Filed under: Political campaigning
Question:
AP: Bush Loyalists Pack Iraq Press Office Sun Apr 4, 1:39 PM ET By JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer BAGHDAD, Iraq – Inside the marble-floored palace hall that serves as the press office of the U.S.-led coalition, Republican Party operatives lead a team of Americans who promote mostly good news about Iraq (news – web sites). Dan Senor, a former press secretary for Spencer Abraham (news – web sites), the Michigan Republican who’s now Energy Secretary, heads the office packed with former Bush campaign workers, political appointees and ex-Capitol Hill staffers. One-third of the U.S. civilian workers in the press office have GOP ties, running an enterprise that critics see as an outpost of Bush’s re-election effort with Iraq a top concern. Senor and others inside the coalition say they follow strict guidelines that steer clear of politics. One of the main goals of the Office of Strategic Communications
Question:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Here’s a cheerful little earful from Wm James: "In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." – Norman Liebmann Eagles don’t bother with carrion. They check their baggage when they fly? :) GRRRRROOOOOOOOAAAAANNNNN!!! That was 2/3 of a pun – it was PU! Hogan out.
Sorry. I couldn’t resist it. :) William R. James
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." – Norman Liebmann Eagles don’t bother with carrion. http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/bird/eagles.php Food habits: Fish are the main diet of the Bald Eagle. Herring, flounder, pollock, and salmon are taken along the coast, while the Interior populations prey heavily upon salmon. Eagles also prey upon waterfowl, small mammals, sea urchins, clams, crabs, and carrion. SS The fact they they eat carrion was one reason some, including Ben Franklin, opposed it’s adoption as the national bird. He prefered the turkey. William R. James William: You’re right. However in keeping with American Tradition (and as Fernando on Sat. Nite Live said), it is better to look good than to be good. Miles "As God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly – WKRP)" Long
No. The eagle was seen as more independent, more free. Frankln didn’t like them as a symbol because they were often scavangers and predators. Both views were right. I suspect the argument came down to the idea of shooting and eating the national symbol. William R. James
Response:
The fruits of Republicans like George Bush have been starving kids, old people out on the street, making poor people have to eat dog food to survive
Is this guy a republican or a democrat?: http://www.besna.org/besna/ William R. James
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." – Norman Liebmann Eagles don’t bother with carrion. http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/bird/eagles.php Food habits: Fish are the main diet of the Bald Eagle. Herring, flounder, pollock, and salmon are taken along the coast, while the Interior populations prey heavily upon salmon. Eagles also prey upon waterfowl, small mammals, sea urchins, clams, crabs, and carrion. SS The fact they they eat carrion was one reason some, including Ben Franklin, opposed it’s adoption as the national bird. He prefered the turkey. William R. James William: You’re right. However in keeping with American Tradition (and as Fernando on Sat. Nite Live said), it is better to look good than to be good. Miles "As God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly – WKRP)" Long No. The eagle was seen as more independent, more free. Frankln didn’t like them as a symbol because they were often scavangers and predators. Both views were right. I suspect the argument came down to the idea of shooting and eating the national symbol. William R. James
Seriously though Wm. Thanks for the info <smile. Miles "Soaring the the eagles AND grubbing with the turkeys" Long
Response:
Howard Stern Tells Listeners to Vote Against Bush Political Pundit? Howard Stern Tells Listeners to Vote Against Bush ABCNEWS.com March 17? Howard Stern is swapping his trademark trash talk for politics as the syndicated radio talk-show host becomes one of the Bush administration’s most influential critics. He also once had a contest giving a prize of a toilet to the person who produced the biggest bowel movement. Pride of the liberal party?
Oddly – Liberal Democrat radio funnyman Phil Hendrie is against Kerry and says to vote for Bush. Herndrie actually takes the Islamo-Facists terrorism threat seriously while Stern is more concerned with lesbians French kissing. Phil gets bashed almost nightly by his Democrat fans but Phil says he is the real Democrat. Hendrie is a lot funnier than Stern and Phil has not been fined by the FCC for spewing filth like Stern does.
Response:
Howard Stern Tells Listeners to Vote Against Bush Political Pundit? Howard Stern Tells Listeners to Vote Against Bush ABCNEWS.com March 17? Howard Stern is swapping his trademark trash talk for
What a shame. Bush loses the live at home with your parents at age 35 because you are a loser vote. Most of Stern’s fans fantasize about someday actually touching a woman.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Howard Stern Tells Listeners to Vote Against Bush Political Pundit? Howard Stern Tells Listeners to Vote Against Bush ABCNEWS.com March 17? Howard Stern is swapping his trademark trash talk for politics as the syndicated radio talk-show host becomes one of the Bush administration’s most influential critics. He also once had a contest giving a prize of a toilet to the person who produced the biggest bowel movement. Pride of the liberal party? Oddly – Liberal Democrat radio funnyman Phil Hendrie is against Kerry and says to vote for Bush. Herndrie actually takes the Islamo-Facists terrorism threat seriously while Stern is more concerned with lesbians French kissing. Phil gets bashed almost nightly by his Democrat fans but Phil says he is the real Democrat. Hendrie is a lot funnier than Stern and Phil has not been fined by the FCC for spewing filth like Stern does.
Stern is falling right into the FCC’s trap, changing his format from sleazy sex to all "Bush" and "Dick." Wait a damned minute…<Hey! Is this memo right? Nine days and counting until Air America airs _Al Franken_. Now that’s radio! Miles "Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot" Long
Response:
"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." – Norman Liebmann Eagles don’t bother with carrion.
