Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
Linux in Government: Will Schwarzenegger Terminate Windows? (Linux Journal)
Tom Adelstein looks at open
source adoption in California. "Special interests will attempt
to undermine open-source efforts. Although many consider California to be a
progressive state, fiscally conservative Republicans have had the most
success in achieving open-source adoption. Consider, for example, Governor
Mitt Romney, the Republican governor of Massachusetts. In January of this
year, through the Executive Office for Administration and Finance, he
issued a final policy on the use of open-source software and open
standards. The policy requires commonwealth officials to consider all
relevant factors, including the potential for excessive dependence on a
single supplier, before they spend taxpayer money on information
technology."
(Log in to post comments)
Republican governors in Democratic states Posted Sep 3, 2004 17:50 UTC (Fri) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] Massachusetts and California have one thing in common. Democratic influence is very strong in both states, which forces the Republican governors to do the right thing rather than serve special interests.
Republican governors in Democratic states Posted Sep 3, 2004 18:06 UTC (Fri) by huffd (guest, #10382) [Link] It means the constituents elected the correct official for the job. Unfortunately this govenor will never become a two term president like a predecessor who was also an intellectual thinker and not an emotional thinker.
Republican governors in Democratic states Posted Sep 3, 2004 18:57 UTC (Fri) by LogicG8 (guest, #11076) [Link] "Demolition Man" I thought it was bad at the time, apparently it's really prophetic... This is just the first step towards President Arnold.
---
Republican governors in Democratic states Posted Sep 3, 2004 19:16 UTC (Fri) by dbhost (guest, #3461) [Link] Cute comments, but completely ignorant of the Constitution of The United States of America.
Please see Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.
Therefore, with only a rudimentary reading of the Constitution, it should be obvious that Arnold, being born in Austria, is ineligible to become President of The United States of America.
Except of course in movies where the Constitution, or other realities of life do not apply.
Republican governors in Democratic states Posted Sep 3, 2004 19:24 UTC (Fri) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] Thus the mention of the 61st ammendment in the previous comment :)
Republican governors in Democratic states Posted Sep 3, 2004 19:26 UTC (Fri) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] You're not paying attention. Given a constitutional amendment (e.g. "61st", above), that requirement could be rescinded. We don't just amend the constitution to promise equal rights for women (which resolution passed but was never acted upon) or to forbid citizens the right to marry their choice or partner (not formally proposed yet), or to make corporations legally more powerful than citizens (too late, it's in there). We also entertain frivolous changes, and when that gets too hard, just ignore the damn thing. (E.g. seating presidents and vice presidents who are demonstrably not of "sound mind and body".)
Corporate personhood is Supreme Court doctrine, not explicit in constitution Posted Sep 4, 2004 0:42 UTC (Sat) by robla (subscriber, #424) [Link] You wrote: We don't just amend the constitution [...] to make corporations legally more powerful than citizens (too late, it's in there).It should be mentioned that the U.S. Constitution doesn't explicitly make corporations more powerful than individuals. Rather, the Supreme Court has just interpreted it that way. Though I don't hold much hope for it happening soon, a future Supreme Court may decide to overturn that interpretation, in the same way that "separate but equal" was a doctrine established by one court, and undermined by a latter one (it technically wasn't completely reversed, but the doctrine was no longer doctrine after Brown). See the Wikipedia article on corporate personhood for more info. Of course, this is wildly off-topic. Rob
Republican governors in Democratic states Posted Sep 3, 2004 19:20 UTC (Fri) by lordsutch (guest, #53) [Link] Yes, because of course Democratic politicians never go to bat for special interests like unions, abortion-rights advocates, gun-control advocates, environmentalists, peaceniks, trial lawyers, "public health" advocates (anti-tobacco, food police), or various and sundry racial interest groups.
Republican governors in Democratic states Posted Sep 3, 2004 19:29 UTC (Fri) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] When did environmentalism become a "special interest"? Or "abortion rights"? Both are overwhelming majorities, among eligible voters.
Republican governors in Democratic states Posted Sep 4, 2004 13:35 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Given the original poster's username, I think we should expect him to hold some... unusual opinions.
