposed the Patriot Act"
It is unfortunate that the House Democrats are so underplayed in general -- but now are you saying Dean is like Bush because he's going to apply standards of constitutionality to the Patriot act?
"Medical marijuana
Firmly opposed, although promises to abide by a proposed FDA evaluation."
So he's going to overcome his own prejudices, and apply the same standards of medicine to marijuana that are applied to other drugs. Shocked, shocked am I.
"Bush would be delighted to run against Dean who is simply a watered down version of Bush."
I simply don't buy that. Gore was watered down, the middle-of-the-road boring candidate. That seems to be what the Democratic Party wants again -- and I agree with you that such a candidate wouldn't stand a chance against Bush.
But Dean comes across as honest, intelligent, daring, and willing to take principled stands. He's neither boring nor, as you suggest, conservative. Although I think you've nailed the problem the democratic party faces, Dean is the solution and not the problem.
Republicans for Dean! (Score:3, Insightful)
That being said, like a lot of fringe candidates, Dean actually has a few good ideas [daybydaycartoon.com] - like copyright reform and his general clues with technology - that stand out from his normal wackyness. With luck, other candidates from *both* parties will take notice of Dean's relative success and adopt accordingly.
Dennis Kucinich (Score:5, Insightful)
As President, I will repeal the Patriot Act to regain for all Americans the sacred right of privacy in our homes, our libraries, our schools.
He got a "66%" rating from the ACLU.
I couldn't find any ratings from the EFF on the various candidates, so I'm not sure where he stands on Tech Liberties.
I just lowered my opinion of Lesig. (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there a track record of how he might vote on something like the DMCA?
If you saw Dean's appearance on Meet the Press you can't possibly be too comfortable with him as President. If he aspires to the job he has a LOT of homework to do.
My guess is that Lesig is among the hard core liberals (surprise!) and all members of that group would gladly vote for Adolph Hitler next time around if it mean revenge for 2000.
Blind rage over what they feel was a stolen election will drive them to do totally irrational things until 2004.
I think it is irresponsible to turn over your blog to anyone else, particularly someone who has tremendous internet resources of their own. This is pure partisanship and has nothing that I can see to do with Open Source, DMCA, RIAA or any other issues for which Lesig is notable.
The Dean Difference (Score:3, Insightful)
A politican's blog (Score:3, Funny)
Mmmmmyep.
Got go read what that politican has to say, yesiree.
Mmm hmmm.
Yup. I'm sure it'll be different, and, um, oh, I dunno...
(sigh)
I wonder if my Tivo picked up "Dead Like Me" tonight?
Dean not looking good so far (Score:3, Interesting)
While I'm not crazy about everything Bush has done so far, I support him a lot more than any of these other democratic canidates. I think the appeal of the democratic party is fading out in a lot of Americans, they're now more interested in national security rather than domestic issues. If the economy is "good" & WMD/Saddam etc. is found by 2004, Bush will win in a land slide.
Another problem for the democratic party is that nobody knows any of the canidates. I've asked a few people I know (who are democrats) who'd they vote for, and everyone responds with "Is Hillary running?" or "Probably Gore".
Howard Dean needs to be more open about what he supports and what he doesn't, he's too worried about what people think of him. (Like on the Gay Marriage issue) If he isn't honest in these interviews, how can Americans trust him?
Re:Dean not looking good so far (Score:3, Informative)
Why? Why the Hell Not? (Score:5, Informative)
Kucinich is an unelectable nutcase (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Kucinich is an unelectable nutcase (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.kucinich.us/ [kucinich.us]
Re:He looks like a good guy (Score:3, Informative)
No, you want John Ashcroft for President (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, someone who will make up the laws as he goes along, exercise his power to enforce them, and then 'disappear' anyone who he personally considers to be a threat to his personal sense of order.
FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!
Re:Dean is a good choice (Score:3, Interesting)
Not to defend Dean (see my other post on the subject). But Dean has always been anti-gun control. Actually, Vermont has the most Libertarian gun laws in the country (according to the NRA). To wit, as a Vermonter, I have a legal right to carry a concealed weapon without a permit as long as
Re:Dean is a good choice (Score:5, Interesting)
Dean on healthcare (Score:3, Interesting)
Much of the democratic base is part of that 40 million of uninsured Americans. Yeah, managed is a scary word yet what does the M in HMO stand for? Maintence/Management its the same thing. What plan does your company offer you? What plans do most companies offer? Highly managed plans.
Public healthcare, especially in a wealthy country like the US, is very doable. Its not just Europe's way or the US's way. From what I
wrong (Score:3, Insightful)