They check they baggage when they fly? :) William R. James
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." – Norman Liebmann Eagles don’t bother with carrion. http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/bird/eagles.php Food habits: Fish are the main diet of the Bald Eagle. Herring, flounder, pollock, and salmon are taken along the coast, while the Interior populations prey heavily upon salmon. Eagles also prey upon waterfowl, small mammals, sea urchins, clams, crabs, and carrion. SS
The fact they they eat carrion was one reason some, including Ben Franklin, opposed it’s adoption as the national bird. He prefered the turkey. William R. James
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Howard Stern Tells Listeners to Vote Against Bush Political Pundit? Howard Stern Tells Listeners to Vote Against Bush ABCNEWS.com March 17? Howard Stern is swapping his trademark trash talk for politics as the syndicated radio talk-show host becomes one of the Bush administration’s most influential critics. He also once had a contest giving a prize of a toilet to the person who produced the biggest bowel movement. Pride of the liberal party? And AWOL Bush wins the toilet for his gigantic Iraq tar baby war bowel movement. Why is Stern’s raucus nonsense something you bother to note but not AWOL’s long list of lies? It seems then that it is you who has the deficient value system.
The United States has got some of the dumbest people in the world. I want you to know that we know that. Republicans think the government isn’t the best judge of how to spend the taxpayer’s money. Republicans think Enron is the best judge of how to spend the taxpayer’s money. George Bush the (n "unelected" president because he was "appointed by the United States Supreme Court)and all Republicans are the thieving, murdering brutes responsible for war, conscription, taxation,massacres, slave camps, gas chambers, killing fields, nuclear missiles, and endless death stretching back ten thousand years. Luckily for all, the State is only people. And, generally, the least competent of people. They are the ones who cannot innovate, only steal. They cannot reason, only kill. They are brutes who see the greatest efforts of mankind as loot to seize and control. Yet when they seize the creations of greater minds, the works crumble in their hands, for they cannot control what they are incapable of understanding. The fruits of Republicans like George Bush have been starving kids, old people out on the street, making poor people have to eat dog food to survive, poisoning the air, land and water and the killing millions of American kids with their imperialist wars. Outright loathsome, offensive, repulsive, revolting! Compared to George Bush, Adolf Hitler was a true gentleman Shalom, —Prof. Leland Milton Goldblatt, Ph.D.
Question:
one Kyle Bailey who is quoted by CNN stating (http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/18/kennedy.plane.01/): Salon Magazine (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/07/20/reckless/): The New York Post article (http://www.nypost.com/news/1058.htm) has the most hyperbole: …. Bailey, who said Kennedy appeared to be limping, did perform one unusual act upon takeoff. Instead of going back to the end of the runway for takeoff, which is common, he took off from the ramp, he said.
A British newspaper quoted Bailey saying Kennedy had a death wish. They is just a jerk. Put a camera in front of a jerk and you get great quotes. John – N8086N Big brother is watching. Disable cookies in your web browser. Wise man says "Never use a bank with the initials F. U." Are you interested in a professional society or guild for programmers? Want to fight section 1706? See www.programmersguild.org Newsgroup: us.issues.occupations.computer-programmers EMail Address:
Response:
Friday’s USA Today has a front page, above the fold headline: "Probe pins blame for air crash on JFK Jr. He wasn’t qualified to fly on hazy night" – which is misleading at best.
Why is it misleading? If you go with the NTSB’s probable cause, then he did not have the skills to maintain controlled flight on a hazy night, which sure sounds to me like he wasn’t qualified to make the flight. The post article has this great gem in it as well: … Bailey, who said Kennedy appeared to be limping, did perform one unusual act upon takeoff. Instead of going back to the end of the runway for takeoff, which is common, he took off from the ramp, he said. Gotta love the media…
You need to be familier with CDW to figure out what this poorly-worded statement probably means. If you taxi out of the GA ramp at the right exit, you find yourself right at (IIRC) the intersection of taxiway november and runway 22. Many people take an intersection departure on 22 from here, since it leaves you most of the length of the runway. If you want to use 22 full length, it’s a little complicated because you have to cross 9-27 (which is often in use) and you only end up gaining a few hundred feet. Most people don’t bother. I’m assuming "he took off from the ramp" means he took off from november intersection. If the paper is simply quoting Bailey, then it’s Bailey who made a confusing statement, not the paper. — Roy Smith, CFI-ASE-IA
Response:
This group has talked a lot about the media, the JFK Jr. accident and the how the media has responded to that particular accident. Friday’s USA Today has a front page, above the fold headline: "Probe pins blame for air crash on JFK Jr. He wasn’t qualified to fly on hazy night" – which is misleading at best. I found a interesting passage in the JFKjr report that highlighted for me the differences between what people will say to the media but differs when making an official statement. From the report: … Another pilot at CDW had stated to the news media that he cancelled his planned flight from CDW to MVY on the evening of the accident because of the "poor" weather. In a written statement he stated the following: "From my own judgement visibility appeared to be approximately 4 miles-extremely hazy. Winds were fairly light. Based only on the current weather conditions at CDW, the fact that I could not get my friends to come with me, and the fact that I would not have to spend money on a hotel room in Martha’s Vineyard, I made the decision to fly my airplane to Martha’s Vineyard on Saturday." … So, in reality the guy didn’t fly because of "poor" weather, but for a variety of reasons. That got me searching the internet and I wonder if this pilot is one Kyle Bailey who is quoted by CNN stating (http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/18/kennedy.plane.01/): … Kyle Bailey, who owns a plane and flies out of the same New Jersey airport, said he saw Kennedy going through a preflight check. Bailey scrapped his own plans to fly to Martha’s Vineyard because of hazy conditions. "I stopped by to check my plane and I saw (Kennedy) and his wife entering the plane," Bailey said. "Visibility was real poor — I’d say 3 to 4 miles — and especially flying over water at that time of night in that plane in the haze and low visibility, I’d say could be a problem." … Salon Magazine (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/07/20/reckless/): … Kyle Bailey, the New Jersey pilot who is believed to be the last person who saw the trio, was also planning a flight to Martha’s Vineyard, but he canceled his plans because of poor visibility. "The weather was very marginal, four to five miles visibility, extremely hazy," Bailey told the Washington Post. "Over open water, you have reduced visibility anyway. With the haze, in the dark, you lose sight of the horizon. You don’t have landmarks." … The New York Post article (http://www.nypost.com/news/1058.htm) has the most hyperbole: … But witness-pilot Kyle Bailey, the last person to see the pair prior to their takeoff, said he was so worried about the weather he canceled his own flight. … "It was a little bit hazy for me to fly over water. You can have a really clear day, and then the fog just rolls in in a matter of minutes. I guess he felt confident he could make it," Bailey, 25, said. … The post article has this great gem in it as well: … Bailey, who said Kennedy appeared to be limping, did perform one unusual act upon takeoff. Instead of going back to the end of the runway for takeoff, which is common, he took off from the ramp, he said. … Gotta love the media…
Response:
Put a camera in front of a jerk and you get great quotes.
