Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
It's funny. Laugh. Your Rights Online

Competition To Find Aussie PM's Email Address 352

Posted by timothy from the why-not-ask-some-spammers dept.
Internet Ninja writes "While we can all send anti-war emails to 'president' of the USA and even the Australian opposition, nobody can email the Prime Minister of Australia. So the opposition party started a competition to track it down as reported in Australias Sydney Morning Herald."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Competition To Find Aussie PM's Email Address More

Competition To Find Aussie PM's Email Address

Comments Filter:

  • That's going to be as hard to find (Score:3, Funny)

    by t0qer ( 230538 ) on Monday January 20, 2003 @04:40AM (#5117590) Homepage Journal
    as Paul Hogan at the Oscars

    • Re:That's going to be as hard to find (Score:4, Informative)

      by swordboy ( 472941 ) on Monday January 20, 2003 @10:41AM (#5118664) Journal
      Not really - some groups often set up extranet's that they assume to be private when they really aren't. A while ago, FOX took over Speedvision because it was becoming very popular, yet didn't show much in the way of FOX's ASSCAR (Redneck's turning left). FOX saw this as a threat, so they conveniently bought up the station so they could cram the content down the viewers throats - the US seems to be hip to eating up *whatever* is delivered to them.

      In all, I became frustrated so I scoured the net for some information. It turned out that there was an "affiliate" site set up by FOX that was completely open and unsecured. I was able to get some stuff... Here are the regional VP's contact info:

      Northeast
      CT, DE, DC, MN, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT, WV
      Bill Lyons

      (212) 822-9023

      blyons@foxcable.com
      1211 Avenue of the Americas
      31st Floor
      New York, NY 10036

      Central
      IL, IN, IA, KS, MN, MD, MA, MI, MO, NE, ND, OH, SD, WI
      Ken Tremback

      ktremback@foxcable.com

      (314) 206-7029
      700 St. Louis Union Station
      Suite 300
      St. Louis, MO 63103

      Southeast
      AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, Puerto Rico & Caribbean
      Chris Killebrew

      (404) 230-7317

      ckillebrew@foxcable.com
      1175 Peachtree Street N.E.
      100 Colony Square, Suite 200
      Atlanta, GA 30361

      Southwest
      AR, CO, ID (Southern), LA, MT, OK, TX, UT, WY
      Rob Evanko

      (972) 868-1801

      revanko@foxcable.com
      100 East Royal Lane
      Suite 200
      Irving, TX 75039

      West
      AK, AZ, CA, HI, ID (panhandle), NV, NM, OR, WA
      Matt Cacciato

      (310) 286-3713

      mcacciato@foxcable.com
      10000 Santa Monica Boulevard
      Los Angeles, CA 90067

      Go ahead and ping them if you aren't happy with their decisions as of late (Futurama, etc).

  • Get rid of aussie spam. (Score:3, Funny)

    by www.sorehands.com ( 142825 ) on Monday January 20, 2003 @04:42AM (#5117593) Homepage
    Once the PM's email is made public, he will get tons of spam.

    How long do you think it will take them to write laws to kill spam and execute spammers?

    • Re:Get rid of aussie spam. (Score:5, Funny)

      by mpe ( 36238 ) on Monday January 20, 2003 @04:46AM (#5117608)
      Once the PM's email is made public, he will get tons of spam.

      He's probably more concerned about getting "flamed" right now.

    • Re:Get rid of aussie spam. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by h4mmer5tein ( 589994 ) on Monday January 20, 2003 @05:36AM (#5117731)
      "Once the PM's email is made public, he will get tons of spam.

      How long do you think it will take them to write laws to kill spam and execute spammers?"

      And this is a bad thing because........?

    • Quit wasting your time here (Score:4, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 20, 2003 @05:46AM (#5117749)
      Fark is running a make fun of slashdot photoshop thread [fark.com] -- simply priceless.
    • Hold it. In Australia all we do is give spammers a good booting.

  • heh... (Score:2, Funny)

    by rgoer ( 521471 )
    "While we can all send anti-war emails to 'president' of the USA..."
    I didn't know Dick Cheney's email address was made public...

