Giuliani has made a rather strange and obvious mistake. The former Mayor of New York City Mayor blurted out the following nonsense at a campaign stop in New Hampshire:

If a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001… Never ever again will this country ever be on defense waiting for (terrorists) to attack us if I have anything to say about it. And make no mistake, the Democrats want to put us back on defense!

Not only was the Republican administration on the defense waiting for attack in 2001, but their actions literally lowered the security of the country by ignoring warnings and only accepting information based on a slimy system of political allegiance and favoritism.

Giuliani really tried to drive home a similarly divisive view:

“I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense,� Giuliani continued. “We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.�

He added: “The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.�

Actually, none of the measures after 9/11 have been proven effective or even necessary to protect the Americans from harm. Quite the contrary, a drop in intelligence capability after Bush and Cheney came to office opened the path for attacks. Simply putting the pre-Bush collaboration and intelligence communities back together after the attack (by virtue of unified effort due to disaster response) was sufficient to prevent another attack. In other words, had Bush not been in office, it is unlikely the attacks would have been successful.

According to the Stop Baroody site, another questionable decision about security in America is on the table:

President Bush has nominated Michael Baroody – one of Corporate America’s leading anti-consumer henchmen – to head the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) – our top government agency protecting millions of Americans from injury and death from unsafe products.

Some examples they provide are alarming:

During his tenure at NAM, Michael Baroody:

Fought to allow a higher level of arsenic in drinking water: NAM claimed that negligent manufacturers would feel a pinch in their profits if forced to prevent their waste products from poisoning local communities.
Arsenic is often found downstream from negligent chemical producers and users that knowingly try to bypass EPA Regulations – thus endangering all communities downstream. A deadly poison, even in the smallest amounts, it causes shock, vascular disease and a plethora of cancers in the body.

[…]

Worked to immunize corporate CEOs from criminal liability for marketing deadly products to the public, maintaining such actions might slow “productivity.”
As an example, knowingly marketing clearly defective bulletproof vests – leading to deaths of soldiers, police and elected officials – would not be a criminal act.

The consumerist has this to say on the subject:

Baroody’s professional career consists mainly of PR work for major Republican candidates. Recently, he served as chief spokesman for the National Association of Manufacturers, a group the San Francisco Chronicle described as “an industry group that opposes aggressive product-safety regulation and punitive fines.”

The Wall Street Journal points out that he has been working against consumer security and safety since 1990, when he left the Reagan administration:

Mr. Baroody currently serves as Executive Vice President of the National Association of Manufacturers. He has been at the trade group since 1990. Mr. Baroody worked in the Reagan White House and served as assistant secretary for policy at the United States Department of Labor from 1985 to 1990.

I haven’t looked into it much yet, but I bet Baroody also was instrumental in trying to strategize against airbags in automobiles.

Reagan apparently fought along-side the automobile manufacturers and against the safety of consumers. His administration argued that airbag requirements were not going to help prevent deaths, but even more importantly (to them) they would prevent Chrysler and Ford from competing with import vehicles. Who can forget the date in history when Reagan was rebuffed and the security of Americans was upheld by a unanimous court:

1983: The Supreme Court rules against the Reagan administration and directs NHTSA to review the case for air bags.

[…]

1981: Under the anti-regulatory Reagan administration, NHTSA announces one-year delay of passive-restraint rule, proposes that it be rescinded altogether. [Transportation Secy: Elizabeth Dole]

Bush appears again to be using the spoils system to head backwards in time, at the expense of national security. This is like Bolton at the UN, Brown at FEMA, Wolf at the World Bank, Paige in education, etc.

Why is it that the Helen Petrauskas of the world rarely, if ever, get these types of appointments?

Her daughter, Laura Petrauskas of Troy, Mich., said her mother was committed to safety and to air bags and often talked about her work.

“A car is an awfully big purchase for most people,” the daughter said. “You’re producing something that is intrinsically dangerous, and you have a real responsibility to make it as safe as you can in those circumstances.”

Now that’s the kind of consumer safety champion who should earn the appointment, not just another republican party campaign manager and corporate lobbyist.

This seems like a huge blow to the company’s origins. Pretty soon, as global regions prove less likely to succumb to anticompetitive tactics and are free to make a balanced comparison versus other products (especially in the area of security), Microsoft might have to just give their software away.

Microsoft software will sell for just $3 in some parts of the world in an attempt to double the number of global PC users.

Some people call this a business strategy to out-compete hobby-ware such as Linux, or an extension of the kill-collaboration manifesto that built the Gates’ family fortunes. In terms of locking consumers in to the Microsoft philosophy, the question will become whether people are stuck with a $3OS or if they can use another OS on the same hardware.

In related news, Iowa has settled their lawsuit with Microsoft:

Microsoft Corp. agreed Wednesday to pay Iowans up to $180 million to settle a class-action lawsuit that claimed the company had a monopoly that cost the state’s citizens millions of dollars extra for software products.

The $179.5 million settlement means individuals in Iowa who bought certain Microsoft products between 1994 and 2006 will be eligible for cash. Companies with multiple copies can seek vouchers that will enable them to buy computer equipment and software. The amount that can be claimed will depend on which product and how many copies were purchased during the 12-year period.

Amazing, especially when you look at what they determined as “overpayment” per user:

For each copy of Microsoft Windows or MS-DOS, customers can claim $16 per copy, Microsoft Excel is worth $25 a copy and Microsoft Office, $29 a copy.