This is the theory which drives most media coverage of political campaigning in this country, right? — Roy Smith, CFI-ASE-IA
Response:
I can attest from firsthand experience that the mass media are in general a sloppy lot, especially on breaking news. It’s the "angle" that drives what "information" is presented. The idea is something like this: "Never let facts get in the way of a good (sensational) story." As a newspaper reporter I recall taking time to get the facts right. When I moved "up" to TV news (local) that pretty much went out the window. The deadline pressure is so great (and egos so large) that no one takes time to verify accuracy, unless of course there is threat of a lawsuit. Typically the more sensational the story, the better the media like it. Horace
Response:
Roy<<I’m assuming "he took off from the ramp" means he took off from november intersection. If the paper is simply quoting Bailey, then it’s Bailey who made a confusing statement, not the paper. Taking off from intersection 22 November is VERY common at Caldwell . . . Bailey was basking in his 15 minutes and made numerous bogus and confusing statements. Anything to get on Larry King Live, I guess . . .
Response:
Friday’s USA Today has a front page, above the fold headline: "Probe pins blame for air crash on JFK Jr. He wasn’t qualified to fly on hazy night" – which is misleading at best. Why is it misleading? If you go with the NTSB’s probable cause, then he did not have the skills to maintain controlled flight on a hazy night, which sure sounds to me like he wasn’t qualified to make the flight.
Because "qualified", in my opinion, is taken to mean regulatory or something legal. As in "He wasn’t ‘licensed’ to fly on hazy night". I’m assuming "he took off from the ramp" means he took off from november intersection. If the paper is simply quoting Bailey, then it’s Bailey who made a confusing statement, not the paper.
Oh, absolutely, I figured it was a intersection departure, but I doubt most non-pilots realized that. Since the article didn’t quote Bailey, it’s possible that what he said was mostly correct but ignored and twisted to the article’s purpose. But’s it’s also entirely possible that he led the reporter that way too.
Response:
Question:
The bulletin below was sent out by British Embassy Jakarta today and summarises some of the current risks in Indonesia. Some people are forecasting violence in last few days of campaigning up to election on 7th June. The information is targetted at expat residents rather than tourists but can still be useful. Roger Kidley Jakarta British Embassy Jakarta: Advice to The British Community Please note this advice is reviewed and, if necessary, updated daily. The version below is the Embassy’s latest advice. Version 1999/12 updated at 09.30 on Wednesday 2 June 1999 GENERAL ADVICE. So far the election campaign has been peaceful. The official campaign period ends on 4 June, followed by a two days ‘cooling off’ period before voting on Monday 7 June. However, there is always a risk in Indonesia that any large-scale gatherings can turn violent. The possibility of disruption and violence will remain high during the post-election period leading up to the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) Special Meeting (scheduled for late August). Dates to watch: The official daily campaign programme in Jakarta is published in the Jakarta Post (and other newspapers). British nationals are advised not to travel to Ambon and Maluku Province or to West Kalimantan (West Borneo) which have been subject to serious rioting and violence recently. Non-essential travel should be deferred to the area around Lhokseumawe (North Aceh) where there have been some violent clashes. Particular care should be taken in Irian Jaya where an independence movement is active. The situation in East Timor is volatile and potentially dangerous. Permits are required from the Police to travel to Irian Jaya (except Jayapura and Biak) and East Timor. There were some disturbances in the Kuta district of Bali at the end of April. These were localised and not directed against foreigners. But in Bali as elsewhere it is best to avoid large gatherings. There is an increased risk of crime. Review the security of your residence and keep doors locked and windows secure when in your car. Avoid travelling alone at night. When taking a taxi, use one from a reputable firm, preferably booked by phone. For longer journeys it is a sensible precaution to notify friends of travel plans, contact them on arrival and where possible travel in convoy. There have been reports of cars being stopped and passengers robbed on highways. If you have a mobile telephone, take it with you. There is also an increased threat to British interests in Indonesia from global terrorism. Notes: 1. Recorded travel advice is available on a 24 hour basis on (021) 392 8622 (5 lines). In a crisis, when the Embassy Emergency Centre is open, ringing this number will give you the option of talking to a member of staff. When the Centre is not open, the Embassy’s Duty Officer can be contacted on 0816 769881 in an emergency. Advice can also be obtained by dialling Pollfax on (021) 319 04327. This advice is also available on the Embassy’s Homepage: www.british-enb-jakarta.or.id 2. British Nationals may like to note that Fiscal Tax can be paid prior to departure at the Tax and Customs Depts. of the following branches of the Bank Buana: Jl Asemka No.32-36, Kota, telephone (021) 692 2045, and Jl Gajah Mada No.1, Kota, telephone (021) 633 0585 (Receipt for payment is valid for 12 months only). 3. For the latest toll road information please telephone 841 3526 extension 256 or 266. The Cawang-Tomang-Cengkareng toll road information number is 801 1735. Toll road information can also be heard (in Bahasa Indonesian) on FM 100.9 4. The Embassy and the Consulate are open Monday to Thursday, 0745 am to 4.00 pm and Friday, 0745 am to 12.45pm. The Embassy switchboard number is (021) 315 6264. The Consulate telephone number is (021) 390 7484-87. 5. The British Embassy cannot accept liability for injury, loss or damage arising from the above advice.