  • Email him here (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 20, 2003 @04:49AM (#5117618)
    Providing a Feedback form [pm.gov.au] rather than just an email address is a very good way of limiting the spam that the PM would receive.

    • Re:Email him here (Score:3, Informative)

      by echucker ( 570962 )
      .... and by reading the article, you would have noticed that the opposition party has already acknowledged the existance of said form. They want a direct email address.
    • I don't like those fancy feedback forms for some simple reasons:

      1. They force me to fill out fields with things like my name or address and that's something what my email-client or my signature would provide automatically.
      2. There is usually no way to store what I wrote there in my email archives. But I like to file my outgoing messages.
      3. They always want my mail address but they want to hide their own mail address.

    • "Providing a Feedback form [pm.gov.au] rather than just an email address is a very good way of limiting the spam that the PM would receive."

      Howabout writing a Perl script such that when you email some other address, it loads that page, and submits it with the email attached?

      Maybe even implement it as part of an anonymous remailer chain [eu.org], and you'll have the added advantage of anonymous free speech.

  • publicity stunt (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 20, 2003 @04:50AM (#5117620)
    this is a pretty funny publicity stunt.

    as the labor party is well aware, federal politician's email addresses are pseudonyms and changed quickly if they fall into the 'wrong hands'.

    furthermore all senior federal politicians have access to the other email addresses, so the labor party already has johnny's email address.
    • what if he just doesnt care to even HAVE an email address.. maybe his secretary takes care of hard things like that..

      it's not like bush would read all the mail sent to him..

  • You can e-mail the Prime Minister by following the steps set out if you folloe this link . .

    http://www.pm.gov.au/your_feedback/feedback.h tm

  • Anti-war petitions (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Kingpin ( 40003 ) on Monday January 20, 2003 @04:55AM (#5117631) Homepage
    I've recently received chain-letter-like anti-war petitions, stating that they origin from the UN that are in the process of gathering signatures.. (Why they would want to do that is beyond me). These are hoaxes, but how do I convince the people that send me these, that this is the case? I have tried pointing them to the page at the UN that explains that they don't do petitions, that didn't work.

    Could it be, that these mails have some effect, despite they are not from the UN, I mean, do they end up on someones desk, or in a killfile?

    • For education about hoaxes (and a wonderful list of hoaxes), there's one big reference site : hoaxbuster [hoaxbuster.com], lots of really easy to understand explanations of what is a hoax, why not forward it, ...

      Maybe it has a little drawback for you -> french-speaking oriented (mainly with hoaxes from FR,BE,CH,QC.CA).

      .

    • Re:Anti-war petitions (Score:4, Informative)

      by Charm ( 313273 ) on Monday January 20, 2003 @05:39AM (#5117735)
      These are hoaxes, but how do I convince the people that send me these, that this is the case?

      I used to get a lot of these. First find a case of that letter on a anti hoax site saying that it is a hoax. Reply and tell them they have been hoaxed. If they are forwarding it to a lot of people then forward the anti-hoax information as well. Having backup from a anti-hoax site reinforces your statement and they will look like an ass and think twice before sending such letters again.

      Some Anti-hoax sites
      Hoax Busters [ciac.org]
      Virus Myths [vmyths.com]
      Just search on google for urban legends and you will get more sites.

    • "These are hoaxes, but how do I convince the people that send me these, that this is the case?"

      Remind them that the real UN only gets in touch with the general populace when they're looking for money (like UNICEF).
    • Just this morning, I got another idiotic chain letter (informing me that on January 14th [a week ago] AOL would start charging people for AIM.) It was obviously a hoax, but, like you said, it's hard to convince people of this.

      So I started thinking... I want to start a site that will collect e-mail hoaxes (allowing people to submit hoaxes), and investigate / explain why they're hoaxes. (For example, in this case, they could call up AOL and have the AOL people confirm it's a hoax.) Then I could elaborate on the parts of the e-mail that should have clued people in that it was a scam, such as that AOL can't track my e-mail, especially if neither I nor those who I send it to use AOL. (Or that it was sent almost a week after they were supposed to have made it non-free... that was a good indicator.)

