The BBC has some odd commentary on the US Presidential hopefuls:

Mr Gravel’s strong views clashed with what we all perceive to be the average American world view.

Mr Gravel said the front runners actually frightened him, so addicted were they to war and violence, a comment that would describe the attitude of many around the world to the US itself.

Interesting to hear a presidential candidate voicing that fear. It reminds us all that there is another America, which is not always on show.

This reminds me of the warnings you find now on peanuts jars: “may contain traces of peanuts”. It should be self evident that rational (e.g. real) Americans are still inside America, despite all the attempts to obscure them with violently dogmatic substitutes like those appointed by the Bush administration.

Craig recently pondered why a media giant would want to tightly control access to presidential debates.

I asked whether he thought the Amerian people had a right to this debate since it is our election. He said that “the American people have ample opportunity to view the debate on MCNBC and two North Carolina stations.�

Shameful. What makes NBC think it has the right to own the democratic discussion in this country?

It’s a rhetorical question, really, but firstly I think the answer has to do with how the current administration believes that the business of information makes “free” or “open” communication a harmful concept. They want the discussion owned and they trust large corporations, even foreign-owned, rather than citizens. Secondly, it is perhaps because they want to help “shape” the conversation and thus carefully influence the views available to their audience. For example, something tells me this sort of honest, open and frank American opinion found on Craigslist would never reach the air on NBC (Warning: May Contain Traces of America):

From an Angry Soldier
Date: 2007-04-10, 1:00PM PDT

I’m having the worst damn week of my whole damn life so I’m going to write this while I’m pissed off enough to do it right.

I am SICK of all this bullshit people are writing about the Iraq war. I am abso-fucking-lutely sick to death of it. What the fuck do most of you know about it? You watch it on TV and read the commentaries in the newspaper or Newsweek or whatever god damn yuppie news rag you subscribe to and think you’re all such fucking experts that you can scream at each other like five year old about whether you’re right or not. Let me tell you something: unless you’ve been there, you don’t know a god damn thing about it. It you haven’t been shot at in that fucking hell hole, SHUT THE FUCK UP!

How do I dare say this to you moronic war supporters who are “Supporting our Troops” and waving the flag and all that happy horse shit? I’ll tell you why. I’m a Marine and I served my tour in Iraq. My husband, also a Marine, served several. I left the service six months ago because I got pregnant while he was home on leave and three days ago I get a visit from two men in uniform who hand me a letter and tell me my husband died in that fucking festering sand-pit. He should have been home a month ago but they extended his tour and now he’s coming home in a box.

You fuckers and that god-damn lying sack of shit they call a president are the reason my husband will never see his baby and my kid will never meet his dad.

And you know what the most fucked up thing about this Iraq shit is? They don’t want us there. They’re not happy we came and they want us out NOW. We fucked up their lives even worse than they already were and they’re pissed off. We didn’t help them and we’re not helping them now. That’s what our soldiers are dying for.

Oh while I’m good and worked up, the government doesn’t even have the decency to help out the soldiers whos lives they ruined. If you really believe the military and the government had no idea the veterans’ hospitals were so fucked up, you are a god-damn retard. They don’t care about us. We’re disposable. We’re numbers on a page and they’d rather forget we exist so they don’t have to be reminded about the families and lives they ruined while they’re sipping their cocktails at another fund raiser dinner. If they were really concerned about supporting the troops, they’d bring them home so their families wouldn’t have to cry at a graveside and explain to their children why mommy or daddy isn’t coming home. Because you can’t explain it. We’re not fighting for our country, we’re not fighting for the good of Iraq’s people, we’re fighting for Bush’s personal agenda. Patriotism my ass. You know what? My dad served in Vietnam and NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

So I’m pissed. I’m beyond pissed. And I’m going to go to my husband funeral and recieve that flag and hang it up on the wall for my baby to see when he’s older. But I’m not going to tell him that his father died for the stupidty of the American government. I’m going to tell him that his father was a hero and the best man I ever met and that he loved his country enough to die for it, because that’s all true and nothing will be solved by telling my son that his father was sent to die by people who didn’t care about him at all.

Fuck you, war supporters, George W. Bush, and all the god damn mother fuckers who made the war possible. I hope you burn in hell.

Yeah, that’s what I’m talking about.

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.