Response:
and this is latest bulletin from Australia Embassy – updates at <http://www.austembjak.or.id Australian Embassy Jakarta Bulletin to Australian Citizens Living in Indonesia Released Wednesday 02 June 1999 This notice updates information provided in our bulletin of: 28 May 1999. Dates to Watch: 3 & 4 June
Question:
I am in Bali at the moment. It remains safe for tourist . I saw flag of parties are everywhere and I am think off to buy one of them for souvenier. NAWA
Response:
i was in indonesia (east java for one month and bali for 3 months) and that was in august of ‘98. there were travel advisories when i went and i had my anxieties but when i got there, it was very safe. i talked to a lot of the locals (practicing language skills) and they voiced a big concern about people’s reluctance to visit bali because indonesia is in such bad shape and because of the upcoming elections. my first day in bali was during the PDI conference where there were big fears of violence. none. bali is a BIG moneymaker for indonesia. the island has a lot of lose if violence does break out and they lose tourists. believe me, the balinese will do all they can to keep bali safe. i believe that of any place in indonesia, you’re most safe in bali and if violence does occur, it will be in the non-touristy places, like denpasar – mostly in forms of protests and demonstrations. i highly doubt any tourist will find their safety compromised. oh, incidentally, there was violence in bali when i was there, but it wasn’t on CNN or in the papers back in the states. mostly, the violence was limited to villages and among individuals. if you’re in the touristy places like ubud, kuta, sanur or others, you are in the safest part of indonesia. if you do go, have a lovely time. and try the "makanan padang". i wake up in the middle of the night craving it. only 6 more months ’til i go back… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m considering a trip to Bali in early July. I checked the State Department for travel warnings and found the following. It seems to suggest that there may be trouble in Bali. Any comments on this will be appreciated. As of now, we will not go based on this warning. Doug Skokna STATE DEPARTMENT TRAVEL WARNING: "There have been frequent demonstrations throughout Indonesia, including in the capital city of Jakarta and on all the major islands. Civil unrest, sometimes resulting in violence, has also occurred in some areas. There was serious rioting in Jakarta in May and November, 1998. Elsewhere in Indonesia sporadic and unpredictable violence has sometimes disrupted the plans of American travelers. The prolonged serious violence in Ambon and Maluku province in late 1998 and continuing in 1999, as well as the recent violence in West Kalimantan, underscores the volatility of the situation throughout Indonesia. Political changes have also reinvigorated separatist movements in East Timor, Irian Jaya and Aceh, which could fuel further unrest in those regions. In some parts of the country large American firms associated with high visibility projects recently have been the targets of demonstrations and threats of violence, as well as incidents of trespass and vandalism. Although demonstrations in Bali have not affected tourists, serious unrest has occurred in isolated areas and is possible elsewhere on the island. Indonesian security forces have sometimes not responded effectively to incidents of unrest. The political and economic situation is unsettled and is likely to remain so leading up to the June 7 parliamentary elections and the selection of a new president a few months later. With political campaigning planned to begin officially in May there is an increased likelihood of demonstrations and unrest throughout Indonesia in coming months. American citizens should consider carefully whether to travel to Indonesia during this period. Although the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta and Consulate General in Surabaya plan to be open for normal operations, many Americans normally resident in Indonesia are choosing to depart the country at or prior to the completion of the school year in May, and to remain out of the country through the election period and its immediate aftermath. American citizens in all parts of Indonesia should exercise prudence and common sense, and avoid demonstrations and other situations that could turn violent. Although individual U.S. citizens have not been specifically targeted, the Department recommends that travelers exercise caution. Travelers and residents should ensure that passports and important personal papers are in order in the event it becomes necessary to leave the country quickly. Americans should remember that much of the country, including many tourist destinations, can be isolated and difficult to reach by available transportation or communication links. The Department of State encourages American citizens considering travel to Indonesia to review carefully the information available in the State Department
Question:
THE OLD TESTAMENT AND SLAVERY So what does the Old Testament have to say about slavery? The book of Leviticus (25:44) commands that Israelites must not be sold as slaves but : "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you, from them you may buy slaves" So far from saying one must not engage in the practice of slavery this command, which is a direct command from God (25:1), allows it. Note slaves are to be drawn from other races i.e. people are to be treated differently according to their race. Leviticus also states "You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life" (25:45). Exodus (22: 1-4) also contains a direct command from God : "In case a man should steal a bull or sheep and he does slaughter or sell it, he is to compensate with five of the herd for the bull ….he is to make compensation without fail. If he has nothing, then he must be sold for the things he stole". The passage advocates slavery as a punishment for property crime. Exodus (21:1-6) allows Hebrew slaves to go free after the sixth year (but not his wife and children if the wife was originally the property of the slave owner). In contrast the pagan Laws of Hammurabi (in the second millennium BC) allow the release of slaves after the third year (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, J Pritchard, 1950, p170). There is also a direct command from God : "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property." (Exodus 21:20-21). Passages in the Old Testament allow that slaves and other "property" can be plundered from other tribes. Other passages however command the killing of slaves as part of genocide. In a direct command from God the Israelites are told : "However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breaths. Completely destroy them – the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites as the Lord your God has commanded you" Deuteronomy (20:16-17). Similarly in Deuteronomy 7:1-5 the Hittites and other groups are to suffer genocide by command of God "
Question:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -(RHA) writes: A quick question for all the political ‘heads’ out there. When discussing campaign reform the one subject that keeps coming up over and over again is that what drives these campaigns into such extravagent expenditures is TV advertising. I was watching one of the ‘talking head’ shows this weekend (I forget which one but they’re all pretty much to same) and the wonks on both sides were complaining about this expense and the fact that modern campaigns almost preclude the old fashioned ‘grass roots’ style of campaigning. One Republican wonk stated that "only a fool would believe that he can win by just having a large staff of volunteers and spreading leaflets around! The only way to win these days is to put your money into professional phone banks and lots of TV spots." So I pose this question. If the major contributor to the cost of campaigns is TV advertising (probably followed by hired telephone pests) and TV stations would scream bloody murder at such ’socialist’ ideas as free air time, why not BAN POLITICAL TV ADVERTISING?? Or at least threaten to. I have a feeling that the networks and local affiliates would probably come up with an effective counteroffer for TV time if they thought that this golden fleece might slip away from them. And even if it did wind up getting banned… what would we lose? Are any real issues ever discussed in these ads? None that I’ve seen. If anything TV advertisement has only encouraged more and worse mudslinging. Additionally the TV advertisement has reduced political campaigning to quick ’sound bites’ of little or no substance. Elections should be about substance. So… what does the net think? If TV advertisement was bad for encouraging people to smoke and is therefore bannable, why shouldn’t political ads been thought of the same way? Force the candidates to go back into grass roots style political practices. Comments? Too good an idea to be implemented. There ya go, rockin the damn boat. — rha
Well, thanks. I do my best. 