      I'm tempted to to register a domain, such as hoaxlist.com, and start this, although it'd need to become somewhat popular before I could actually have a fairly inclusive list of hoaxes.

      Does anyone else think this is a good idea? (BTW, anyone should feel free to steal my idea... I don't really have the time to implement anything like this anytime soon.)

  • Email Address (Score:5, Informative)

    by ZenJabba1 ( 472792 ) on Monday January 20, 2003 @04:57AM (#5117636) Homepage Journal
    J.Howard.MP@aph.gov.au

    Taken from an old usenet posting when he was still a MP, and it doesn't bounce, so I'm assuming its good

    • Re:Email Address (Score:3, Informative)

      by Tyreth ( 523822 )
      Seems to bounce now. I think they may have changed it?

      This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification. Delivery to the following recipients failed. J.Howard.MP@aph.gov.au

    • Try pm@pm.gov.au (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Skevos Mavros ( 460902 ) on Monday January 20, 2003 @07:19AM (#5117940) Homepage
      j.howard.mp@aph.gov.au might be the correct address, but I would guess it just forwards to whoever is looking after whatever Mr Howard's portfolio was at that time (you didn't give a date to the usenet posting).

      A little birdy told me (I briefly worked in the Australian Federal Public Service a long time ago, and I have a few friends that still do) to try pm@pm.gov.au instead. Though I'm betting it forwards to the same place that web site form seems to go to - webmaster@pm.gov.au.

      Anyway, I don't really see the point of this "competition", even from a publicity stunt point of view. No one REALLY thinks that the Australian PM (or the US President or the French President etc) sits at his desk each morning, opens up Outlook/KMail/whatever and checks his incoming email, do they?

      Maybe they think the PM opens all his own mail too. And that he really does write every word of every document that has his signature on it...
      • Vaclav Havel wasn't in his office in Czechslovakia the day I stopped by, and I wouldn't have wasted his time even if he had been, but his office was in a part of the main castle in Prague that tourists could just walk up to, though of course his secretary might not let you by. (This was before the Czech-Slovak split). That also doesn't mean he reads email directly from the public, any more than he reads all his paper mail from the public; I'd expect staff members to handle that and forward the more important mail to him.

        On the other hand, if you want to Slashdot the PM, go ahead, or ask Joe Baptista [dorje.com] about how to fax the entire government of a province or email the US government.

  • so many to choose from! (Score:5, Funny)

    by ardiri ( 245358 ) on Monday January 20, 2003 @05:15AM (#5117681) Homepage
    doing a search on yahoo.com (people search) is normally a pretty good start, and, a few interesting ones i found in the list of 200 or so are:

    gstjohnny yahoo.com.au
    john_howard_pm_2000 yahoo.com.au
    pm_john_howard hotmail.com
    johnhowardmp yahoo.com
    nakedhornyguy yahoo.com (hahaha)

    now, first - i have to apologize to all those other John Howards out there (yes, even the multiple in australia) for having to share this name - i really cannot believe the guy is still in power.

    oh.. and, how many guys will respond for a measy crate of coke and $100 or linux software? (isn't most linux software = free?). maybe someone at SMH just wants john to be spammed.
    • now, first - i have to apologize to all those other John Howards out there (yes, even the multiple in australia) for having to share this name

      It's not just the commoners who have to deal with the shame - there's a reasonably prominent TV actor in Australia by the name of John Howard. He's in a few TV shows at the moment (He was in SeaChange, now in Always Greener).

      This was played to great effect in a satire show called "The Games"; in the show, John Howard (the actor) went on TV to apologise for the governments historical treatment of the indigenous population - something that John Howard (the PM) refuses to do.

      Russ %-)
      • ...went on TV to apologise for the governments historical treatment of the indigenous population - something that John Howard (the PM) refuses to do.

        God damn I'm sick of people whinging about this. John Howard has publicly stated that he regrets it, offers his condolences, yada yada yada. That's the best ANY prime minister can do. It's simple really - the prime minister is the face of the government. If he apologizes, that act constitutes the government taking responsibility for the child-nappings. Then it's open floodgates for the aborigines to sue. They'll get a little, but mainly the lawyers will profit, as the case goes back and forth all the way to the supreme court - all at taxpayers' expense.
        • God damn I'm sick of people whinging about this. John Howard has publicly stated that he regrets it, offers his condolences, yada yada yada.

