New Mars Forums

Top 10 Secrets They Don't Want You to Know About the Debates.

(10.) They aren't debates!

"A debate is a head-to-head, spontaneous, structured argument over the merits of an issue," Rice says. "Under the ridiculous 32-page contract that reads like the rules for the Miss America Pageant, there will be no candidate-to-candidate questions, no rebuttal to your opponent's points, no cross questions or cross answers, no rebuttals, no follow-up questions -- that's not a debate, that's a news conference."

(9.) The debates were hijacked from the truly independent League of Women Voters in 1986.

"The League of Women Voters ran these debates with an iron hand as open, transparent, non-partisan events from 1976 to 1984," Rice says. "The men running the major campaigns ended their control when the League defiantly included John Anderson and Ross Perot, and used tough moderators and formats the parties didn't like. The parties snatched the debates from the League and formed the Commission on Presidential Debates -- the CPD -- in 1986."

(8.) The "independent and non-partisan" Commission on Presidential Debates is neither independent nor non-partisan.

"CPD should stand for 'Cloaking-device for Party Deceptions' -- it is not an independent commission on anything. The CPD is under the total control of the Republican and Democratic parties and by definition bipartisan, not non-partisan. Walter Cronkite called CPD-sponsored debates an 'unconscionable fraud.'"

(7.) The secretly negotiated debate contract bars Kerry and Bush from any and all other debates for the entire campaign.

"Under what I call the Debate Suppression and Monopolization Clause of the contract, it is illegal for the candidates to debate each other anywhere else during the campaign," Rice says. "We need a new criminal law for reckless endangerment of democracy."

(6.) The debate contract effectively excludes all other serious presidential candidates from participating in the debates.

"This is what I call the Obstruction of Democratic Debate Rule, which sets an impossibly high threshold for third-party candidates... Where are we, Russia? Isn't Vladimir Putin wiping out democracy in Russia by excluding all opposing candidates from the airwaves during his re-election campaigns? Most new ideas come from third parties -- they should be in the debates."

(5.) All members of the studio audience must be certified as "soft" supporters of Bush and Kerry, under selection procedures they approve.

"It's not enough to rig the debate -- they have to rig the audience, too? The contract reads: 'The debate will take place before a live audience of between 100 and 150 persons who... describe themselves as likely voters who are soft Bush supporters or soft Kerry supporters.' We should crash this charade and jump up in the middle to declare ourselves hard opponents of this Kabuki dance."

(4.) These "soft" audience members must "observe in silence."

"Soft and silent... In what I'm calling the Silence of the Lambs Clause of this absurd contract, the audience may not move, speak, gesture, cough or otherwise show that they are alive and thinking."

(3.) The "extended discussion" portion of the debate cannot exceed 30 seconds.

"Other than the stupidity of the debate contract, what topic do you know that can be extendedly discussed in 30 seconds?"

(2.) Important issues are locked out by the CPD debate rules and party control.

"Really important but sticky or tough issues get axed, because the parties control the questions and topics," Rice says. "For example, in 2000, Gore and Bush mentioned the following issues zero times: Child poverty, the drug war, homelessness, working-class families, NAFTA, prisons, corporate crime and corporate welfare."

(1.) Fortune 100 corporations are the main funders of the CPD-sponsored debates, and the CPD's co-chairs are corporate lobbyists.

The CPD is run by Frank Fahrenkopf, a pharmaceutical industry lobbyist, and Paul Kirk, a top gambling lobbyist," Rice says. "And the biggest muliti-national corporations write the checks that fund the CPD -- Phillip Morris, Anheuser-Busch and dozens more. The audience may have to be silent and motionless, but the corporate sponsors can have banners, beer tents, Budweiser girls handing out pamphlets protesting beer taxes -- a corporate-sponsored circus to go along with the Kabuki Debates. Could we get a more fitting description of our democracy?"

Anytime you wish to place people into opposition, it matters not if it be two brothers, or two nations, you create opposition through the definition of ideas. We are good, they are bad. We are peaceful, they are warlike. They wish to kill us, we wish to live in peace. We are human, they are not.

Other chants of opposition: We are American, they are immigrants. We are hard working, they are lazy. We have virtue, they have none. They are infidels, we are the chosen. We, they. Us, them.

It's basic human sociology. Define the pack and the pack will follow. Play the  parts against something else, and you can control.

Bin laden is the enemy of moderate Islam, by making us the enemy, he makes himself the leader of all of Islam because we take his place as the enemy of moderate Islam.