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – A quick question for all the political ‘heads’ out there. When discussing campaign reform the one subject that keeps coming up over and over again is that what drives these campaigns into such extravagent expenditures is TV advertising. I was watching one of the ‘talking head’ shows this weekend (I forget which one but they’re all pretty much to same) and the wonks on both sides were complaining about this expense and the fact that modern campaigns almost preclude the old fashioned ‘grass roots’ style of campaigning. One Republican wonk stated that "only a fool would believe that he can win by just having a large staff of volunteers and spreading leaflets around! The only way to win these days is to put your money into professional phone banks and lots of TV spots." So I pose this question. If the major contributor to the cost of campaigns is TV advertising (probably followed by hired telephone pests) and TV stations would scream bloody murder at such ’socialist’ ideas as free air time, why not BAN POLITICAL TV ADVERTISING?? Or at least threaten to. I have a feeling that the networks and local affiliates would probably come up with an effective counteroffer for TV time if they thought that this golden fleece might slip away from them. And even if it did wind up getting banned… what would we lose? Are any real issues ever discussed in these ads? None that I’ve seen. If anything TV advertisement has only encouraged more and worse mudslinging. Additionally the TV advertisement has reduced political campaigning to quick ’sound bites’ of little or no substance. Elections should be about substance. So… what does the net think? If TV advertisement was bad for encouraging people to smoke and is therefore bannable, why shouldn’t political ads been thought of the same way? Force the candidates to go back into grass roots style political practices. Comments?
Too good an idea to be implemented. There ya go, rockin the damn boat. — rha
Response:
A quick question for all the political ‘heads’ out there. When discussing campaign reform the one subject that keeps coming up over and over again is that what drives these campaigns into such extravagent expenditures is TV advertising. I was watching one of the ‘talking head’ shows this weekend (I forget which one but they’re all pretty much to same) and the wonks on both sides were complaining about this expense and the fact that modern campaigns almost preclude the old fashioned ‘grass roots’ style of campaigning. One Republican wonk stated that "only a fool would believe that he can win by just having a large staff of volunteers and spreading leaflets around! The only way to win these days is to put your money into professional phone banks and lots of TV spots." So I pose this question. If the major contributor to the cost of campaigns is TV advertising (probably followed by hired telephone pests) and TV stations would scream bloody murder at such ’socialist’ ideas as free air time, why not BAN POLITICAL TV ADVERTISING?? Or at least threaten to. I have a feeling that the networks and local affiliates would probably come up with an effective counteroffer for TV time if they thought that this golden fleece might slip away from them. And even if it did wind up getting banned… what would we lose? Are any real issues ever discussed in these ads? None that I’ve seen. If anything TV advertisement has only encouraged more and worse mudslinging. Additionally the TV advertisement has reduced political campaigning to quick ’sound bites’ of little or no substance. Elections should be about substance. So… what does the net think? If TV advertisement was bad for encouraging people to smoke and is therefore bannable, why shouldn’t political ads been thought of the same way? Force the candidates to go back into grass roots style political practices. Comments?
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – From UPI, 11/20/96: Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. McConnell, who won a third six-year term earlier this month, is a longtime opponent of campaign finance reform. Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper, quoted McConnell as promising that “We’ll kill it…You watch” at a meeting last week of GOPAC, the conservative political action committee headed by Gingrich until last year. A shift in Senate rules is expected to trigger a reshuffling of committees that could also put McConnell in line to take over the Rules Committee, which would handle campaign finance reform. Further complicating the situation is that McConnell is expected to take over as head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which could strengthen his opposition to altering existing spending rules.