          Settle, Gretel. Read my comment again. I did nothing but state the facts - John Howard has refused to apologise. And he has (using pretty much those words, IIRC). I made no suggestion or demand that he _should_ apologise, or _must_ apologise. I very deliberately avoided doing so.

          That's the best ANY prime minister can do

          On this point, you are wrong. There is precedent.

          The PM of Canada apologised for the treatment of the Innuit. In a public reconciliation ceremony just a few years back, he used the exact words "We Are Sorry". You will note that the Canada has not imploded as a result.

          A "should he apologise" discussion is badly off topic here, but I had to correct you on this point.

          Russ %-)

  • DUH! (Score:4, Funny)

    by indiigo ( 121714 ) on Monday January 20, 2003 @05:42AM (#5117738) Homepage
    It says it right there!


    Send comments about this site to the WEBMASTER [mailto]


    He's obviously running the site himself to throw everyone off!

  • This is pointless (Score:2, Interesting)

    by bobthevirus ( 589241 )
    Seems to me as though this isn't going anywhere anyway, i mean, how will we know that its the right address??
  • Maybe the "Spam Queen" [wsj.com] can help us find his e-mail address ;-)
  • If they want to effectively protest the war, they should be sending e-mail to shussein@presidentialpalace.gov.iq (would be a logical guess)

    To war or not to war, that is the question... for Saddam Hussein.

    And the Australian PM has what say in this conflict??? The peaceniks might as well be bugging CowboyNeal. Here ya go: cowboyneal@slashdot.org. That will have just as much effect on the war. Seriously.

    • You are wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Cpt_Corelli ( 307594 ) on Monday January 20, 2003 @07:01AM (#5117902)
      Why email Saddam Hussein? If you have followed recent news you will find that it is the US that is about to invade Iraq, not the other way around.

      I bet that the coming US invasion of Iraq will end up in this list pretty soon [bowlingforcolumbine.com]...
    • There is nothing Saddam or anybody else on this planet can do to stop GW from invading Iraq.

    • And the Australian PM has what say in this conflict???

      I'm glad you asked.

      Once day, in the body, there was a fight between the organs of the body over who was the leader. The brain said "I'm the leader because without me we couldn't think". The heart said "I'm the leader because without me your blood wouldn't circulate and we'd all die". The lungs said "I'm the leader because without me we couldn't get air and we'd all die". The asshole said "I'm the leader", and the others laughed. So the asshole clammed shut. Nothing got past for days. Then weeks. The passages started filling up, poisons started leaking into the blood stream, and eventually the other organs conceded and gave power to the asshole. Which just goes to show that you don't have to be a brain to be leader, you just have to be a retentive asshole.

      Now, what does this have to do with Little Johnny? Well, aside from the obvious retort, Johnny is lodged so far up Bush's posterior that he could choke off that exit route, thus leaving Bush incapable of doing squat about the "war". What's Johnny doing there, I hear you ask? As near as I can tell, he's shining a flashlight so Bush thinks the sun shines out of his ass.

  • The British Way (Score:3, Funny)

    by Tomun ( 144651 ) on Monday January 20, 2003 @06:21AM (#5117829)
    Perhaps they should try this tactic [bloggerheads.com] ?

  • Ok, what ithe heck (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Monday January 20, 2003 @06:23AM (#5117832)
    is with the quotes around president? Yes people, George Bush is the president of the United States. You may not like him or agree with his politics, you may even think he's a moron, that's fine you aren't alone. He is, however, the president and of that there is no debate.
    • Ok, what ithe heck is with the quotes around president? Yes people, George Bush is the president of the United States. You may not like him or agree with his politics, you may even think he's a moron, that's fine you aren't alone. He is, however, the president and of that there is no debate.

      I took it as meaning "the email doesn't really go to GWB himself, just his office/staff/whatever", but if it meant what you think, may I just point out that Tony Blair is not elected - not 'the election was questionable', but there was no election for PM. Instead Blair became PM because Labour dominates the Commons (British version of the House of Representatives) and he is Labour leader ('elected' mostly by the unions).