*Bin Laden has stated he wants all Americans dead.  If the translators are have interpreted him correctly and without twisting his words to help along an agenda.  But I'm not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.  If it's true that Bin Laden has uttered such a genocidal wish, then he's nothing more than a brown-skinned Nazi and we're the Jews.

There are thousands (millions) of wacko-s who have one axe to grind or another. My point is that our response has empowered bin Laden.

Kicking in doors of (relatively) innocent Iraqis may or may not be justified. My real objection is that it is STUPID because it creates allies for bin Laden.

*Well, I'm about as far removed from being an authority on international affairs as anyone could possibly be I suppose...

I see your point.  And perhaps it was also a mistake to focus so much media attention on Bin Laden himself (another way of empowering him).

Perhaps the U.S. gov't decided to use him as a scapegoat figure.  Not that he's innocent or nice; rather, singling him out as the poster boy for Bad Arab Behavior.  Isn't it true that nations/societies "must" have a scapegoat figure onto which to vent all their rage and frustration?  Seems, based on a bit of sociopolitical studying I did a few years ago, that's what is done. 

--Cindy

The Right elevates the threat from a small band of thugs to justify their own hold on power. Politically, Bush needs bin Laden to remain a major threat.

*Bin Laden has stated he wants all Americans dead.  If the translators are have interpreted him correctly and without twisting his words to help along an agenda.  But I'm not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.  If it's true that Bin Laden has uttered such a genocidal wish, then he's nothing more than a brown-skinned Nazi and we're the Jews.

It's not we who need changing; it's them!!   

Is it? IF the majority of the population in the MidEast is against us, as most Western opposition states overtly or otherwise, then it seems reasonable that we are in fact in a clash of civilization that has just begun warming up again after a lull.

Well if we are in a clash of civilizations, then it is hardly something that can be resolved just by invading other countries.  The only way we could "win" such a conflict would be to either exterminate islamic civilization(which is not a politically acceptable option), or make it so that the population of the MidEast stops hating us.

The prize should be viewed as a subsidy rather than a payment for services.  The real money will be made when passenger-carrying flights begin.

My strongest objection to Bigelow's prize is that it will expire at the end of the decade.

"About 1 kilogram of mass is lost to space every second, Lundin told SPACE.com. That would be equal to 2.2 pounds of material if weighed on Earth."

Every second.

So all we need to do is get a starter atmosphere, then have everyone drive a big honkin' SUV, maybe get a couple million head of flatulating cattle and we're set. 

Calling it America's Prize ensures that we American's take it very seriously and do everything we can to prevent some other non-American from rocketing off with our name sake.

As they say, it's ours to lose. 

I have a weeeeird imagination, but all of a sudden I have visions of Osama B enlisting lots of wacky scientists in the hope to humiliate the USA by winning Bigelow's prize...

errr... Ok, nevermind....

Can the U.S. afford a conflict in Iran?  Troops, financing the fight, etc.? 

I don't think so.

Well, since you bring it up... 

There's a big misperception about this. Our military is as large as it is primarily because during the Cold War it was decided that we need to be able to fight two major wars simultaneously. Big wars, like one in Europe and one in the Pacific. The Middle East, not just Iraq or Iran but the region, could be classified as a single theater of operations. One major war.

Not that I'm advocating policy here, just pointing out some things to consider.

The problem with this is that the "two war" model doesn't mean "two major wars with no sacrifice at home." Therein lies the problem, a large percentage of the population believes that if gas prices go up or luxury goods cease production that we "can't afford it" when we most certainly can with a little homefront discipline.

Militarily we're set up to fight WWIII. Domestically we freak out whenever our troops actually have to fight, and if we have to pay an extra nickel at the gas pump... Mass hysteria.

That old line about the decadent Americans being a paper tiger... maybe there's something to that.  :hm:

The EELVs would continue the failed 'build it twenty-tons-at-a-time-and-they-will-come' mindset that left us with the ISS. This philosophy is even worse when it comes to exploration since hydrogen boil off will be even more of a problem when you adopt the pieces/parts.

If we want large production runs, then get the most bang for your buck. Using the Delta IV approach, you must expend 15 RS-68s to get 100 tons to orbit.

By launching five HLLVs with only three RS-68s apiece, you sell your 15 RS-68s but you have 500 tons in orbit in the same amount of time. Real Space commerce will only be successful if done in large scale - not by dropping ME-163 Komets out from under Learjets.

The key to lower launch costs is not launch frequency, but delivery in bulk. We do not see motorboats crossing the Atlantic with goods, but very large containerships plying the waves.