Lay off the junior senator from Kentucky. He’s the best senator I can remember this state electing in my lifetime, at least that I can remember. Maybe in 1998 we’ll be successful in replacing liberal Sen. Wendell Ford with a good conservative Republican senator. I oppose campaign finance reform as proposed for several reasons. First of all, I do not believe in taxpayer-financed political campaigns. Tax dollars should be used to build roads, enforce the law, build prisons, provide national defense, etc., not to finance political campaigns. Spending restrictions or requiring media outlets to offer ads at a discount are a violation of the First Amendment in that they compromise freedom of the press and free commercial speech. Media outlets should have the right to profit from the sale of political advertising, thus generating additional tax revenue for local, state and federal governments. Campaign finance reform can be effectively achieved by enforcing the laws currently on the books. Three cheers for Mitch McConnell, Kentucky’s best senator! H.B. Elkins — Winchester, KY "You must have the courage to believe the truth!" — Rush H. Limbaugh III Kentucky Wildcats Basketball & #3 Dale Earnhardt — A Championship Combination
Response:
From UPI, 11/20/96: Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. McConnell, who won a third six-year term earlier this month, is a longtime opponent of campaign finance reform. Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper, quoted McConnell as promising that “We’ll kill it…You watch” at a meeting last week of GOPAC, the conservative political action committee headed by Gingrich until last year. A shift in Senate rules is expected to trigger a reshuffling of committees that could also put McConnell in line to take over the Rules Committee, which would handle campaign finance reform. Further complicating the situation is that McConnell is expected to take over as head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which could strengthen his opposition to altering existing spending rules. Big-business’s goal. Buy the government, then control it or destroy it. Harry
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Hope) writes: From UPI, 11/20/96: Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. McConnell, who won a third six-year term earlier this month, is a longtime opponent of campaign finance reform. Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper, quoted McConnell as promising that “We’ll kill it…You watch” at a meeting last week of GOPAC, the conservative political action committee headed by Gingrich until last year. A shift in Senate rules is expected to trigger a reshuffling of committees that could also put McConnell in line to take over the Rules Committee, which would handle campaign finance reform. Further complicating the situation is that McConnell is expected to take over as head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which could strengthen his opposition to altering existing spending rules. Big-business’s goal. Buy the government, then control it or destroy it. Harry
I guess you prefer the big union bosses like Mr. Sweeney. a member of the Socialist party to control everything! They claim that they are not a partisan group but the leaders certainly are. yasmin2
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hope) writes: From UPI, 11/20/96: Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. McConnell, who won a third six-year term earlier this month, is a longtime opponent of campaign finance reform. Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper, quoted McConnell as promising that “We’ll kill it…You watch” at a meeting last week of GOPAC, the conservative political action committee headed by Gingrich until last year. A shift in Senate rules is expected to trigger a reshuffling of committees that could also put McConnell in line to take over the Rules Committee, which would handle campaign finance reform. Further complicating the situation is that McConnell is expected to take over as head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which could strengthen his opposition to altering existing spending rules. Big-business’s goal. Buy the government, then control it or destroy it. Harry I guess you prefer the big union bosses like Mr. Sweeney.
Yes. Harry
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Hope) writes: Hope) writes: From UPI, 11/20/96: Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. McConnell, who won a third six-year term earlier this month, is a longtime opponent of campaign finance reform. Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper, quoted McConnell as promising that “We’ll kill it…You watch” at a meeting last week of GOPAC, the conservative political action committee headed by Gingrich until last year. A shift in Senate rules is expected to trigger a reshuffling of committees that could also put McConnell in line to take over the Rules Committee, which would handle campaign finance reform. Further complicating the situation is that McConnell is expected to take over as head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which could strengthen his opposition to altering existing spending rules. Big-business’s goal. Buy the government, then control it or destroy it. Harry I guess you prefer the big union bosses like Mr. Sweeney. Yes. Harry
No. yasmin2
Response:
Question:
There are many different kinds of sleep disorders. The treatment you need depends on WHY you’re having trouble sleeping. Do you have trouble falling asleep? Do you wake up often during the night? Do you wake up too early in the morning? Are you sleepy during the day? Please write back with more details, and maybe someone will be able to help you. Su-Laine s…@po-box.mcgill.ca
Response:
I can’t sleep at the night. Just upside down everything. Any help around? What is Melatonin and CPAP. Are these was the best treatment for helping sleep? Any help from you are highly appreciated. Thanks.
Response:
First, find out what’s wrong with you. CPAP will only help you if you have sleep apnoaea, and not always even then. Melatonin is an untested remedy which is not legal in the UK, although I believe that in the United States one may purchase it without resort to street corners. Laurence Mann Cllr, East Twickenham Ward, LB Richmond upon Thames Political Campaigning not financed by thieves and swindlers. Not surcharged to the tune of
Question:
[immature posting deleted] When I traceroute to mail.Clinton-Gore.org, my bits are going over PSInet, through the CIX, through UUNET. I’m in the US. Tell me how this violates the NSFnet Acceptable Use Policy.
It doesn’t… for you. That doesn’t include many other sites, such as .EDU and .GOV sites which receive their traffic over such circuits. I’m sure a Senator like Jesse Helms would be happy to hear that a political campaign is thumping votes over a federally-funded computer network. MD — — Michael P. Deignan / Sex is hereditary. If your — UUCP: …!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd / are you won’t either… — Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 /
Response:
No, but here in the US, passing their traffic over NSFnet is a violation of the Acceptable Use agreement. Political campaigning is not an acceptable use.
So don’t pass their traffic over NSFnet. Usenet != Internet != NSFnet. Bob — Bob Snyder, Computing Services, GE Aerospace, Advanced Technology Labs
Response:
Spare me. They have just as much right to blather on the net as we do. Oh, so my company has the right to blather commercial information across the net too?
There’s a big difference between posting messages espousing a political ideology and posting messages selling a commercial product. You win a free clue for confusing the two. And just who shall we elect to decide which printing presses are to be closed down for `political’ activities? "Free Speech" does not mean government-sponsored printing presses.