      However inaccurate the counting in Florida is - and I think virtually everyone agrees it was a close run thing, however you count it - at least Americans had an election for President, where you could vote for or against Bush; Britain did not hold one in the first place!

      • Well the point with the president has nothing to do with the Florida counting, the popular vote or anything like that. Bush is the president and has been confirmed as such. That's just how it goes.

      • Re:Ok, what ithe heck (Score:3, Insightful)

        by nagora ( 177841 )
        there was no election for PM.

        Which is fair enough in a party system. The US system doen't fill me with excitement at the idea of having a separate election. If we'd don it that way then Thatcher would have stayed in power for ANOTHER two years before we could kick her out. It makes no more sense to vote for PM than it would to vote for leader of the opposition or chancellor of the exchequer. They are all just cabinet posts and the pary can fill them as it sees fit.

        Labour leader ('elected' mostly by the unions)

        Labour leader is elected by the Labour MP's and Blair wouldn't get many union votes today if they did have any say in it.

        at least Americans had an election for President, where you could vote for or against Bush; Britain did not hold one in the first place!

        Why do you think this is a big deal? We voted (or not) for parties in the full knowledge of who their leaders were and those leaders were a substantial factor in the way people voted.

        TWW

        • Why do you think this is a big deal? We voted (or not) for parties in the full knowledge of who their leaders were and those leaders were a substantial factor in the way people voted.

          I wonder, do Britons care very much about who their MPs are? Do they go to the polls thinking about how great Tony Blair is but hating the labor MP candidate for their district and vote for him anyway because he's labor and they want Blair for PM?

          My guess would be that given the strength of the parties in Britain your individual MP wouldn't matter all that much, since they're almost always vote the party line which is mostly directed by the PM.

          In America there's quite a lot of stir over congressional elections, and many people deliberately split their vote between President and congress, even when the candidates in question directly oppose each other on policy.

          • Re:Ok, what ithe heck (Score:3, Insightful)

            by nagora ( 177841 )
            I wonder, do Britons care very much about who their MPs are? Do they go to the polls thinking about how great Tony Blair is but hating the labor MP candidate for their district and vote for him anyway because he's labor and they want Blair for PM?

            It's wrong to generalise.

            But I'll do it anyway.

            I think most people here do vote on party lines although it might be truer to say that they vote on policy lines. If the party supports a policy they like then people will vote for it, especially if they think the leader of the party will push that policy. So, if the PM is kicked out by the party mid-term as happened to Thatcher, people might still be happy if the policies are still what they want (not in that particular case, however).

            In some places the individiual candidate matters, particularly in marginal seats, but the reality is that no one likes politicians and most of them are as dull as the next so it usually doesn't matter. The issue of who the leader of the party is very mixed. Currently Blair is pretty well hated but Labour are seen as better than the other options while the Labour MPs themselves can't decide if the bloodbath unleased by giving him the boot would leave them in power and none of them want to start the experiment. Iraq is the first time I've seen Blair under any real pressure from public opinion but, again, there are no obvious alternatives in the other parties so I doubt that he'll have any trouble joining in the attack when the time comes.

            My guess would be that given the strength of the parties in Britain your individual MP wouldn't matter all that much, since they're almost always vote the party line which is mostly directed by the PM.

            This is quite true of all the parties, not just the governing one that the PM belongs to: each party has its "whips" which tell the sheep, er...MPs how to vote. The whips have a lot of power since being dropped by the party at the next election for being a trouble maker is normally a one-way ticket to palookaville (sp?) since the voters will just vote for your faceless replacement. Again, there are a few exceptions but they are very, very rare indeed.

            many people deliberately split their vote between President and congress

            It is worth noting that the PM has very reduced powers compared to the President so this doesn't make as much sense over here; there's no real way in which the PM's power needs to be balanced by putting a different party in opposition to it. There are more differences in the two systems than most PMs would like, I think.

            TWW

            • It is worth noting that the PM has very reduced powers compared to the President so this doesn't make as much sense over here; there's no real way in which the PM's power needs to be balanced by putting a different party in opposition to it. There are more differences in the two systems than most PMs would like, I think.