Besides, given that username, he's too dead to contribute (and is in any case from the UK, where most of those `special interests' are opinions held not just the majority but the vastly overwhelming majority of the populace, as is true across the rest of the EU, with the possible exception for abortion rights of Eire.)
Republican governors in Democratic states Posted Sep 5, 2004 8:55 UTC (Sun) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (and is in any case from the UK, where most of those `special interests' are opinions held not just the majority but the vastly overwhelming majority of the populace, as is true across the rest of the EU, with the possible exception for abortion rights of Eire.) Hmm, the above isnt true. Ireland is not the only EU country which restricts abortion, Portugal and two new member states, Poland and Malta, do too (Malta also holding a get-out clause on any EU directives on abortion, as Ireland does, presumably Poland negotiated something similar too, not sure.).
Republican governors in Democratic states Posted Sep 7, 2004 15:32 UTC (Tue) by dbhost (guest, #3461) [Link] In what country are pro death advocates the majority? If so, why are abortionists forced to forward their agenda through activist courts instead of the legislative bodies?
The liberal, leftist agenda is most certainly NOT the majority consensus. While it is certainly NOT something to be trifled with, nor merely ignored as it IS a large voting segment, but the population in the United States at least is still majority conservative / traditionalist. Perhaps I am wrong here, but election results and polls seem to consistently pull this as a true statement. Away from the liberal Meccas of the East coast, and California, liberal ideaology is a waning fad. Thank God (Jehovah, Jaweh, Allah, whatever you call him) for that!
pro-death: majority or minority? Posted Sep 9, 2004 21:54 UTC (Thu) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] >pro death advocates You know perfectly well there aren't many people who are in favor of death per se. In fact, there's a high correlation between being in favor of death of fetuses, but against death of criminals, stupid or poor people, and animals. When you're making a point about abortion advocates, you'd make it better if you'd say exactly what you mean: pro-abortion. You could even embellish it to emphasize the part of abortion you don't like (the death): pro-abortion-death. Also, I believe most of the people you would call pro-abortion aren't actually in favor of abortion per se, but only when the mother wants it. Hence pro-abortion-choice is more technically accurate. "pro-choice," of course, is as ridiculous as "pro-death." Liberals are almost by definition in the minority. Conservative mostly means you favor the status quo. People take their cues on what to believe from the existing laws, so the majority tends to favor whatever is the law now. Ever since the law in the US changed to pro-abortion, public opinion has been moving that way. When US law changed to pro-black-equality, pro-black-equality public opinion was a distinct minority; now it's an overwhelming majority. Some day, it may be the liberals trying to save the fetuses.
Linux in Government: Will Schwarzenegger Terminate Windows? (Linux Journal) Posted Sep 3, 2004 19:11 UTC (Fri) by salvarsan (subscriber, #18257) [Link] I hope you folks remember what happened the last time an Austrian immigrant was elected the head of a financially-troubled though nominally democratic republic.-drh
Linux in Government: Will Schwarzenegger Terminate Windows? (Linux Journal) Posted Sep 3, 2004 19:39 UTC (Fri) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link] But look at the documentaries about Schwarzenegger! Do you see anything in Total Recall, Conan the Barbarian or Kindergarten Cop to indicate that he's not of the utmost moral character?
Linux in Government: Will Schwarzenegger Terminate Windows? (Linux Journal) Posted Sep 3, 2004 22:39 UTC (Fri) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] Hopefully, allowing them to express their artistic ambitions, despite their questionable talent, suffices to defuse their frustration and proclivity to paranoia and delay their entry into politics until they are more laid back. After a career in acting followed by being governer of California, he'll be old enough that he certainly wouldn't... do something... I don't recall.
Linux in Government: Will Schwarzenegger Terminate Windows? (Linux Journal) Posted Sep 4, 2004 1:58 UTC (Sat) by s52d (guest, #2199) [Link] cute ;-)
Anyhow, this is LWN not ./
Do you really HAVE to move your election theater here?
BR
Iztok
|
|||||||||||||