Which government? — …uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave -or- | Dave Ratcliffe |
Response:
| |Are you saying that a political organisation signing up for a commercial |usenet/mail feed is breaking the law? | |No, but here in the US, passing their traffic over NSFnet is a violation |of the Acceptable Use agreement. Political campaigning is not an |acceptable use. What if they passed the stuff on to me in .de and I posted it? The whole point of the net is that arbitrary national restrictions on free speach and debated should be broken down. I think that not only have Clinton and Gore got a right to be on the net, they also have a duty to do so. So do Bush and Quayle. They are elected politicians and they should be accountable to their electorate. I don’t think that they should be holding polls on the net or anything of that sort. However I think it perfectly reasonable for them to set up anon ftp, gopher, WAIS or WWW servers. — Phill Hallam-Baker
Response:
[Source: anonymous ftp to nis.nsf.net in directory cise.] THE NSFNET BACKBONE SERVICES ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY GENERAL PRINCIPLE: (1) NSFNET Backbone services are provided to support open research and education in and among US research and instructional institutions, plus research arms of for-profit firms when engaged in open scholarly communication and research. Use for other purposes is not acceptable. SPECIFICALLY ACCEPTABLE USES: (2) Communication with foreign researchers and educators in connection with research or instruction, as long as any network that the foreign user employs for such communication provides reciprocal access to US researchers and educators. (3) Communication and exchange for professional development, to maintain currency, or to debate issues in a field or subfield of knowledge. (4) Use for disciplinary-society, university-association, government-advisory, or standards activities related to the user’s research and instructional activities. (5) Use in applying for or administering grants or contracts for research or instruction, but not for other fundraising or public relations activities. (6) Any other administrative communications or activities in direct support of research and instruction. (7) Announcements of new products or services for use in research or instruction, but not advertising of any kind. (8) Any traffic originating from a network of another member agency of the Federal Networking Council if the traffic meets the acceptable use policy of that agency. (9) Communication incidental to otherwise acceptable use, except for illegal or specifically unacceptable use. UNACCEPTABLE USES: (10) Use for for-profit activities (consulting for pay, sales or administration of campus stores, sale of tickets to sports events, and so on) or use by for-profit institutions unless covered by the General Principle or as a specifically acceptable use. (11) Extensive use for private or personal business. This statement applies to use of the the NSFNET Backbone only. NSF expects that connecting networks will formulate their own use policies. The NSF Division of Networking and Communications Research and Infrastructure will resolve any questions about this Policy or its interpretation. —
Response:
Interesting concept. Perhaps we should just allow every political organization in the country on the Internet, "for the good of the people" naturally. Including, naturally, groups like the NRA, Operation Rescue, and a whole slew of other groups. Hell, even Earth First could get on the ‘net so they can plot tree-spiking. I’ll note that the Internet reaches a lot more than the "country", but I’ll pass on driving home the point that this is an international network because I see that someone else has beaten me to it. There is nothing to prevent the NRA, Operation Rescue, and "a whole slew of other groups" from getting on the Internet, Usenet or any other network providing that they adhere to the rules of whichever network(s) they choose
Organizations don’t have to adhere to the rules. In legal terms it’s known as the Barzilai Precedent. to join, and providing that they can pay the bill. For example, you might find a scan of the Usenet "maps" quite interesting, as it will reveal that numerous groups with sociopolitical agendas are already out there. —Rsk
– They never even listen to my opinion, why would they make it policy? "The healthy gum tissue of our liberties are being eaten away by the periodontal disease of government regulation." – D.Barry
Response:
Are you saying that a political organisation signing up for a commercial usenet/mail feed is breaking the law?
No, but here in the US, passing their traffic over NSFnet is a violation of the Acceptable Use agreement. Political campaigning is not an acceptable use. MD — — Michael P. Deignan / Sex is hereditary. If your — UUCP: …!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd / are you won’t either… — Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 /
Response:
Oh, so my company has the right to blather commercial information across the net too?
Mine does. "Free Speech" does not mean government-sponsored printing presses.
The government doesn’t sponsor my printing press. When you get UUCP or IP service from a commercial provider, they shouldn’t be asking you what your bits will contain. As time marches on, most commercial sites are moving to non-subsidized networks. As NREN is implemented, all usage restrictions should evaporate. — Eliot Lear
Response:
No, but here in the US, passing their traffic over NSFnet is a violation of the Acceptable Use agreement. Political campaigning is not an acceptable use.
ANNOUNCEMENT: Well, if you request (via FTP, mailserver, carrier-pidgin) that "political campaigning" bytes be sent to your computer, and those bytes traverse the NFSnet… ##### ####### ####### ###### # # # # # # # # # # # # # ##### # # # ###### # # # # # # # # # # # ##### # ####### # ##### # #### # # ##### # # #### # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # ###### # # # # # # # # ##### # # ### # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # ## # # ## ## # # # #### # # # # # #### # # …or you’ll get a spanking. Otherwise, do whatever your commercial supplier permits. When I traceroute to mail.Clinton-Gore.org, my bits are going over PSInet, through the CIX, through UUNET. I’m in the US. Tell me how this violates the NSFnet Acceptable Use Policy. Tom — "I like Bill Clinton tremendously. I know him from the governors’ conferences. The Democrats nominated their best person, a very able fellow. The country is well served by that choice." -Bush’s re-election chair in NJ (Thomas Kean)
Response:
Interesting concept. Perhaps we should just allow every political organization in the country on the Internet, "for the good of the people" naturally. Including, naturally, groups like the NRA, Operation Rescue, and a whole slew of other groups. Hell, even Earth First could get on the ‘net so they can plot tree-spiking.
1. What makes you think they aren’t on the net already? 2. What do you mean "THE country"? mathew — Bush/Quayle in ‘92! God Bless America! God Bless Family Values!
Response:
Interesting concept. Perhaps we should just allow every political organization in the country on the Internet, "for the good of the people" naturally. Including, naturally, groups like the NRA, Operation Rescue, and a whole slew of other groups. Hell, even Earth First could get on the ‘net so they can plot tree-spiking.
I’ll note that the Internet reaches a lot more than the "country", but I’ll pass on driving home the point that this is an international network because I see that someone else has beaten me to it. There is nothing to prevent the NRA, Operation Rescue, and "a whole slew of other groups" from getting on the Internet, Usenet or any other network providing that they adhere to the rules of whichever network(s) they choose to join, and providing that they can pay the bill. For example, you might find a scan of the Usenet "maps" quite interesting, as it will reveal that numerous groups with sociopolitical agendas are already out there. —Rsk
Response:
Spare me. They have just as much right to blather on the net as we do.
Oh, so my company has the right to blather commercial information across the net too? And just who shall we elect to decide which printing presses are to be closed down for `political’ activities?