              The US President may have more direct powers over the executive branch, but the way we were taught was that the PM as more effective legislative power because his party leadership coupled with party discipline meant that it was much easier for his policy slate to be made into law than the Presidents.

              Although as you indicate, it helps for the party in power to actually like its leader. If you're a hated leader of the party in power and you're there only because the party doesn't trust the outcome of outsting you, then, well, maybe you have less effective power than you think.
        • "Why do you think this is a big deal?"

          We think it's a big deal because:
          1. It means that one political party is in control of both your legislature and executive by definition. This gives one organization control over most of your government.
          2. It means that you end up voting for political parties as much (if not more) than you vote for the individuals themselves. If the candidate that is otherwise the best choice for the legislative position isn't from the correct political party, they won't get elected.
          3. Involvement in government requires membership in a political party. This both gives political parties much more power in government than they would otherwise while making the government less accessible by the common person.
          Let's compare that system to the US:
          1. One political party gains control of two branches of govenment only after voting specifically allows it. The majority of US voters vote on a cross-party ticket. This is how my home state of Louisiana voted for Bush in the 2000 elections but is still represented by two Democrats in the US Senate (even after last year's election).
          2. Voters are free to vote for the candidate they feel is best for the job. While some voters do vote on straight party tickets, the majority of US voters do not. Membership in a political party need not enter the decision process at all.
          3. While most people think of US politics being a "two-party system," the fact is that membership in a political party is not required to hold public office. There are several party-independent mebers of US Congress and many more at the state and local levels. This is a legal impossibility in most Euroepan countries (as well as other democracies around the world, such as Australia).
          It's not the way you handle your parties' political power in government that concerns us, it's the way you give them such power to begin with.

          By the way...

          "If we'd don it that way then Thatcher would have stayed in power for ANOTHER two years before we could kick her out."

          You assume she would have gotten a second term to begin with (or even a first term). You have literally no way of knowing who voted for her party directly and who voted for a candidate who happened to be a member of her party.
          • Rather than debate these details I'd rather suggest that the lesson on both sides of the Atlantic is that money buys too much access to the law-makers. I can't see that these differences in electoral and governmental theory have played out in either country to a practical improvement in the people's involvement in and representation by the government of the day.

            Almost all politicians are crooks at heart and any system that involves them is doomed to become corrupt over time no matter how well designed it is initially. "Who watches the watchmen?" is the eternal question in representative democracy and the answer is always "no one" in the long run.

            It happens than I don't think that the American system is better even in theory but it is not important anymore as both systems have now failed utterly from their ideals; neither Americans or Britons have any real involvement in what are becoming two of the the world's greatest Plutocracies.

            TWW

      • Re:Ok, what ithe heck (Score:5, Informative)

        by bcboy ( 4794 ) on Monday January 20, 2003 @01:07PM (#5119726) Homepage
        > However inaccurate the counting in Florida is - and I think virtually everyone agrees it was a close run thing, however you count it

        This just isn't true. It wasn't close. Between the "Jews for Buchanan" vote and the Democratic voters that brother Jeb arbitrarily threw off the voter rolls, Florida overwhelmingly tried to vote for Gore.

        In any case, the voting results weren't used. The Supreme Court justified installing Bush by pointing to press accounts of the election. Bush was elected by Fox News.

        The take-home lesson: your vote doesn't count; what the media report counts.
        • "Between the "Jews for Buchanan" vote"

          On a ballot that was publicized weeks ahead of the election.

          "the Democratic voters that brother Jeb arbitrarily threw off the voter rolls"

          The governor has no say in who is elected to the Florida Supreme Court. They are chosen by direct election.

          The governor has no say in who is elected elections commissioner. They are chosen by direct election.

          "The Supreme Court justified installing Bush by pointing to press accounts of the election."

          The vast majority of the members of the US Supreme Court were approved of by a Democrat congress.

          The Supreme Court did not pick the winning candidate. The deicision boiled down to "Not our problem" after looking at both the US and Florida consitutions. The popularly-elected Florida high court did what they felt was required by Florida law. The popularly-elected commissioner signed off on the results.

          Was the deck stacked against Florida voters? Perhaps. But they did it to themselves.

          "The take-home lesson: your vote doesn't count; what the media report counts."

          No, the take-home lesson is what it always has been in democracy since its inception: caveat emptor
        • The take-home lesson: your vote doesn't count; what the media report counts.

          Not quite true. The lesson for Democrats is that they need to win by a decisive margin, not a relatively small one that can be overturned by the Supreme Court. That means people need to go out and vote against Bush.
    • Ok, what ithe heck...is with the quotes around president?

      I don't think any slight was intended. The President of the United States (for at least the last few administrations) has always had the email address president@whitehouse.gov.

      So for any sitting President of the United States the people have the option of sending an email to 'president'. Perhaps the legitimacy of Bush's Presidency deserves to be challenged and perhaps not--but this time the quotes were legitimate and had nothing to do with the mess in Florida.

    • I use scare quotes around "president" because I consider the U.S. presidency to be an elected position. I do not believe that George W. Bush was fairly elected to the position. I do not use scare quotes when referring to any other recent presidents, whether I dislike them or not, since I believe they were fairly elected.
    • Rather than "the President" (proper noun), it's my opinion that 'president' is an excerpt from 'president@whitehouse.gov' or whatever it is. That's why it's in quotes - it's a quotation.

    • And in 1775, George III was King of North America, and of that there was no debate.

      You see, the thing about politics is that there's always a debate, and just because some guy called George declares himself my lord and master doesn't preclude me from saying that he's a thieving parasite with no more mandate to rule than any other monarch appointed by a partisan Council of the Wise rather than a popular vote.

      • No, there really isn't. Bush is president. Congress agrees, the military agrees, his opposition (Gore) agrees. They may not like it, they many not have wished it, but it is the fact of the matter. There is no war being fought over it, Bush simply is president, it has been decided. You may not agree with the way it came to be, but it has been decided and that is that.

        Also I get real, real sick of this popular vote shit. The president is not, and never has been, elected by a popular vote. The U.S. system was NOT designed that way. Now personally, I think it should be a popular vote election, but for now it isn't. Bush is also not the first persident to loose the popular vote but win the election.

        The system can (adn I think should) be changed, however as it stands popular vote is not the method for election. This is again, simple fact. You can try and deny this, just like denying that Bush is president but that does not make you right, it just makes you out of touch with reality.
    • He is, however, the president and of that there is no debate

      Ok, what rock were you under when he got elected?
      • None. The contraversies of the election do not change the fact of the present. He is president. Right or wrong, that's how it is. There is no war over it, it's not like some states disagree and are rebelling, he is the president of the union. There is great debate as to wether he should be or not, but the fact that he IS is not something that is up for debate.

        I fail to see how this is such a hard concept to grasp. You may believe that Bush illegally, fraudantly, and so on came to be president, hwoever he has been confirmend as such and is now our president until the next election. There is a difference between how something came to happen and what happened.
    • Seems you're a bit defensive about the legitimacy of W's rule after his bloodless coup of 2000. You have every right to be, but fear not. The quotes probably refer to the fact that when you send email to the 'president,' he's not the one actually reading it. Some intern (who the president is definitely not bonking in an effort to restore honor to the office of the president) is. The letters then get compiled into a report with large letters and small words the president can read and understand.
      • I am not defensive, I just get sick of people being delusional and trying to distort the truth. Regardless of what you or anyone thinks of the 2000 elections, Bush is president. Love it, hat it, it is a fact. Now I personally think the 2000 election shows that we really need to reform the way the election process is done, staring with the abolition of the electorial system and a move to a pure popular vote for president. HOWEVER, this does not change the fact that Bush is president. Your personal like or dislike of the man does not change that fact.

        Also you need to consult a dictonary. The word coup, in this context, means: "the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group". Bush did not overthrow the existing government, it remains intact as it did before. He was declared the victor of the 2000 elections and as such became the president. You may (and obviously do) disagree with the method that was taken to arrive at the decision that he was teh victor, but none the less it was conducted in according to the laws of this country. More importantly, it was not something that destroyed the governemt nor altered it fundimentally. Even if you believe that Bush became president through outright fraud, that's still not a coup.
        • Also you need to consult a dictonary. The word coup, in this context, means: "the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group"

          Oh fun. The dictionary attack. Can I play?

          OED has a bunch of other definitions for coup, one of which is "A dislocation or fault by which a coal-seam is tilted up." I'm surprised you didn't use that one to suggest that I had implied W tilted up a coal-seam in Gore's ass in 2002.

          There are other definitions for coup ("a successful move," "a sudden and decisive stroke of state policy," "a sudden and great change in the government carried out violently or illegally by the ruling power," etc.) that don't require violence. In any case, the bloodless in my original post made it clear that I didn't think the coup was violent.

          USA! USA! USA!

          • As I stated, the definition for coup I used is the one that relates to the present discussion. I would think you could understand that words have different meanings in different contexts.

            At any rate Bush's ascention to presidency utterly fails to meet the defeinition of coup in any form. The government was not substintally altered or indeed altered at all. The constitution is still the supreme law of the land, the three branches still remain. The only change was that a new president came to power, as is the intent of an election when the current president is not permited to run.

            Now the 2000 election was frought with contraversy. There was allegation of misconduct on both sides (please do not forget the allegations that Gore attempted to block military votes, and bribed homeless peopel to vote with cigarettes). According to Florida law, there were recounts. Then, the Florida supreme court (a body elected by popular vote in Florida) and the election commisoner (also elected by popular vote in Florida) decided that it was done, and Bush had won. This was then challenged to the US Supreme Court (the supreme judicial review in this country) who also decided it was over and that Bush had won. This was all done according to the law.

            Now you may believe, and may be right, that Bush engaged in misconduct to win the election. However, that does not change the fact that he is the president, nor the fact that it was not a coup. You should, perhaps, travel abroad to a country that has experienced a real coup and get some first had accounts of what it means.

  • Linux.conf.au (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dnigh ( 15799 ) on Monday January 20, 2003 @07:13AM (#5117927) Homepage
    Considering Linux Conf.au kicked off today, maby the Labour Council is just looking to give geeks something to do between presentations ?

    Seriously though, this is just a cheap publicity stunt for the Labour Council and should be treated as such.
  • I'd like to know where to send my anti-dictatorship e-mail. Anybody got Saddam's e-mail address?

  • Sounds familiar (Score:3, Interesting)

    by popeydotcom ( 114724 ) on Monday January 20, 2003 @08:05AM (#5118063) Homepage
    The guys at Bloggerheads [bloggerheads.com] have been doing a similar task to find the email of Tony Blair (British PM for those not in the know).

    Slightly different as Tony promised that he would release his email address, but so far has not. Quite funny, worth a read.
  • Do I get my prize now?

  • Well this should narrow it down... (Score:3, Funny)

    by labratuk ( 204918 ) on Monday January 20, 2003 @09:21AM (#5118335)
    ...it has to be

    bruce@ something

  • Ummm.... (Score:2, Informative)

    by hbean ( 144582 )
    http://www.pm.gov.au/your_feedback/feedback.htm appears to be a form to email the australian PM. Unless I'm blind and the words "Email the Prime Minister" don't mean that anymore.

  • The form goes nowhere (Score:2, Informative)

    by Mazurbul ( 35820 )
    If you look at the code for the feedback form:

    You'll notice that mailto has no value, I'd say it doesn't submit anywhere.
  • George W. Bush is not `the "president" of the United States'; he's the President of the United States. He was elected in the appropriate Constitutional manner by electors from the fifty states (and DC?), and his election has been accepted by said states and the courts. He is the president.

    When it comes to how people voted, he did win the majority in Florida, as has been constantly demonstrated.

    I'm really not all that keen on him (I voted for Brown), but the fact remains that George W. Bush is our president. The leftists who try to pretend that he's not (incl. Michael Moore, whom I saw on British television making near-treasonous comments regarding Bush) need to get lives. But then, that applies to all leftists.

  • is eParliment eHouse, eCanberra, e2600 :)

Slashdot Top Deals

"The Street finds its own uses for technology." -- William Gibson

Close