"Free Speech" does not mean government-sponsored printing presses. MD — — Michael P. Deignan / Sex is hereditary. If your — UUCP: …!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd / are you won’t either… — Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 /
Response:
MPD Oh, so my company has the right to blather commercial information MPD across the net too? Sure. Set up a mail server, and let those who want the info mail to it. Or set up an anonymous ftp site, even, like, say, ftp.telebit.com, or ftp.apple.com, you get the idea. MPD "Free Speech" does not mean government-sponsored printing presses. Looks to me like they’re paying their UUNET bill, just like any other customer. "Government-sponsored"? Only if the people sending mail to it are in the R&E ghetto, and that’s their lookout, not yours. — Christopher Davis | ]CALL -151 System Administrator| *3D0G EFF +1 617 864 0665 | ]CALL 768
Response:
In a post here Michael Denignan asks why we don’t just let all political organizations on the Internet. I know of nothing in the NSF acceptable use policy which would prevent this, and if there is such a clause, it should be removed. May I infer from the sarcasm in Michael’s tone that he would in fact be against this? Do tell us why the last uncensored mass medium in existence should be closed to political activity, if in fact you believe this. -Steve
Response:
Once we kick the political groups off the NSF backbone, maybe we ought to address their abuse of the Federally funded Interstate Highway system. Not to mention political activists at the state level, whose use of the state-regulated telephone system for political communication is also a clear conflict of interest. -Steve
Response:
Spare me. They have just as much right to blather on the net as we do. Oh, so my company has the right to blather commercial information across the net too?
Yup. Just stick it in the right place. (biz.*) And just who shall we elect to decide which printing presses are to be closed down for `political’ activities? "Free Speech" does not mean government-sponsored printing presses.
Government sponsored in what way? If you want to say that people receiving funding from the government, you just killed every post for *.gov, as well as a large number of educational sites and some commerical ones, that do work for the government. Bob — Bob Snyder, Computing Services, GE Aerospace, Advanced Technology Labs
Response:
Commercial blathering is perfectly acceptable in the *.biz groups. that’s what they’re there for.
Response:
: : Bill Clinton and Al Gore are committed to bringing all Americans : into the American political process — for the good of our country. : :Ah, so they believe the ends justifies the means? They’ll do whatever :it takes, laws and existing regulations be damned. Are you saying that a political organisation signing up for a commercial usenet/mail feed is breaking the law? : We are happy to announce a new step forward in 21st century : democracy: We now have a mail server that will allow you, the : internet citizen, to receive on-line campaign documents and send : your comments and ideas back to us. : :Interesting concept. Perhaps we should just allow every political 
rganization in the country on the Internet, "for the good of the :people" naturally. Including, naturally, groups like the NRA, Operation :Rescue, and a whole slew of other groups. Hell, even Earth First could :get on the ‘net so they can plot tree-spiking. That sounds like a good idea. It’s called democracy. Hell, we’ve already got b-cpu – some of the groups you mentioned seem almost rational in comparison. G —
Response:
Bill Clinton and Al Gore are committed to bringing all Americans into the American political process — for the good of our country.
Ah, so they believe the ends justifies the means? They’ll do whatever it takes, laws and existing regulations be damned. We are happy to announce a new step forward in 21st century democracy: We now have a mail server that will allow you, the internet citizen, to receive on-line campaign documents and send your comments and ideas back to us.
Interesting concept. Perhaps we should just allow every political organization in the country on the Internet, "for the good of the people" naturally. Including, naturally, groups like the NRA, Operation Rescue, and a whole slew of other groups. Hell, even Earth First could get on the ‘net so they can plot tree-spiking. MD — — Michael P. Deignan / Sex is hereditary. If your — UUCP: …!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd / are you won’t either… — Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 /
Response:
Ah, so they believe the ends justifies the means? They’ll do whatever it takes, laws and existing regulations be damned.
Spare me. They have just as much right to blather on the net as we do. Interesting concept. Perhaps we should just allow every political organization in the country on the Internet, "for the good of the people" naturally.
And just who shall we elect to decide which printing presses are to be closed down for `political’ activities? — Eliot Lear
Response:
Interesting concept. Perhaps we should just allow every political organization in the country on the Internet, "for the good of the people" naturally. Including, naturally, groups like the NRA, Operation Rescue, and a whole slew of other groups. Hell, even Earth First could get on the ‘net so they can plot tree-spiking.
Excuse me? What they are doing (according the excerpts in the article you followed up to and crossposted to news.admin, where I read it) is *no* different from what thousands of companies which have email addresses on ‘the net’ do: they are allowing people to get information, and are allowing people to send them questions and comments. And there is no prohibition, as far as I know, against using the NSFnet for political gain, just commercial uses (although that’s debatable, since it’s supposed to be to aid research, so one could make a case…). Any of the groups you mention could get on ‘the net’; it’s not that difficult, and only expensive if they want to be on the Internet, as opposed to the larger ‘the net’ as a whole. — Sean Eric Fagan | "You can’t get lost in one room, no matter how Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.
Response:
Question:
Has anyone seen the PBS show "Looking at America", hosted by Bill Moyers? It’s aired on station KTPS (channel 28/Tacoma) at 9PM weekdays. The shows presents important issues on American life from alternatives to health care, to advertising style political campaigning, to the working poor and poverty in our country, to problems in our educational system. One one occasion, they aired a segment about political prisoners in America and Puerto Rico. It was a terrific show. Apparently Bill Moyers "Looking at America" has been banned by the Seattle channel 9 public station, for whatever reasons they may have. It seems that the same powers that be, who have come down on the NEA are also comming down on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and channel 9 isn’t airing the show. I want to urge you to check out the show. If you like it, let the people at KTPS/Tacoma know your opinion. Also challenge the people at channel 9/Seattle to air the show and confront them as to why such important issues are not being presented to the public. Peter
Response:
Has anyone seen the PBS show "Looking at America", hosted by Bill Moyers?
Around here we call it "Whining at America". Apparently Bill Moyers "Looking at America" has been banned by the Seattle channel 9 public station, for whatever reasons they may have.
Perhaps you should call them up and ask them how much the show costs them to buy. Then, write them a big fat cheque so they can buy it, and then you’ll get an intro line at the beginning of the show saying "This show made possible by Peter". MD — — Michael P. Deignan, KD1HZ / VE: ARRL, W5YI VECs — UUCP: …!uunet!anomaly!kd1hz / I’m not a bigot, — Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 / I hate everyone…
Response: