Slashdot Mirror
Ask the Presidential Candidates
We are sending questions to the following candidates (listed in alphabetical order by political party affiliation):
- HOWARD PHILLIPS (Constitution Party)
- ALBERT "AL" GORE, JR. (Democratic Party)
- DENNIS I. "DENNY" LANE (Grassroots Party)
- RALPH NADER (Green Party)
- HARRY BROWNE (Libertarian Party)
- JOHN S. HAGELIN (Natural Law Party)
- EARL F. DODGE (Prohibition Party)
- PATRICK J. "PAT" BUCHANAN (Reform Party)
- GEORGE W. BUSH (Republican Party)
- DAVID E. McREYNOLDS (Socialist Party)
- MONICA G. MOOREHEAD (Workers World Party)
Meanwhile, quorum.org is doing a similar, Slashdot-style interview with senatorial and congressional candidates in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. If you live in those states, you might want to check it out. We've been talking back and forth with Scott Reents of quorom.org about all of this for months, and we're curious to see the difference in the kinds of questions he gets from his "general audience" readers and those we get from the net-hip, tech-aware Slashdot crowd.
So ask away, and let's see what happens.
Update/note: We will not select questions addressed to a single candidate. We are sending the same 10 questions to all candidates. - Robin
What reforms would you like to see made in the H1B visa program?
Many companies depend on the H1B visa program to satisfy their need for tech workers. Several problems have been identified with the current H1B visa program. A September 2000 report by the GAO documents the massive expansion in the H1B program, and concludes that better controls are needed. Organizations such as the IEEE have provided recommendations to reform the current process.
I am interested in your view as to what problems you see in the H1B visa program, and steps you would take to correct them.
Actually, "belief in the nonexistence of God" is only one definition of atheism; another is "disbelief in the existence of God". The latter is the same as one usage (of three that I've seen) of agnosticism but is not the definition Huxley origially used, if I recall correctly...
The "offical" Presidential Debates require a 15% average in six hand-picked polls. This requirement was hastily raised after Perot managed to get into the last debates and nearly got himself elected despite being a total nutter with delusions of grandeur.
As for other third-parties in the debates, although there are over a hundred different third-party candidates, a bare handful have even a mathematical chance of winning (ie. on the ballot in enough states to win the Electoral College). The Republican primaries worked with 5 people on stage, so would this.
From http://www.clydelewis.com/dis/t ren ch/trench.html:
``It was overlooked by the media that the worst school disaster happened on May 18, 1927, when 45 people were killed, including 38 elementary students, by a series of dynamite explosions at the Bath Michigan School. After detonating explosives he planted under the school, "maniac bomber" Andrew Kehoe, a school board member and treasurer, blew up his pickup truck, killing himself and the Bath School superintendent.''
--
Ski-U-Mah!
This is the accepted Trvth, but is it actually true, or is it simply what's been repeated so many times that people just assume that it's true? Note that the following might work against this:
It assumes that the marginal value of an extra dollar's income is the same at all levels of income. If the marginal value of income decreases greatly above a certain level, then a tax cut that puts someone above this line (for that particular individual) might not encourage that person to work harder at all; it might encourage that person to work less, to put his or her income closer to that knee.
It is clearly true that the marginal value of income is less for wealthy people than for poor people. Wealthy people are not likely to spend their off hours flipping burgers for an extra $3-4/hour (net). The issue is whether someone receiving additional income because of a tax cut chooses to spend some of that income purchasing extra leisure time (people talk about working harder to pay the taxman -- that's exactly what I mean).
Income level is not necessarily proportional to level of effort, particularly at high levels. For someone performing piece work, it quite clearly is; for an executive or professional, it often isn't.
There is a fairly clear region where a high tax rate does discourage productivity, but it's not one that people like to talk about -- it's the fact that welfare (and other) benefits are withdrawn quite abruptly at certain levels of income. This acts as an extremely high marginal tax rate, which I suspect is well in excess of 100% in some cases (certainly when there's a hard wall it is). In that situation, there's a very clear lack of incentive (and if the marginal rate exceeds 100%, an outright disincentive) to produce. But this isn't the situation people usually think of when they talk about reducing the tax rate.
Will the (hypothetical) extra growth really be sustained, or will it simply be a one-off effect that boosts growth for a few years until things settle down at basically the same level of growth?
However, poorer schools can't afford books and other educational material, and poorer students can't afford to buy their own.
One solutions would be an educational computer network that carried electronic versions of ALL basic and advanced school texts to scools in deprived areas would provide the students there with the materials they need.
Would the candidates consider such a solution? And if not, what do the candidates feel is the most cost-effective way to solve the resource crisis?
As a follow-on, would candidates consider making education tax-deductable (say, in proportion to the level)? A well-educated person can generate more revenue for the US (through tax, additional trade, etc). Since education isn't cheap, offseting some of that potential against the cost would seem to be the way to encourage people to become as useful and able as they can.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Do any of the canidates think that the current election system is in need of reform, or is a two party electorial system the best way.
Is there a problem with corporate and media interest in our current election system.
What about a no-party two-pass voting system?
In this system, there would be no special power given to political parties. In fact, presidential primaries may not be needed.
The first pass would be the "vote your heart" vote. And the second pass would be choosing from the top candidates. This would greatly lesson the wasted vote fealing that people get in a two-party system.
Or are there other ideas for a more democratic election system?
There are a lot of really good questions here. It's going to be difficult to choose the 10 best. Any chance you could short-list say 20 of them and post it as a slashdot poll?
Paul.
It's interesting to see the Natural Law party listed -- I'd assumed they were just a UK penomenon until now. I wonder how many other polital parties are international, and what would happen should they come to power in multiple countries simultaneously. Scary thought.
Sidenote: anyone else amused by Monica G. Moorehead's bio where she's listed as a religious atheist? So how does that work, then? :-)
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
But at what point did it become one nation under God? "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian Religion." This quote was not by George Washington (as is widely claimed), but it was in a treaty ratified by the senate in a unanimous vote during his second term of office, and signed by John Adams in 1797.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
The Constitution allows the Congress to set laws instituting Patents and Copyrights "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" "for limited times." How long do you believe copyright should reasonably exist on a work and what "fair-use" of copyrighted materials do you believe should be allowed? In addition, are there any types of work that are currently copyrightable which you either do not believe are worthy of copyright or believe should be treated differently in copyright law?
Very little... too busy running the country/Texas/for prez.
What is your favorite internet porn site?
Prono degrades women, bad bad bad
How many mp3's have you downloaded from napster
What's an mp3?
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
I am interested what sites these guys visit (if any). I'd suspect CNN.com, CNNfn.com, and politics.CNN.com
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
Gentlemen:
You both admit, to one degree or another, to have used illicit substances in your past, and yet you both would like us to believe that you are fully functional, respectable members of society.
You both also claim that you are comitted to support, possible strengthening, the current "war on drugs" -- a war by the laws of which you should be put in prison for your actions of the past.
How do you reconcile your positions on these issues? Do you admit that recreational drug use is not a serious issue worthy of spending millions upon millions of tax dollars on, as well as tying up our legal system with the prosecutorial burden? Or are you willing to submit yourselves to appropriate punishment for your actions, regardless of any statute of limitations on them -- like the honorable men you claim to be.
The Congress is supposed to represent the people of this country, yet in recent decades it seems to represent the large corporations that have enough money to entice them with "contributions" or lobbying. Would you support a bill making it treason for members of Conress to represent the interests of corporations when it is in direct conflict with the interests of the people?
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
I think we're already in dependancy -- take a look at how many people depend on the State to provide something for them
Here in Mississippi, we're trumpeting about how many kids we've signed up for the CHIP program. Is this something to be proud of? How many kids have become, in a sense, wards of the State? 25,000 at last count, and there aren't all that many people in Mississippi. 25,000 is a goodly portion of the population.
If that isn't enough, how many of our aged depend on Social Security and Medicare for their food and medicine? I have no clue. My grandmother is on Social Security, and I hate it. If i didn't have to cough up nearly 50% of my income (self-employed), I'd be more than able (and willing -- my grandmother is an 85 year old hacker in her own way) to help care for her. As it is, I live hand to mouth myself (nope, no health insurance -- but then, I'm pretty healthy) and can't bear supporting somebody else.
Dependancy (I would argue) is equivalent to slavery anyway. Dependancy on a person is bad enough -- dependancy on a faceless State is horrible. It's equivalent to being a stand of trees or a ditch on Federal land. You're owned by the State and used by the State, but not cared for by the State because, after all, you're just property with no value.
I'm just about ready to leave this country and move to a Caribbean island where the laws are lax (I'm thinking the Turks and Caicos). Sure I like my fast Internet connection, but when confronted with the choice between freedom and nerdliness... I'll be the first to choose running a dive shop over hacking Tcl anyday.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Not too many years ago, that idea wouldn't have even popped into your head. It was as unthinkable as drilling holes in your own head. Family was (and still should be, IMO) everything. My Granny wouldn't think about being a burden, because she wouldn't be a burden. She's family.
It's still somewhat prevalent here in the South (not nearly what it used to be), and the Philipinos have us beat like all get out -- family over there is way at the top of the list of Important Things.
We don't have tight families anymore (witness our spectacular divorce rate and the pseudo-prestige given single parents). Dunno when or how exactly this happened (for conveniece I like to blame the Boomer generation), but it's a shame that it did happen.
As for those who don't have anyone to support them, there used to be charity houses where they could go and be cared for. I know, you're thinking how horrible those were or could be. When I was younger, I used to play my cello for the residents of Government-run retirement homes. Trust me -- I know of which I speak -- those are just as bad if not worse.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Do you believe that the Supreme Court made a mistake when it ruled that corporations are individuals, with all the inalienable rights thereof? If so, what would you do to correct this mistake?
Yes or no; do you support a 100% taxation rate on income over a certain level? If so, what is that level?
-
A related question hinges on technical standards. As part of my suggestion above, I'd like to see a standardized box (that I can buy from any manufacturer, at WalMart) that will convert the fiber signal into TV, Telephone, Data, or whatever. Then, if I want to change my cable provider, I simply call my current provider, say "drop me," call a new provider, say "I want to give you my money," then walk downstairs and it should be switched over. There's no technical reason why this cannot happen today -- except that there are too many competing and incompatible standards.
At many times in the past, the government has refused to endorse a single technological standard (AM Stereo, HDTV (until late), and Cell Phones are examples). The rationale behind this is comendable: "Let the market decide." The end result, however, is that we have several competing and incompatible standards out there, and the industry is unable to settle on any single one -- saddling users with hardware supporting legacy sytems, the inability to switch between providers without buying a new phone, and so forth. How would you rectify this situation (both for new needs, such as the "one connection" box I describe above, and to bring the US into the 21st century to finally catch up with the Finns and the Japanese)?
As recently reported by the Associated Press, promiment Senator John McCain (R-AZ), joined by three other Republicans, has recently begun promoting mandated internet 'filtering' in public libraries and schools. Doesn't it seems strange that a party, whose major planks focus individual rights and freedom, is behind a proposal to obstruct it? What is your opinion on this? Is this a violation of civil liberties?
Here in Germany, the Internet is sometimes called Datenautobahn (data motorway).
In 1995, Helmut Kohl, then Chancellor of Germany, was asked by a German IBM manager during an interview: What's the government's take on the Datenautobahn?
His answer: The Autobahn system is an issue of the federal states.
------------------
------------------
You may like my a cappella music
Probably 99% of my unsolicited bulk email (also known as Spam) originates in the USA. It is a whole new dimension of fraud, chain letters and multi level marketing, thanks to the cheap mass mailing possibilities of the Internet.
While Anti-Spam regulation exists, US laws appear to be very weak on this issue. Here in Germany, laws are far stricter and the financial fines involved can make email spam a very expensive hobby for a spammer.
Most US spammers cite non-existant laws (the Murkowski bill is an example) as an excuse for their actions, trying to appear legal. Some of the most persistent spammers have been in action for years and are known by name and address, yet they still haven't been stopped, due to weak US laws.
Will there ever be more efficient laws against spammers and their usual snake oil line of fraud products?
Also: I see a disturbing trend of US-American political parties trying to use E-Mail spam for their campaigning. While not being an American citizen, I have already received such E-Mail by US-American parties and political or corporate lobbyists. What is your take on email bulk messaging as a political tool?
------------------
------------------
You may like my a cappella music
Stock options are credited against the corporate
tax. When the grantee exercises their option, they pay a tax at the personal income tax rate. that is gnerally higher than the corporate tax rate- 28-36% versus 25%. So the governments gets a LARGER revenue than otherwise.
Since he became a Congressmen. Has real estate, treasuries and cash instead.
Bush owns stocks.
However, Bush encourages more tax incentitives for supply and Gore tax incentives for conservation and alternative energy.
When I see so many facts mangled in many of the questions posted here, I am saddened by the state of our system. High tech people seem no less ignorant than the general population on the issues. Should try reading an [online] newspaper now and then.
The high tech industry claims we need far more computer science people than graduate from US schools. The number of computer science majors has been stagnating. Hence we are admitting (or planning to admit) nearly two million high tech special immigrants. This, in turn, scares US kids from considering the field and compounds the problem. Should we, and how can we get more US students into the pipeline?
I think this is an excellent idea. The President of the United States should spend a lot of time wrangling with issues that affect dozens of cities all over America. Many people will argue that these cities could probably pass their own laws that best suit their own citizens, but local government will just get it wrong. A federal law is necessary for any behavior which might be incorrect or inefficient. Think of all those people trapped in all that suburban sprawl, masturbating with their right hands, when they should be using their left as God and Congress intended.
Moderate the above post up, please!
If anything, atheism is now the official statre religion of the US, since the only legally acceptable religion in public has become no religion. It seems pretty childish to complain of discrimination against your revolt against reason when your form of disbelief is being enshrined as the only acceptable position.
This is simply not right. I will confess that in academia and in the tech industry, atheism is fairly widespread, however, -legally-, the right to practice any religion is as well protected as ever in the history of the U.S., and -socially- christianity is clearly still the primarily accepted religion, evidenced not only by the predominance of churches of christian sects, but, by the way that the candidates in the 'big two' parties manuevered to express their strong christian faith back in the primaries, not to mention that -every- president of the U.S. has been a christian of one sect or another. There is some evidence that the strongly christian leaning of the US government is weakening in that Gore chose Liebermann for a running-mate, but that only goes to show that there is increasing tolerance for other monotheistic faiths besides Christianity.
Anecdotally, it's easy to come up with examples of how religion is disappearing, but really, in a religiously diverse country, it's easier to keep religion as a quiet and personal matter than provoke arguments by loudly proclaiming the rightness of one's own faith at every opportunity. This is simple politeness, really, as any claim that one's own religion is 'true' implies that others are 'false,' and nobody likes to have their religious beliefs publically attacked. (Polite theological debate in the right setting being another matter.)
So, as evidenced by the fact that the a pro-christian standpoint -improves- the approval ratings of a candidate for the highest office in the United States, and with my suggestion above as an alternative explanation for some -appearances- to the contrary, I think it's safe to say that religion is still alive and well.
Anecdotally, FWIW, I don't currently know any atheists at all; I seem to recall knowing one or two in college. I -do- still know a handful of agnostics, but most people I know are, in about equal numbers, christian, jewish, or neopagan. I'm pretty confident that that's not at all close to the actual population, but it does show, at least, that the country is not overwhelmingly atheist or I'd have trouble meeting such people.
Now, if by 'legally acceptable' you meant the creationism/evolution in schools thing, and related issues, let me just say that science is not (or rather, -should not- be) a religion. It's a set of momentarilly believed 'truths' based on empirical evidence, and is perfectly possible to accept both scientific 'truth' and religious 'truth' at the same time. People do it every day. Now, when someone says 'spiritual religion is bunk because there's no scientific evidence for it', that's treating science like religion, and the proper answer to such persons is 'there's no scientific evidence -against- it either'. (Specifically, there's no scientific evidence that there is no such thing as a soul, a god or gods, an afterlife, etc. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that the Earth is more than a few thousand years old, etc. The devout christian will have to either believe that God created the world with that illusory evidence in place, or that the stories of Genesis and the years that people lived as you follow the genealogies up to historically verifiable events aren't exactly literal.)
--Parity
--Parity
'Card carrying' member of the EFF.
a) You shouldn't reply to obvious trolls. ;)
b) Joining an organization such as the ULC (Universal Life Church, at www.ulc.org) or one of the several umbrella pagan organizations that exist just to accredit local pagan groups as members of their religion can make it easier to get your temple/grove/whatever made into a place of worship, though depending on where you are in the country it still won't be easy... but then, starting a branch of the 'universal life church' might slide the paperwork through painlessly (and most ULC chapters -are- Christian oriented, though the church itself has as its only tenet that everyone is free to believe and worship as they choose, so you can easily be a pagan ULC minister... ) Anyway. Blessed be.
--Parity
--Parity
'Card carrying' member of the EFF.
Don't forget that most of that debt is owed to ourselves (in the form of Treasury notes and other bonds).
;)) go into debt control than take any of it out now. This will ensure a larger surplus next year, and the next, as long as the policy is kept up. (I would -not- want to see the debt cut in half in a single year or anything like that; I don't want to play with the economy that way.)
So what? This mostly means that our savings, held by banks, is in turn, invested into the US, which allows the banks to make a profit because of the interest rate differential, and other various large-financial-institution day-to-day-business. It -still- comes down to, the citizen is paying something like (I haven't checked the percentages in a couple years) half of his taxes to interest on the debt. Which would be better, doubling the federal income (allowing tax breaks of 50% across the board and/or new spending programs) or buffering savings bank interest rates?
Honestly, I suspect that having -some- national debt is a good thing for the economy generally since it -does- provide this stable place to dump excess funds and still earn -some- interest; however, the current debt is ridiculous; I really don't want more than about 10% of my taxes going to pay interest on the debt. I would much, much rather see the entire surplus (okay, lets compromise - half of it?
Anyway; recalling history, nations with drastic debts go into a spiralling inflationary depression when the economy dips, often destroying their currency altogether so they have to start over. (Witness Germany, England; Mexico had similar but recovered with a controlled, forced-inflation model). I'd really, really rather not see my life savings wiped out permanently because of poor foresight and something that -should- have been a temporary dip in the economy.
--Parity
--Parity
'Card carrying' member of the EFF.
That's not how the debt is read, though; social security and 'other investments' are not part of the general federal budget. They are - or were - deliberately separate.
The funds borrowed 'by the government from the government' are -still- debt, because, firstly, interest must still be payed on them, and secondly, social security funds are intended to be returned to the public via the social security program.
To treat money borrowed from social security as 'not really debt' is only valid if you think it's okay for the federal-budget side of government to decide to terminate the social security program and not pay that money back to its social security branch.
--Parity
--Parity
'Card carrying' member of the EFF.
There has to be a government to legislate stuff like drug use (including alcohol and tobacco) becuase a good number of people are 1) too stupid to know any better in the first place, 2) too stupid to "only hurt themselves" when they engage in stupid behavior... killing others while driving drunk, ...
You're absolutely right; it's clear to me now that the correct solution here is to completely ban the consumption of alcohol. Everybody knows that alcohol is bad for you and you shouldn't be drinking it anyway, so if we just outlaw it, nobody will drink anymore, and everyone will live longer, crime will go down, and society will be more peaceful.
(Warning: This post may contain irony; knowledge of the prohibition era is recommended before replying.)
--Parity
--Parity
'Card carrying' member of the EFF.
Not to mention that China pretty much has owned Clinton and Gore for the last few years.
Finkployd
Once they get elected, that promise is meaningless (see Bush Sr. ...)
:)
Or for more recent history, Clinton/Gore in 92 ran on the platform of a middle class tax cut. This was promptly forgotten.
Bush Sr only promised no new taxes, however the democrat controlled congress was able to override this. Thanks dems
Finkployd
You are assuming the typical movie break-in. At night, one guy with a crowbar and ski-mask. Yes he would be scared off with an alarm system.
I look at it this way, during the LA riots, the only shops that weren't looted and destroyed were the ones that the owners stood guard over with firearms. Nobody saw that coming, and people would have declared you a racist nutcase for suggesting it was possible before it happened, yet some people WERE prepared for the worst.
Do I think think that something like that could happen where I'm at? Where civility breaks down temporarily and leaves me to protect myself, my loved ones, and property by myself? Probably not, but am I any worse off for having addressed the possibility?
Finkployd
Fink, but don't think that people will every be perfectly nice to each other and not force others to do what they want.
History will back you up on that, unfortunatly it seems every generation must learn history over again.
The same applies with the armed forces. I see people advocating a 50%+ decrease in armed forces because they don't see a need for them. After all, the planet is more civilised now and something like a world war would never happen again. Just like before WW2.
Finkployd
The whole reason that taxes are colleted at all just because people don't know how to (or moreso, are to selfish to) better spend their money.
In who's opinion? Yours? Who made you the expert?
Sorry to burst your bubble, the reason taxes were collected (specifically income taxes) was to fund the war effort. Like many other taxes, it was intended to be temporary, but became permanent.
Finkployd
That whole thing was simply a gross display of sloppy journalism to make Al Gore look like an idiot.
I can't believe that actually happend to a democrat. Usually it's the republicians they usualy use sloppy journalism to attack.
Oh well, tit for tat
Finkployd
Why is a tax cut so big? Wouldn't the money be better spent on the deficit so when worse times roll along
Personally, I prefer to decide for MYSELF how MY money is best spent. A tax cut would let me do that.
Finkployd
If there is a single factor in government that has contributed to the currenty positive economy, it was Greenspan. Now don't get me wrong, he had a small role compared to the private sector, but he was certainly more influence than say, Clinton (who for some reason seems to think he had something to do with it).
Finkployd
Personally I think we should get rid of all firearms, they make death easy and without value.
I would love to see that, how do you propose we do it? Currently all our attempts have failed at doing anything other than making it harder for non-criminals to get guns to protect themselves from criminals (including the recently reported failed Brady Law).
I have a gun to protect myself from the people who use their guns to committ crimes against myself and my fellow law abiding citizens, but I don't want it. However, it being irresponsible of me to not provide for my own safety, I will not give it up until the last gun is out of the last criminal's hand, and my safety is guarenteed. When this is done, I'll be first in line to get rid of my gun.
Finkployd
Who determines what is "stupid". It is a very subjective thing.
Rights don't need to be earned.
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
How is taking a test to show that you know what you are doing with a gun "virulently anti-gun" and "take away a freedom from otherwise law-abiding citizens"?
Who determines what a passing score on this test is?
What if you don't get that score? Would you deny someone a constitutionally protected right because they didn't pass an arbitrary test? Isn't that a bit like the voting tests that southern blacks had to take?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Truly weird, just last week I was talking with my grandfather about this. Offer alternative sentences to non violent offenders. 2/3 of the amount of time to be spent in jail spent in the military instead.
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
As a regular voter in U.S. elections, I want to know how each of the candidates for President intends to execute changes in the way the Department of Defense develops and maintains readiness to defend against physical, network and semantic information attacks by enemies, both foreign and domestic.
The War College has been churning out papers on this very subject for years, yet the Congress continues to allocate funds like we're preparing to do a D-day style invasion off the cold chaulks in the next "Last Great War".
I'm beginning to believe that only the President has the power to Stop The Madness. What will you do about the problem?
jhw
For all the candidates, except George W and AlGore: Since we seem to be moving towards a hereditary monarchy/aristocracy in this country, what qualities of your parents and your bloodline in general makes you uniquely qualified to become president and populate various political offices with your descendants unto the third generation or so?
A big topic today is gay rights or should they have them. In some countries gays are killed just for being gay. In South Africa, they first try to 'reprogram' them and when that fails the they kill them. I know Bush && Buchannon are against including gays on a hate crimes bill, and Gore says he is for including them in such a bill.
Hey just because it is against YOUR religion does not mean it is wrong! There was a time when Christianity had crusades and KILLED anyone who was not a Chrisitan. The NAZI's killed Jews / Hebrews just because they were Jewish or Hebrew. They ALSO killed gays and lesbians.
What are your views on the freedoms of those that do not share your views about religion and YOUR moral values? Specifically the religions that DO accept gays and lesbians, and DO allow them to marry and DO give them rights. The religions that teach true LOVE and not HATE.
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Only 'flamers' flame!
Libertarian candidate Harry Browne has answered this question on his web site.
There is a 60 second realmedia commercial available that gives a very quick overview of candidate Browne's position on the issue.
Brought to you by Frobozz Magic Penguin Fodder.
You're correct: I do not. I posted regarding those two because it really bothered me that the media, even knowing they'd messed up, often refused to apologize, apparently trying to justify their errors by saying that the events - although false - were somehow illustrative of events that weren't false. That's perverse.
Nor do I have the time or energy to chase after every such rumor. I believe that it's incumbent (no pun intended) on the accuser in such situations to present some evidence. I'm also saddened to see that so few other people seem to agree with me.
By the way - although I'm likely to vote for Gore, I do not consider myself a "Gore supporter" by any stretch of the imagination. I consider him to be the least of four evils. So if you're hoping to bait a Gore fanatic, take it elsewhere.
Just out of curiosity though, why would you say "mildly plausible"? The "Love Canal" bit was pretty obviously skewed against Gore unfairly, and the "Love Story was about Tipper and I" thing seems a lot less unreasonable when you consider that it was, in fact, based on him. Is it that you want to vilify him so much that you simply can't admit the possibility that you might be wrong?
Al Gore said in a speech to a group of high school students in New Hampshire that he "called for a congressional investigation and a hearing" regarding toxic waste problems in Toone, TN. During the course of the hearings, he said he started looking for other towns that had similar difficulties, which is how he came across Love Canal. I refer you to He's No Pinnochio, an article featured in The Washington Monthly, describing the actual quote, the circumstances surrounding its misinterpretation, and the utter refusal of most media outlets to apologize for the mistake.
It's true that the female lead in the story wasn't based on Tipper. However, The New York Times reported (December 14, 1997) that Erich Segal based male lead of the story was based on two people: Al Gore, and Gore's roommate (actor Tommy Lee Jones). So, you're right: although Al and Tipper weren't the basis for the male and female leads, Al and Tommy were the inspiration for the male lead, which kinda makes the whole scandal seem a little silly. Check the same article for citations.
I'm not saying that I find Gore to be particularly trustworthy or even credible on all of the issues. (I'm still considering a vote for Nader, the author of the previous post's favorite.) But if there's one thing I can't stand, it's when people accuse others of lying without being in full posession of the facts. Austad: do yourself a favor and provide better (ie: any) citations next time, or just keep your mouth shut.
By the way: Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet. Chris Lehane: "[Gore] was the leader in Congress on the connections between data transmission and computing power, what we call information technology. And those efforts helped to create the Internet that we know today." And the "widespread use by government and educational institutions since the early 1970's." line is bullshit. According to Jon Postel, Vint Cerf, and a host of other members of the ISOC, ARPANET didn't reach broad usage until the early 80s, and wasn't even using TCP/IP until the mid-eighties. I refer you to their document, A Brief History of the Internet.
I think an economy as strong as ours could take the hit, and the long-term benefits would be well worth it. What better time than now to pursue serious development of long-term energy?
You're right, of course, that prices across the board would be affected, and I should have made that more clear. Mainly, I am referring to those people who have their Ford Excursions out front and think it is their god-given right to cheap gasoline at the pump to fill 'em up with, as if it really makes much difference (especially compared to the price of their vehicle).
Have you ever gotten one of those chain emails trying to organize a "gas-out" day to "teach those companies a lesson about gas prices"? Those are so stupid.
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Dude, you're stomping on my idealism!
Seriously, I like your solution. Anything which is used as an excess luxury doesn't deserve to be kept cheap, but that which is truely needed (for now) shouldn't be artificially taxed (but nor should it be subsidized).
And prehaps my knowing several people at nrel has something to do with it...
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Well, I know no politician would say this, but perhaps our lifestyles could stand to be less extravagent.
Solar panels on homes can go a LONG way in reducing home heating costs. The rest can be done with natural gas, which burns cleaner.
The US has lots of natural gas, so there's no dependence on foreign countries there. Also, many cars are made to run on it. I'd buy a CNG car, but it hasn't been adopted in any meaningful way - there aren't many places it can be refilled. That's the type of thing that would benefit a great deal from subsidies.
But the bottom line is that while these things will help, we need to change our habits to something that is sustainable in the long term.
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Just so everybody is completely clear, Howard Phillips (and his "Constitution Party") is in serious need of a clue. Actually, they're neanderthals. Check out their site if this is unclear.
:-)
Of course, I'm not saying they shouldn't be in this interview. If anything, this is all the more reason why I would like to see their answers to these questions
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Obviously, I don't.
But there are a bunch of other candidates.
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Nobody uses GNP anymore. Use Gross Domestic Product (a related, but different calculation) instead.
Vidi, Vici, Veni
What is your interpretation of the Constitution's imposed separation of church and state, as in the first amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech")?
Do you agree with this provision? Why or why not?
Finally, what is your view of the role of religion in issues such as free speech, public education and crime prevention?
Vidi, Vici, Veni
I like stuff like this. It won't swing the election but I applaud the way you include every party, and it's nice that they will be made aware of these issues just by the questions being sent.
:-)
And I don't know if I speak for anyone else, but this slashdot interview is almost certainly going to determine my vote. I know the veep and gov probably won't answer, but I probably won't vote for either of them, anyway. I'd be very anxious to see John Hagelin's responses.
Anyways, keep up the good work
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Ordinarily, yes. In fact, that is exactly how it used to read. However, you'd be surprised at how much people will notice when you switch it around.
:-)
My official explanation is that the mouth is not an active storage class (like a stack or queue) but one of a fixed number of places the foot can go. Or, if you like, a number of states it may occupy. It is actually longhand for the number 0, as it is an enumerated type. This is easy to remember while coding, as the 0 looks like a gaping mouth.
This makes sense because in the act of inserting the foot into the mouth, the foot is playing the active role and doing the inserting- the mouth is not seeking out the foot and wrapping itself around it.
Also, since the foot goes into the mouth quite often, the default value for the location argument is mouth (at least with object 'me', meaning me, it is) so I could have left the 'mouth' out but I kept it in the interest of readability.
Plus, if I ever decide to do a 'rewrite', well, the apology is already there in my sig...
Thanks for asking
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Given that the various candidates have been using some sample waitress making $20K per year who has 3 kids and lots of debt, I'm wondering what the respective candidates are going to do for us.
In general, technical folks tend to make good money. We're driving the "new economy", but we're getting taxed like crazy, and we see next to no benefit from the taxes we are paying (the military is less prepared now than in my lifetime, the schools are bad and getting worse, our foreign policy is ineffective at best, and there are more people in prisons than ever before).
Essentially, we're doing well and working hard, and the government is penalizing us for doing the right things and making good decisions.
So, respective candidates or representatives thereof, here's my question: What are you going to do about a federal government that places extremely burdensome taxes on productive, intelligent, hard working citizens who have made good life decisions while it simultaneously rewards unproductive citizens who have made bad life decisions?
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I've recently been researching new cars with disel engines, such as the Volkswagen TDI engines. I've read they get 40-50 MPG, plus have lower emissions than standard gas engines. 25% of Europeans drive disel cars, but only 2% of Americans do.
Are diesel engines actually viable in America? I'm afraid to buy one because so few gas stations sell diesel gas. This is a classic chicken/egg problem Does anyone have any experiences with diesel engines? Which brands of US gas station sell diesel? At every station?
thanks!
cpeterso
Following the logic of the article, it makes more sense to redivide voting districts based on geographic area and some other factor that is correlated with political position; e.g. local population density. Farmers from two midwestern states would be in the same district, then, but a farmer and a city worker would be in different districts. Annual income might be another good factor.
If there isn't some politicized way of drawing up the districts (i.e. they don't reflect existing political factions), then the electoral process adds error, not voter power. The original assumption was that state divisions correlated with political factions. Now that that is decreasing, we need a new way of creating districts.
-m
Where do you stand on the Microsoft Anti-trust case? Do you feel that a breakup of the software giant will help or hurt the national economy in the long run? If elected, will you encourage the justice department to continue the anti-trust case against Microsoft?
Of course Nader won't win. But he's an outspoken person with a lot of ideas, that a lot of people happen to agree with, who is running for president. He has a non-trivial amount of support (not the unrealistic 15% set by the Republicrats as a criterion to get on the stage) and should have been allowed to debate.
/. did a good job researching some of the smaller third parties. There are some interesting people and ideas out there in addition to "Britney Gore" and the "Backstreet Bush" to make a music analogy...
I don't agree with Nader, nor do I support him, but I do believe he could have added some much-needed content to the debate. Likewise for Buchanan and Browne.
The Demopublicans have set up a system where no one can get in because they can't get enough support, but they can't get enough support because they can't get it. If they actually had confidence in their ideas, rather than just trying to win based on FUD, they would happily welcome serious third-party candidates with non-trivial amounts of support. Obviously you can't let any kook on stage, but there is surely room for someone other than Big Two.
I personally feel a real dilemma different from voting dumbo/ass parties vs. third parties in that I think the best candidate wasn't nominated: John McCain. Do I vote Republican because I generally agree with them the most even though I don't like their nominee? DO I write in McCain even though he's not running (a real throw-away vote if I ever saw one)? Do I punt? I don't know...
In any event I'm glad
Rick
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
------------------------------|----------|-------
Conservative..........42.3....|376.......|58
Labour................30.8....|229.......|35
SDP/Liberal Alliance..22.6....|.22.......|.3
Welsh + Scottish Nats..1.7....|..6.......|.1
(No, the figures don't add up, they're not complete - they're all I've got)
As you can see, what happens is that an electoral entity (party in this case, candidate in the US Presidential elections) needs a strong genographic base. The Conservatives are traditionally strong in the south and rural areas, Labour in the north and industrial. Nationalist are strong within their own regions, the SDP/Liberals were strong, er, a little pretty much everywhere. So, as the figures rather clearly show, they got _severely_ stiffed. Because they had broad (if shallower) support, they were ignored.
Having read through the linked study, I strongly disagree with many of the basic assumptions used to underpin his model.
If we want a simple explanation of why an electoral college or first-past-the-post system is wrong, it gives some voters more power than others. If you're in a safe region, your power is nearly nil. If you're in a swing region, your power is considerable. Can we really trumpet the principle of 'one person, one vote' when there is such a huge - and entirely irrational - difference in the value of individual votes?
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
No, because whether or not Prohibition had an effect isn't directly relevant to the question of whether or not it should have been law.
You have mistaken me for someone with a vested interest in claiming Prohibition was a good thing (or, like the source you cite, a bad thing). I'm not, I'm merely pointing out the effect it had. Most of my sources come from historian Richard Shenkman's book "I love Paul Revere, Whether he rode or not." The point is not that Prohibition was a good thing, or that it had any of the promised social effects (reducing absenteeism, etc.)- simply that the case against it is often way overstated. As Einstien notes, a law that can't be enforced destroys respect for the law. But of course the government didn't try very hard to enforce the law, and it's just rather surprising how effective they were despite that. (which is not, you might note, the same thing as saying: "it was effective")
Interestingly enough, your link helps demonstrate that you've managed to bungle your own statistics: I claimed it had an effect on the amount of drinking overall (per capita, accounting for population growth), not neccesarily on how much alcohol the average drinker imbibes. You might notice that those aren't even remotely the same thing. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "legal" either, since age-minimums aren't consistent across the two periods, and one of the major factors of the first century of American drinking was that young children consumed alcohol as well (and not just upper level teens).
Actualy, it's somewhat of a myth that Prohibition didn't work or that it created Organized Crime (which already existed and was near the peak of its rule BEFORE Prohibition- but alcohol was what got many figures popularized). Believe it or not, Americans used to drink FAR more than they do now, and a good portion of that drop came during Prohibition, when alcohol consumption dropped by nearly 3/4s and never really recoverd. What's really amazing about Prohibition was not that it failed, but that it was successful as it was consider how laxly it was enforced. The entire _country_ had only about hundred agents working on the law, for negible pay (making bribery easy). Overall, Prohibition was very sparsely enforced, and yet it had an astounding and lasting impact on American drnking habits. Compare that to hundreds of highly paid thousands of anti-drug task force professionals today, and the total failure of similar cuts in drug use. I'm not saying Prohibition was a good idea, it's just that bleary-eyed Hollywood retrospective seems to eclipsed historical fact.
Not just critics either. It's proven in study after study that treatment programs are far more effective, especially at prevent recidivism or moving on to real crimes.
As Paul Krugman tries to point out in his New York Times collumns, in politics- when you lie a tiny bit, the press is all over you. But when you lie to hte tune of billions of dollars, no one catches it. Neither Gore nor Bush are proposing reasonable economic plans, and no one is calling them on it. Pathetic.
Thank you for taking the time to look up the numbers (and reminding me about the SDP/Liberal alliance).
At the time I lived in an incredibly strong Tory constituency (Leeds NW), where the sitting MP managed to get arrested in a gay bar and still got reelected. Then I moved. To Huntingdon, where John Major had a majority larger than some constituencies' electorate. Then I moved again, to America, where I don't get a vote at all. I get a postal vote back in Huntingdon, for all the good it does me.
In fact, the only vote I ever cast in a Parliamentary election that was worth the effort was in 1987, when I was a student in Cambridge. I didn't vote for the winner, though.
--
--
E_NOSIG
Of course, this is only valid for a two-party system.
In England in the 80s we saw the Social Democrats (the third party) get almost 25% of the popular vote, but only 5% of the seats in Parliament, precisely because of this kind of "districting". So much for voter power being increased.
--
--
E_NOSIG
I know it isn't possible but...please! Don't submit these soapbox comments! These are supposed to be honest questions not articles on your own political ideology! Politions should not have to defend themselves against other political ideologies. We all know what the responses to such opinions are if you lurk alt.politics.talk or other political forums. There is no consensus. There probably won't ever be any either.
You mean, that whole thing with the USS Cole in Yemen is just some terrorist group's idea of sending us flowers?
/ , and it's just the big stuff. None of the petty kidnappings and murders are listed here.
the following is from http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/10/12/terrorism.box.ap
July 8, 1998 -- U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania bombed, killing 224 people, 12 of whom were Americans.
June 25, 1996 -- Truck bomb explodes outside the Khobar Towers housing complex near Dharan, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 Americans and injuring more than 500 Americans and Saudis.
November 13, 1995 -- Car bomb detonates at a U.S. military headquarters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killing five Americans.
September 13, 1995 -- Rocket-propelled grenade pierces wall of U.S. Embassy in Moscow, but causes no injuries.
December 21, 1988 -- Pan Am Boeing 747 explodes over Lockerbie, Scotland on a flight from London to New York, killing 270 people.
September 5, 1986 -- Hijackers seize Pan Am jumbo jet carrying 358 people at Karachi Airport. Twenty people killed when security forces storm the plane.
April 2, 1986 -- Four Americans killed when a bomb under a seat explodes on a TWA airliner en route from Rome to Athens.
June 14, 1985 -- Shiite gunmen seize a TWA airliner and forced it to Beirut, Lebanon. U.S. Navy diver was killed and 39 Americans held hostage for 17 days.
September 20, 1984 -- Car bomb at U.S. Embassy annex in east Beirut, Lebanon kills 16 and injures the ambassador.
December 12, 1983 -- Shiite extremists set off car bombs in front of the U.S. and French embassies in Kuwait City, killing five people and wounding 86.
October 23, 1983 -- Shiite suicide bomber blows up U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, killing 241 Americans.
April 18, 1983 -- Suicide car-bomber blows up U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 17 Americans.
November 4, 1979 -- Islamic students storm U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran, holding 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.
What are the three web sites you visit most frequently?
Do you use email, and if so, how often do you check it?
You still have to catch them first. Y'see, that's the problem with the whole prohibition concept. Those people who really want to do drugs will find a way. A lot of those people will continue to lead normal lives. Unless you bother to investigate them, you'd never know. And of course you can't investigate without just cause (yet...I'm sure there's some bastard out there trying to get that sort of rule out of the way).
About the only way you're going to catch the majority of drug users is to initiate some sort of nationwide mandatory periodic drug testing...and that's just not going to happen. Every privacy and human rights group would be up in arms in a heartbeat.
And besides...I'd much rather clean streets and parks than sit in prison for a while...and I bet the better part of the middle to upper class population thinks the same.
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
Arrest them, just like any other real criminal.
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
It is possible to have a bad mental reaction with weed. I remember quite a while back, several friends and I were smoking up quite a bit, and one of the guys got really paranoid for a while. Kept going off on huge conspiracies and the fucked-up concept of apartment buildings (kept saying "People live above us. There's something wrong with that." If he was acting it all, it was very convincing. Of course, he was fine an hour later.
I guess the moral of this story is know your limits, and if you're going to do more than you're used to, have a sitter around (ESPECIALLY with some of the "harder" drugs)
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
If you vote for a 3rd party candidate (or for anyone but your state's winner), it doesn't really matter to you whether your vote gets thrown away at the state level or at the nationwide level. The point is to throw away as few votes as possible. In an election for a single executive position like president, that means that the winner should have some level of majority support.
There are websites and web pages that point out the valid public interests served by the electoral college system. My own point is simpler: at worst, the electoral college only distorts the popular will by a few percentage points. Anyone with more than 52% of the vote is pretty much guaranteed a win, and the cases where a majority candidate loses are extremely rare. Therefore, fighting something written into the federal constitution seems to me to be quixotic.
But our current system routinely throws away the votes of anyone who votes for a minor party. This is at least 7 percent every single election and would be much higher if people voted their conscience. Instant Runoff Voting (IRV, the system used by ICANN) has the power to change this. It is also a viable political issue (local issues in Vermont, Washington, and New Mexico have put it into the realm of feasibility in these states; and once one state switches it could become a trend).
[technical note: if, due to IRV, a "minor" party candidate took a single state, that state's electors would see that their candidate had lost nationwide and vote their state's second choice among the stronger candidates. There are a few minor legal changes necessary to facilitate this process.]
In summary: this questioner's concern for proportionality is important for legislatures a non-starter for executive positions like the presidency. They should either fight for IRV on the presidential scene, or move to state or local politics and fight for proportionally representative legislative bodies (many, many countries do this, and it would be a huge step forward. Americans who argue against proportional legislatures as deadlock-prone are usually confused and really arguing against parliamentary selection of the executive.)
Preferential Voting: easy as 1-2-3
This is bunk. First of all, there's much outright falsehood in your post.
If anything, atheism is now the official statre religion of the US, since the only legally acceptable religion in public has become no religion. It seems pretty childish to complain of discrimination against your revolt against reason when your form of disbelief is being enshrined as the only acceptable position.
Finally, your ignorance on the issues is showing, too: the most active and vociferous opponents of school vouchers are those intimately involved in the classical Christian school movement, as I am. The reason is simply summed up by Doug Wilson: He who takes the King's coin is the King's man. The one taking the money may not know this - the one giving it always does... It is in fact that we would be forced to adopt atheistic policies and practices that drives us to oppose vouchers, which are a bad idea no matter how you look at them. (A tax credit, on the other hand would serve the intended purpose well, as it would not allow the state to forcibly coerce schools, since the parents would control the money, as they should.
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
Even those of us that are adamantly opposed to any government health system are still burdened with health care systems that are to a large degree, shaped and controlled by the federal government.
The vast majority of us pay hundreds of dollars every month to purchase a lot of coverage we niether want nor need, like routine doctors visits and every prescription we'll ever encounter.
Would you support regulations or the lack thereof that would promote the availability of catastophic healthcare coverage only, which would dramatically reduce the cost of health care to the end consumer?
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
Much has been made in this election about the costs of prescription drugs. Almost nothing haas been said about the reason prescription drugs cost an order of magnitude more than the same drugs cost in other countries: the hideously expensive and complex FDA approval process. (FDA approvals now routinely cost *hundreds* of millions of dollars, and the agency is arguably faring far worse at "protecting" Americans from unsafe drugs.)
Since the FDA and its policies are the root cause of the high prescription drug prices that everyone seems to agree are a problem, what would you do to attack the root cause of the problem rather than simply throw money away by having the government (insted of the people) pay 100x too much for drugs?
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
Privacy means a fundamental right to have control over your personal affairs
So why should you not have control over your personal information, to do with as you please, and prevent others from abusing that information, say for marketing or employment?
America is actually a constitutional republic with democratically elected officials.
Oh, please. Spare me the lecture on pure democracy.
And you did a nice job of pointing out that a democracy -- a real one, where the majority has unlimited power -- is simply a diffused tyrrany. The minority must always submit to the majority.
Of course it must! How else do you expect a democracy (oh, fine, democratic republic, whatever) to function? Otherwise, laws just become optional.
That's not right, and it's one of the things our government was specifically designed to prevent.
So what? The thing about "taxes == tyranny" is getting a little old. You've already admitted that taxation is inescapable. In your black-and-white world, though, taxation is so morally abhorrent that it must be abolished.
without some form of collective action, most people will suffer (and all will suffer eventually
Um... substantiate this.
All right. Suppose you were to try to live totally autonomously. Where would you get your food? Agriculture is a form of collective action -- it's near impossible to provide for yourself on a small bit of land. The economy as a whole is also a form of collective action -- those farm implements you buy were made by someone else, after all. Or if you buy your food, it was made by someone else, shipped by someone else to your store, and kept cool and fresh by someone else at your store. How do you propose to survive without all that, which is the result of a collective action?
Furthermore, the government intervenes at each step of the way to make sure that certain standards are kept -- so you don't have to worry about it. The farmer has to meet USDA regulations (so he doesn't produce food that could cause things like, say, BSD, or have carcinogens in them) and is provided with information by the USDA and Extension Service to ensure their crop is successful; the shipper has to meet USDA and FDA regs about storage (so the food doesn't spoil) and has to pass OSHA requirements (so the driver doesn't easily get injured) and has to pass EPA regs (so his truck doesn't pollute too much on the way there); the store owner has to meet HHS, USDA, OSHA and FDA requirements on food storage, hygiene and more to ensure the food stays fresh, doesn't get contaminated and is of good quality.
None of this would succeed as well as it does without government involvement. Without it, the farmer would be at the mercy of local climate changes and soil misuse by his neighbors (erosion, pollution, pesticide/herbicide misuse); and from there it goes on to the shipper and store owner. Some would still maintain that level of quality, but some would not -- and how would you know? How do you know your fresh tomatoes weren't sprayed with dioxin-based pesticides until thirty years later, when you get cancer? --snip--
The Catholic Church was, in large part, the government in the middle ages (off-topic).
No shit, Sherlock. --snip--
The point of the proposal is to have a "freer" market than the alternative -- socialized medicine -- while still achieving the aim
I can't see how a market is free if the outcome is pre-ordained. Please explain.
There is no black and white "free and not free". That's why I wrote "freer".
As a matter of fact, you have voted part of my paycheck to yourself and are benefitting from it (assuming you've voted).
I vote Libertarian, which means I don't vote myself any part of your paycheck inasmuchas that's possible. As I've stated before, the taxes that go to providing a common defense and preventing people from harming other people, are legitimate. I think you're being disingenous by equating that with the receipt of a personal subsidy.
Disingenuous? It's disingenuous of you to partake in *anything* from government funding (education, infrastructure, defense, health regulations) while bitching about taxes, and then call it a "personal subsidy".
Is it moral to let people who would be otherwise useful to society to go hungry,
Yes.
suffer disease,
Yes.
Mmmm-hmmm. And "Social Darwinism" doesn't suit you?
Any "right" that must be paid for by someone else isn't a right.
Oh? I guess you should stop using the roads and highways, then. Or do you have a right to use them? Ah, but then you can use the railways -- oops, also government-funded. Well, fly, then. Hmmm, flying without air-traffic control and airports could get interesting, though you could land the plane on the highway -- oh, nuts, we're stuck there again.
So you go home in a sulk (you can't go anywhere anyway), and decide to have something to eat. You open the fridge powered by the electric plant down the road that was at least partially government-funded. You eat those eggs in the fridge without a second thought, because a government USDA inspector made sure they were edible. You drink tapwater that you know is safe because the local waterworks (government-funded, of course) made sure it's drinkable and was kind enough to remove everyone else's poop from it first.
Imagine for a moment that the government _did_ cease all social programs and taxation. Would the private sector really take up the slack? Highly doubtful.
100% doubtful, as a lot of what the government does is wasteful and destructive.
But a lot of it isn't. Which is why I believe it's important for the private sector to do as much as possible, with the government taking action where needed to ensure that society as a whole prospers.
The private sector acting totally on its own would *not* provide for those who need it. Rather than allow that injustice to happen, we need the "moral force" of the government from time to time.
For that matter, the government's actions can and do provide for collective improvement very effectively, with a relative minimum of effort on the government's part. Think "Internet". While most of the Net we use today was built with private funds, the government set the whole thing in motion -- ARPANET, the universities' networks and so on. For that matter, government funding of universities has made studying things like computer science more affordable, allowing more people to study it, and increasing the prosperity of the people as a whole. Same goes for biotechnology, medicine, and other areas. And that's all because of taxes.
And the only body that has that kind of moral or legal authority is -- tada! -- the government.
I think you mean "necessary force," not "moral or legal authority." Correct my if I'm wrong.
Yes, you are. I mean both. Any institution that operates in the name of the people and by their collective consent has a great deal of moral authority. The only question is the degree of restraint exercised in applying that moral, legal and political authority.
Where the people's representatives (politicians) have elected to do so with the consent of a majority of the people (the voters), and are doing so for the common good.
What about the minority? Who decides what "the common good is?" Does it mean simply "what is good for the majority, in the opinion of the majority?"
The people collectively decide, either through their representatives in the government or through direct referenda. If they collectively aren't happy with how something worked out, they can have it repealed (like Prohibition) or reformed (like welfare).
The minority still have their basic rights safeguarded by the Bill of Rights -- they have the right to speak out against what they see is wrong, they have the right to peacefully protest against it, they have the right to vote against those who supported the measure, and so on.
In other words, through fair (i.e. equally applied) and just taxation.
What's "fair and just?" If the majority, who is Protestant, decided to impose a 70% income tax on all non-protestants, who are in the minority, why couldn't they?
No, because one group is being singled out for their beliefs. That much should be obvious. So long as everyone shares the same burden (at least as far as that can be practically applied), there is no injustice involved.
cya
Ethelred
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
Would you support a constitutional amendment or other legislation mandating the protection of the right to privacy[...]
I'd like to know, so I will know who NOT to vote for. A consitutionl amendment mandating "privacy?" Do you mean personal obscurity, or personal sovreignty? Because if it's the latter, we already have that in the constitution -- it's admendment nine :"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Not that legislators have given a shit about that to date.
Which is why an additional amendment to that effect makes sense. Even though many have said that the right to privacy was so obvious that the Founding Fathers didn't even bother with it, legislators and private interests have been infringing on that right increasingly in recent years. (And yes, I was referring more to personal sovereignity -- i.e. control of my personal information so that it is not abused by, say, marketers.)
Would you support legislation requiring the following: mandated health insurance
Argh!
"Argh" you may say, but it's the only way to sanely finance the health care system as a whole without forcing the Federal Government to intervene or provide funds, AND it also provides for high-risk patients (like myself). By having everyone pay into the pot for a minimum amount of coverage, insurers would be more willing and able to insure patients with pre-existing conditions (like myself). Hawaii and other states already have this, and it works very well for them. So does Germany, and it's almost entirely privately run (they have one state-owned insurer, the rest are all private).
standardized forms and other systems of information processing in health care (to cut down on bureaucracy)
Or rather, to institute a federal, central bureaucracy.
No, that is not the case. The point is that insurers could be asked to agree to one standardized set of forms and so on. This is one of the most major drains of money in the American health care system -- there are literally hundreds of different forms for even basic things, like making claims on insurance, with needless differences and overhead. Compliance would be voluntary, but the Federal Government could set something like this in motion. Again, it would all be privately done, just with the government providing the impetus.
standardized health insurance identity cards (again to cut down on bureaucracy and increase mobility)
National ID cards! Track me now, Big Brother!
Not if you have that amendment about privacy. Also, Germany has the exact same system, and no one is allowed to use the data for tracking purposes; all that is on the smart cards is your name, current address, and insurer. Nothing else. (Though medical history would also be interesting to have on there, especially if you're in an accident and are unable to speak for yourself.) The German system has many, many safeguards against private data being misused, and they take it very seriously (much to the dismay of many marketers, insurers and businesses).
I would like answers to those questions as well... so I know who not to vote for. Of course, I can play it safe and continue to vote for the one party that respects people -- the Libertarian Party.
Fair enough -- your party choice is up to you. However, I should point out that a party sworn to never "exert moral force" on another person (see your membership card, if you have one) would have an awfully hard time controlling crime, given that punishment (the main way to stop crime effectively) is a kind of moral force...
Want to be "liberal" in the true sense of the word, and make sense whlie doing it? Try the Liberal Democrats of the UK. At least they are liberal/libertarian and are reasonably coherent. (Paddy Ashdown is God. Too bad he retired.) But the Liberatarian Party of the US? You can have them.
cya
Ethelred
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
Which is why an additional amendment to that effect makes sense.
I don't follow you. It is stated clearly in Amendment 9; why will they pay more attention to it if repeat the limitation in Amendment 28?
It should be painfully obvious. There is no explicit right to privacy stated in the Constitution or amendments. This is why that right (which I think we agree exists, regardless of what the Constitution has to say) should be safeguarded by an amendment -- to prevent that kind of abuse or misuse.
Want to be "liberal" in the true sense of the word, and make sense whlie doing it? Try the Liberal Democrats of the UK.
Two problems with that-- I'm not British, and they advocate a lot of what I don't want, such as 100% subsudized health care. "Liberals" used to be free-thinking, free-enterprise, lasseiz-faire, enlightenment-era people. Now, they are collectivists and socialists.
The UK Liberal Democrats are collectivist and socialist? What planet are you on?
They aren't as extreme as the Libertarians in the US, but that's also because they accept the reality that the government is in fact needed for something once in a while. They don't abide by dogma ("the state should be as small as possible, abolish taxes, legalize everything") and instead try to think of the best solution for a particular situation. Besides, you may shrug off the tyranny of a State, but you end up suffering under the tyranny of something else in exchange, because the State is too weak to protect you (employers, insurance companies, environment endangerers, etc.) and everyone else around you.
"Argh" you may say, but it's the only way to sanely finance the health care system as a whole without forcing the Federal Government to intervene or provide funds"
Well, that much is obvious.
By making everyone pay into a pool to cover people who couldn't otherwise afford that health insurance, the federal government would also be providing funds. It wouldn't go through the treasury, but because they are compeeling payment, it is a tax.
Ah. So we're going to start dabbling in Social Darwinism, I see.
You miss an important factor: even though you would be paying for something in order to indirectly help someone else, you also benefit both directly and indirectly. You benefit directly because you have health insurance (and before you say "I don't need it", the point of insurance is that you *may* need it -- after all, you could get hit by a truck or God knows what). You benefit indirectly because overall health in society improves (as more people can afford to get preventative health care), less days are missed at work (again because of preventative health care), productivity rises (because more people are working more), and the economy benefits. So do you.
Taxes are not automatically evil, regardless of who levies them. If you want to call mandatory health insurance a "tax", that's your problem. But don't try to hide or distort the potential benefits for everyone, tax or no. (And in my proposal, I'm making sure that market forces still run the show as much as possible while providing everyone with insurance.)
And for that matter, this isn't a tax anyway, though you for some reason have latched onto that idea.
The point is that insurers could be asked to agree to one standardized set of forms and so on.
If they don't agree to it of their own free will, but because the government has mandated that it be so, then it is a government-imposed bureaucracy
I said it would be "voluntary". Therefore it is not "government-imposed". The insurers would, however, be quite happy to adopt such a system, especially if the government were to fund its development (at least partially) and make it generally available. The insurers would be happy because it would mean great savings for them; patients would be happy because it would free them to get care wherever they wished (since they could use their cards anywhere).
It's a socialism vs fascism argument there --
Is it fascist or socialist to merely work for the common good, whlie trying to strike a balance with private interests? If your idea of liberty is being free to be severely ill with no chance of affordable health care, but by God I don't have to pay those vile, nasty taxes, then you live in a pretty strange world.
Society needs individuals working in concert, and society needs a basic structure to make it work. Otherwise, you get nowhere -- or quickly end up with the strong ruling the weak without mercy or justice, as the rule of law deteriorates with no state (or a too-weak state) on its behalf.
To top it off, why must some people be forced to pay for something for other people? What makes that right? If it's the intent, then I can rob you to pay for my Aunt's mammograms -- or would that be theft? If it's the people doing it, why is state-sponsoted theft okay, but me 'redistributing' your wealth not?
Apparently you need to think a bit more about what the "rule of law" is, and how laws come to be in a democracy...
cya
Ethelred
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
And I'm supposed to take your word for it?
cya
Ethelred
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
It should be painfully obvious. There is no explicit right to privacy stated in the Constitution or amendments.[...]
Privacy is not always a good thing. But it is a lot of the time. For instance, it is rarely good for government (and government officials) to enjoy much privacy.
Certainly. But even public figures (including public officials) have basic rights. They also have responsibilities, but that does not void their rights. It's all a question of balance.
I think any amendment guaranteeing a right to provacy would have be very carefully worded. I think an explicit mention of "privacy" was left out of the Constitution so as to leave it as a matter of law, which can be changed. "Privacy" has variable definition and value.
I don't believe it does. Privacy means a fundamental right to have control over your personal affairs. Indeed, it's a little ironic to me that you wish to have freedom, yet are willing to leave your privacy open to someone else's prying eyes (or at least aren't willing to have it protected more clearly).
Interesting you say that mandatory collective financing is the only sane way of paying for health insurance "without forcing the Federal Government to intervene," and when I point out that, by making collective health insurance mandatory, the federal government would be intervening, you say that's obvious. I don't get it.
Fair enough -- I'll clarify. Admittedly I changed the use of the word "intervene" midway through. By "intervention" I originally meant "direct and exclusive government control through government spending and bureacracy", in effect through a nationalized operation. That is what I wish to avoid in this scheme, by having private companies and groups still operating (partially voluntarily, in the case of standardized forms, partially compulsorily, in the case of mandatory insurance) within a set of (quite broad and basic) groundrules. But "intervention" in the sense of "getting involved" is obviously unavoidable.
The clarification is this: were there to be a government monopoly on insurance and health care, as in the UK, there would be little to no competitive element in the health care market. Therefore there would be no downward pressure on prices (not without price controls, which would stifle the whole sector), and there would be far greater limits on consumer choice (since they would be required or compelled to give up some kinds of more advanced health care). Quality of service would also likely suffer, as it typically does in any monopoly. This is the main weakness of socialized medicine. Added to this, the government almost always ends up bloated and managing too much, with a lot of institutional waste involved. Private companies would have a more vested interest in avoiding all of that, provided they too do not end up as monopolies.
Would this mean a loss of "freedom"? Yes, of course it would. But at the same time, you would agree that you don't have the "freedom" to shoot someone at will, or to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater. You have to balance your own individual freedoms with the needs of everyone else. That's necessary in a modern society. Again, it's a question of balance -- balancing the needs and freedoms of the individual against the needs of society as a whole.
Ah. So we're going to start dabbling in Social Darwinism, I see.
People advocating forced collective endeavors always make that retort when I point out that forced collective endeavors are incompatible with freedom.
Except that they aren't. There is no such thing as absolute freedom. There is such a thing as practical realities, and practical needs of those around you.
The reason we have limits on freedom is because to have unlimited freedom is the same as anarchy. The only question is, where do you place those limits, on what justification, and why?
I believe it is worth it to surrender that freedom to not pay for something in return for the security of having stable, reliable, high-quality health care for everyone, because everyone potentially benefits. It's not *that* different from saying "We agree that murder should be illegal, for otherwise people will live in constant fear for their lives".
It's like they assume that, since I don't want to force people to work together, I don't want them working together at all; and since I don't want to force people to be "nice" to each other, that I don't want them to be nice to each other at all. You're offering a false alternative, a straw man, and a slur all at once. I think people working together is great, but using the force of the government to make people work together is not.
The point is that, in a democratic society, people yield to the larger will of the electorate to which they belong. That's why we have democracy in the first place. You can't be totally autonomous anyway, at least not for very long.
The reason I bring up Social Darwinism is that, without some form of collective action, most people will suffer (and all will suffer eventually -- it's rather hard to live a long, healthy life as a hermit). This is why we have governments -- for the common good. There has never been a viable alternative for universally helping everyone _except_ through govermental action -- unless you count the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, which (surprise!) collected taxes (the tithe) and acted very much like a government.
It's as if people think that if we could just point the guns at the right people in the right way, our problems would be solved.
Speaking of straw men and slurs...
You miss an important factor: even though you would be paying for something in order to indirectly help someone else, you also benefit both directly and indirectly.
Debatable at best -- the "throw your bread on the water, and it will come back 10-fold" argument. Even if that were true, it would not change the fact that under your propsed system, I wouldn't be a voluntary participant; my bread would be taken away from me by force and given to other people.
And you would get bread back as well. Or better said, some (not all!) of your wheat is taken from you, and you get bread back. So what?
The promise that, if I need bread one day then other people's bread will be taken away by force and given to me somehow doesn't comfort me. And if your plan's so good, then sell it on its merits and don't use force. People aren't dumb; they'll know a good deal when they see one. Only bad plans have to be forced on people.
If the people votes for the plan, at least a majority, then it isn't being forced to use it. Or are you trying to say that every individual should just have a right to decide which laws they should obey, and which they shouldn't?
Taxes are not automatically evil
True. But they're not automatically good, either. In general, the fewer of them needed, the better.
Fair enough. That's why I also advocated the flat tax and maintaining the moratorium on taxing e-commerce.
And taxes should never benefit one group at the expense of another; they should never be used to "transfer wealth."
Well, I hate to break this to you, but taxes are by definition there to transfer wealth -- either to the government to pay for things like roads, or to employees of the government (like police, soldiers, etc.) to perform their duties, or to those in need of support for whatever reason (scientists, the poor, universities and schools and so on). In each case, the government is making an investment on behalf of the people -- transferring wealth -- in order to achieve goals in the public interest (building infrastructure, promoting science, improving skills in the workforce, alleviating poverty).
in my proposal, I'm making sure that market forces still run the show as much as possible
I.e., as long as they achieve the result you have pre-ordained. That's not a free market, no matter what you call it.
If you insist on using such an absolute definition, that's your problem. The point of the proposal is to have a "freer" market than the alternative -- socialized medicine -- while still achieving the aim of universal health care and maintaining high-quality care.
And for that matter, this isn't a tax anyway, though you for some reason have latched onto that idea.
Spend some time with a dictionary.
Straw men and slurs?
Apparently you need to think a bit more about what the "rule of law" is, and how laws come to be in a democracy...
So, because I vote myself your paycheck, that makes it okay?
As a matter of fact, you have voted part of my paycheck to yourself and are benefitting from it (assuming you've voted). At a minimum you're using roads I helped pay for, living under the protection of the US military, CIA and FBI that I helped pay for, attending schools that I may well have helped pay for, eventually getting money from the Social Security that I helped pay for. And I have absolutely no problem with that whatsoever.
Are you one of those people that make the "because it's legel, it's moral" arguments?
Is it moral to let people who would be otherwise useful to society to go hungry, suffer disease, be victims of violence? You can't have your absolutist, totally ideal world.
Are all laws moral? No, I don't believe that. Yet at the same time, we all have the ability to influence those laws, and should respect them for that same reason, even if we disagree with them.
Imagine for a moment that the government _did_ cease all social programs and taxation. Would the private sector really take up the slack? Highly doubtful. There are some angels out there taking care of people regardless, but the sad fact is that human beings by and large can't be bothered to help people directly (at least those they don't know, and even many they do know). So someone has to take the moral leadership and make sure that the worst problems are taken care of. And the only body that has that kind of moral or legal authority is -- tada! -- the government.
You're evading my question, I think. I'll state it differently:
Under what circumstances is it okay for the property of one person to be taken from them and given to another person?
Where the people's representatives (politicians) have elected to do so with the consent of a majority of the people (the voters), and are doing so for the common good. In other words, through fair (i.e. equally applied) and just taxation.
cya
Ethelred
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
Mr Lieberman is on record stating that the Constitution was NOT for everyone, but for a "moral and religious people."
Any source for this quote that allows us to put into context?
Politics as it is practiced in the US is about twisting words so that they appear to mean something damaging to the speaker. Unless you can substantiate a remark or have access to its source, you may be playing into the hands of politically interested and unscrupulous operators by spreading misinformation.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
A tax cut + no change in spending = increased borrowing by the government OR the government printing up more dollars. Only the latter is inflationary.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
A tax cut doesn't inject more money into the economy. It just changes who spends the money. If anything, a tax cut will reduce inflation; at least private citizens save some of what they earn. Government spends it all.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
A tax cut stimulates the economy. Why? If you're a fairly high income earner, your marginal tax rate (the rate you pay on each additional dollar) can be very high. So high, in fact, that it may not be worth it to you do work harder/work overtime. If taxes are cut, the disincentives to working harder are decreased, so people work harder.
This, in turn, increases the growth rate of GDP. Now maybe that increase in the growth rate looks insignificant, but remember, we're dealing with exponential growth. 30 years down the road, a very minor increase in GDP growth rate could result in twice as big an economy. I did a few simulations of this with a reasonably simple model to prove it to myself. You should try it, too (even Excel is good enough for a basic simulation). In my simulations, in sometimes took as long as 50 years for it to really pay off, but when it did, it was incredible (exponential growth, baby).
That's the argument behind a tax cut...
How do you weigh the legal aspects of the Privacy Act of 1974 against the current trend towards total divulgence of personal information (e.g. Social Security Numbers required to get a drivers license, the FBI project Carnivore, the NSA project Echelon)
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
Should you be elected, where do each of you stand on protecting my Constitutionally guaranteed rights (as enumerated in the Bill of Rights) as a citizen of the United States of America?
Furthermore, where do you stand on protecting these rights from encroachments by various corporate interests (as esconced by various actions committed by the MPAA, RIAA, et al., and sanctioned by the DMCA, UCITA and other laws)?
Please: HONEST answers only - I want steak, not sizzle - and let it be known that I can most assuredly tell the difference!
I support the EFF - do you?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
If elected, you will swear (or affirm) "that [you] will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of [your] ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." -US Const, Article II, Section 1.
... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."
The Federal Government in its present form vastly overreaches the constitutional authority it was granted by the Founders. (*) As James Madison said in the Federalist Papers: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce.
How do you propose to bring the Federal Govt into compliance with its constitutional authority? Reducing the federal scope, or amending the constitution -- or forswearing your oath?
(*) If you disagree with this statement, then please list Article and Section of the Constitution where the Federal Govt is given the power to (1) provide prescription drugs (2) manipulate the education systems of the several states (3) restrict the use of private property without recompense (4) Social Security, farm subsidies, bank bailouts, food stamps, toilet gallons per flush, driving speed...
If you are tempted to use the 'general welfare' clause in the preample and in Article I Section 8, don't be. See President Madison's veto of certain proposed legislation during his term:
http://www.snowcrest.net/siskfarm/natwelf.html
I too am afraid of that. But that's why I ask. I want to know what precisely they think we want.
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
The reason that the only thing which ever gets done with citizen rights which pertain to the digital realm is them get eroded by corporate interests, is that to everyone except corporate interests, there is always something "more important". Consumer privacy and the legal availability of strong encryption (for example) are bottom-of-the-barrel issues. They aren't "noble" and "important" like hunger or the environment -- they're merely about our civil liberties.
If Slashdot for heaven's sake, cannot stand up and say "We as voters find these issues important and demand to know what you have done in regards to them!" WHO WILL?
Your so-called "perspective" is what has kept marginalizing discussion of the incredible erosion of our civil liberties which we are witness to. Your so-called "perspective" is what has allowed politicians and corporations to perpetrate a shell game with the rights of citizens. Your so-called "perspective" has been what has allowed politicians to distract the public from what their records are in this area.
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
Rubbish. There's lots of things we've demaned pretty much unanimously here on /., and the whole karma whore issue demonstrates that we're no less manipulable or pander-to-able than anyone else. It's just that what we want is different, and what we care about is different, and how we are to be pandered to is to be different.
I'm tired of getting ignored by politicians. Court me you bastards, and maybe you'll get my vote.
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
Hmmm. I guess it's just that I have a deep wellspring of faith in the ability of the fine art of Rhetoric (i.e. Spin) to sell ice to Inuits. I don't see why, for instance, a candidate's handlers couldn't think up a nice spin for opposing the DMCA -- c'm boys, wrap your candidate in the flag, have him stump on "opposing big business", "the Liberties that Made America Great", etc.
Generating delectable sound bites it the job of highly trained pros. It's largely independent of the actual merits of the position.
Let me tell you a fable I learned from PBS. There was a white pol in the Deep South, back in the 1950's or so, who was approached by a group trying to get funding from the state for a nursing school for black women.
Said pol listened to the plea, and then told them he'd be happy to help, but they were going about it all wrong. At his next public speech, he launched into a tirade (in res): "I have just come from a hospital where I have seen a most disgusting sight! I saw a white woman washing the back of a black man! It is indecent! I want to make sure this does not happen, and to that end I want to make sure that we have enough negro nurses that no white woman will have to do such work again...." Wouldn't'cha know, his white, racists constituents thought his funding a black nursing school was completely dandy.
Moral: I think just about anything can be spun, so just about anyone will swallow it. You just gotta figure out how.
And, in our case, we gotta make it worth their while. Let's be honest: we know it's a quid pro quo. They represent our interests in voting and introducing bills, they get our votes and maybe even campaign contributions. We have to put out, but we must also make it clear what we want.
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
Ok, how much do you want to bet that the Democrat and Republican parties will not even deign to reply? If so, and if Nader truly demostrates that he "gets it" and has the best policies and ideas, all else being equal, how many of you will agree to change your vote?
(I'm not usually inclined to political stumping, but when you're the underdog you do what you can)
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Ditto. It's as if every American was born with the right to cheap non-renewable polluting energy. Gas is expensive? Tough. Watch me cry for you. Our gas prices are pretty damn low. If they can sin tax smoking they sure as hell can sin tax gas which produces a whole hell of a lot more pollutants than smoking. Nothing will change if you keep the status-quo the cheapest. Tax it, and subsidize clean/alternative energy. Make evil expensive not cheap (hard to do when evil runs the gov.).
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Also:
Al Gore: Gore worked to reduce the influence of drugs. The Administration Proposed the Largest Anti-Drug Budgets Ever. The Administration requested $19.2 billion in the FY01 budget to fight the war on drugs.
George Dubya: On the supply side, Governor Bush will improve interdiction and stop drugs before they reach our children. He will use better intelligence and surveillance to track and catch drug smugglers before they reach our borders. He will ensure that the INS hires the full allotment of Border Patrol agents required under law. Right now, the GAO reports that the INS had "a net shortfall of 594 agents for the 3-year period ending September 30, 1999." Governor Bush will hire more agents, and will reform the INS to better focus on its job of defending our border.
--
I'm not for bush. I'm still undecided but it is closed mindedness like this, especialy from self titled "prgressives," that scares me away from libral politics.
My question has multiple parts:
1) What is your opinion on the effeciency of government and the comparison between the effeciencies of a State and Federal government?
2) Do you believe that programs offered and controlled by the Federal government have advantages to similar or same programs offered by a State government, and why?
3) Do you believe that programs offered by the Federal government, such as Social Security, should be given/offered to people who do not wish to be covered by the program, and why? Do you consider the opinion of the individual to be subserviant to the collective opinion of the whole in matters of national healthcare?
Salis
Favorite
Would you support a constitutional amendment or other legislation mandating the protection of the right to privacy, especially with regard to the control of personal information?
:"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Not that legislators have given a shit about that to date.
I'd like to know, so I will know who NOT to vote for. A consitutionl amendment mandating "privacy?" Do you mean personal obscurity, or personal sovreignty? Because if it's the latter, we already have that in the constitution -- it's admendment nine
Would you support legislation requiring the following: mandated health insurance
Argh!
standardized forms and other systems of information processing in health care (to cut down on bureaucracy)
Or rather, to institute a federal, central bureaucracy.
standardized health insurance identity cards (again to cut down on bureaucracy and increase mobility)
National ID cards! Track me now, Big Brother!
I would like answers to those questions as well... so I know who not to vote for. Of course, I can play it safe and continue to vote for the one party that respects people -- the Libertarian Party.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Be a man, use your hands, or a sharp implement.
Be a man, get shot while holding a pointed stick.
Just why do you need a gun? Just because someone else has one doesn't mean you need one too.
A general armament will better defend the country from outside agressors, and from internal criminals, than any army or police force. Why would anyone invade a country where essentially every citizen is armed and can defend? As far as internal defense goes, well-armed towns have lower crime rates than towns where guns are banned. Guns are a deterrent power; a leveler. They are a threat not only to invading armies abd everydat criminals, but to out government and anyone else with tyrranical dreams.
You don't like guns because they take away life, and your solution is to round them all up and "dump them," but not ban them. How, exactly, would you implement it? Taking away all guns is unworkable and unrealistic. As well as dangerous.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
You're contradicting yourself, and you're not answering my questions. --snip--.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
/. hosed the previous one...
Training:
No, I want them how to work, not how to think.
How do you separate those, and how is it the proper function of the military?
Guns:
Be a man, use your hands, or a sharp implement.
Be a man, get shot while holding a pointed stick.
Just why do you need a gun? Just because someone else has one doesn't mean you need one too.
A general armament will better defend the country from outside agressors, and from internal criminals, than any army or police force. Why would anyone invade a country where essentially every citizen is armed and can defend? As far as internal defense goes, well-armed towns have lower crime rates than towns where guns are banned. Guns are a deterrent power; a leveler. They are a threat not only to invading armies and everyday criminals, but to out government and anyone else with tyrranical dreams. They mean that people will have to be persuaded, not coerced.
You don't like guns because they "take away life," and your solution is to round them all up and "dump them," but not ban them. How, exactly, would you implement it? You'd have to do it globally, and prevent people from making new ones. Would you include all projectile weapons, like bows? How about crossbows? Crossbows with flaming, poisoned, or explosive tips? Etc. Taking away all guns is unworkable and unrealistic, even with a glocal dictatorship. As well as dangerous. Guns in the hands of ordinary people will help prevent a global dictatorship (as well as local and national ones) from being attainable.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Guns may be a leveler, or a deterrent...but does that stop violent crime in its tracks? No. Getting rid of all guns does.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
I will not give it up until the last gun is out of the last criminal's hand,
...and my safety is guarenteed.
I would agree, but also add "and the government's hands." Every government.
How?
I agree with your idealism, Fink, but don't think that people will every be perfectly nice to each other and not force others to do what they want. Until then, I must have methods for defending myself. The extension of that is, that an armed society is a safe one (not perfectly safe, but we're talking reality, not fiction, here).
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Just buy an alarm system. They don't kill people.
Nor do they defend people who aren't in their houses, or defend people from their own government. "Bwoop! Bwoop! Janet Reno has entered the house!" Hehe!
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
But let's not phrase the question to state or imply, "Where's our special subsidy and priviledge?"
A lot of people don't want the government doing much of anything for them -- defend them, pave roads, make sure companies and people are honest and don't hurt people, and that's about it.
I'm afraid that a lot of the candidates will read "what have you done for me lately" as "I want my check."
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Which is why an additional amendment to that effect makes sense.
I don't follow you. It is stated clearly in Amendment 9; why will they pay more attention to it if repeat the limitation in Amendment 28?
Want to be "liberal" in the true sense of the word, and make sense whlie doing it? Try the Liberal Democrats of the UK.
Two problems with that-- I'm not British, and they advocate a lot of what I don't want, such as 100% subsudized health care. "Liberals" used to be free-thinking, free-enterprise, lasseiz-faire, enlightenment-era people. Now, they are collectivists and socialists.
"Argh" you may say, but it's the only way to sanely finance the health care system as a whole without forcing the Federal Government to intervene or provide funds"
... by mandating health insurance, the federal government is intervening. By making everyone pay into a pool to cover people who couldn't otherwise afford that health insurance, the federal government would also be providing funds. It wouldn't go through the treasury, but because they are compeeling payment, it is a tax.
The point is that insurers could be asked to agree to one standardized set of forms and so on.
If they don't agree to it of their own free will, but because the government has mandated that it be so, then it is a government-imposed bureaucracy -- one in the hands of private insurers, but one created, regulated and mandated by government regardless. It's a socialism vs fascism argument there -- does the state outright do it, or does it maintain a fictional private sector and just tightly regulate? The end result is about the same, as are the means.
To top it off, why must some people be forced to pay for something for other people? What makes that right? If it's the intent, then I can rob you to pay for my Aunt's mammograms -- or would that be theft? If it's the people doing it, why is state-sponsoted theft okay, but me 'redistributing' your wealth not?
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Background: Al Gore said during the first debates that Social Security is backed by the "full faith and credit of the U.S. Government".
(1) When the time comes to pay for Boomer checks out of current reciepts, will you inflate the money supply via the Fed, or will you raise taxes, or both?
(2) And do you have an estimate of by how much?
(3) Or would you support phasing out the social security system throuhg attrition?
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Two years of self-defense and history education. Plus, every citizen will know how to maintain physical fitness. At the end, each citizen will be licensed to carry a firearm, and will get to keep the weapon issued to them during their training.
I don't really agree with your bullt points. "Train our populace to be more effective workers?" -- we're already the most productive workers in the world, behind France. And what business is it of the government to train workers? The military is supposed to defend the nation. Training its citizens to defend themselves, and understand their country's history, is in keeping with that mission. "promoting social skills" sounds fishy, especially as a function of the army.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
It should be painfully obvious. There is no explicit right to privacy stated in the Constitution or amendments. This is why that right (which I think we agree exists, regardless of what the Constitution has to say) should be safeguarded by an amendment -- to prevent that kind of abuse or misuse.
Privacy is not always a good thing. But it is a lot of the time. For instance, it is rarely good for government (and government officials) to enjoy much privacy. I think any amendment guaranteeing a right to provacy would have be very carefully worded. I think an explicit mention of "privacy" was left out of the Constitution so as to leave it as a matter of law, which can be changed. "Privacy" has variable definition and value.
Interesting you say that mandatory collective financing is the only sane way of paying for health insurance "without forcing the Federal Government to intervene," and when I point out that, by making collective health insurance mandatory, the federal government would be intervening, you say that's obvious. I don't get it.
Ah. So we're going to start dabbling in Social Darwinism, I see.
People advocating forced collective endeavors always make that retort when I point out that forced collective endeavors are incompatible with freedom. It's like they assume that, since I don't want to force people to work together, I don't want them working together at all; and since I don't want to force people to be "nice" to each other, that I don't want them to be nice to each other at all. You're offering a false alternative, a straw man, and a slur all at once. I think people working together is great, but using the force of the government to make people work together is not. It's as if people think that if we could just point the guns at the right people in the right way, our problems would be solved.
You miss an important factor: even though you would be paying for something in order to indirectly help someone else, you also benefit both directly and indirectly.
Debatable at best -- the "throw your bread on the water, and it will come back 10-fold" argument. Even if that were true, it would not change the fact that under your propsed system, I wouldn't be a voluntary participant; my bread would be taken away from me by force and given to other people. The promise that, if I need bread one day then other people's bread will be taken away by force and given to me somehow doesn't comfort me. And if your plan's so good, then sell it on its merits and don't use force. People aren't dumb; they'll know a good deal when they see one. Only bad plans have to be forced on people.
Taxes are not automatically evil
True. But they're not automatically good, either. In general, the fewer of them needed, the better. And taxes should never benefit one group at the expense of another; they should never be used to "transfer wealth."
in my proposal, I'm making sure that market forces still run the show as much as possible
I.e., as long as they achieve the result you have pre-ordained. That's not a free market, no matter what you call it.
And for that matter, this isn't a tax anyway, though you for some reason have latched onto that idea.
Spend some time with a dictionary.
> why must some people be forced to pay for something for other people?
Apparently you need to think a bit more about what the "rule of law" is, and how laws come to be in a democracy...
So, because I vote myself your paycheck, that makes it okay? Are you one of those people that make the "because it's legel, it's moral" arguments? You're evading my question, I think. I'll state it differently:
Under what circumstances is it okay for the property of one person to be taken from them and given to another person?
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Because if we pay off the debt, the money supply will be extingushed. America has debt-based money.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Why *should* the government give too much of a toss about the "working young adult in a high-tech field"?
Because they pay the bills, and are citizens; not just wallets to siphon.
I do find it a little disturbing that so many of you seem to believe that the government needs to spend more of its time working on behalf of those who are already plenty well of
Not true. We want to government to do less, not more. Not for us, not for anyone. Perhaps we're tired of subsidizing other people against our will, eh?
Fine, this is Slashdot - but still, too few questions have been asked...
I agree. It seems that all the questions that have gotten modded up are about patents or copyright or something. Kinda boring. I asked how thay planned to pay for spcial security when the boomers are all on it -- by raising taxes, by inflating the money supply, or by some other method. No points. I think it's a big issue. But not, apparently, as important as asking about the DMCA five times in a row.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Privacy means a fundamental right to have control over your personal affairs
.. shutting off the information flow doesn't always achieve that, and is not synonymous with personal sovreignty. I think it's important to separate one's control of one's own life from information about oneself -- because they are not one and the same. There's a lot of overlap, but not identity.
it's a little ironic to me that you wish to have freedom, yet are willing to leave your privacy open to someone else's prying eyes
I'm not sure what "privacy" means as you just used it.
were there to be a government monopoly on insurance and health care, as in the UK, there would be little to no competitive element in the health care market.
I agree your plan would be better, but not that it would be good; or that it is fundamentally different than nationalized health care. It would be the equivalent of two national space programs -- "competition" would exist, but it would all be controlled in one way or another by the same power. A power that determines the goals, and to a large extent, the means.
There is no such thing as absolute freedom.
True.
There is such a thing as practical realities
True
and practical needs of those around you.
... which aren't part of reality in the same way that gravity and entropy are.
The reason we have limits on freedom is because to have unlimited freedom is the same as anarchy. The only question is, where do you place those limits, on what justification, and why?
Anarchy: not violent chaos, as people make it out to be, but simply a state of no ruler. However, you are right. The place where freedom is limited is the place where you will infringe upon someone else's freedom. The old "the right to swing your fist ends at the start of my nose."
I believe it is worth it to surrender that freedom to not pay for something in return for the security of having stable, reliable, high-quality health care for everyone,
How nice of you to surrender my freedom as well...
"We agree that murder should be illegal, for otherwise people will live in constant fear for their lives"
No, that's not the reason at all. It's because killing someone is the ultimate infringement in their freedom.
The point is that, in a democratic society, people yield to the larger will of the electorate
to which they belong. That's why we have democracy in the first place.
America is actually a constitutional republic with democratically elected officials. And you did a nice job of pointing out that a democracy -- a real one, where the majority has unlimited power -- is simply a diffused tyrrany. The minority must always submit to the majority. That's not right, and it's one of the things our government was specifically designed to prevent.
without some form of collective action,
most people will suffer (and all will suffer eventually
Um... substantiate this.
it's rather hard to live a long, healthy life as a hermit
Not being forced into collective action does not make one a hermit. As I stated before, just because I don't think people should be forced to work together doesn't mean that I think they should kept apart.
This is why we have governments -- for the common good.
We have the U.S. Government to protect life, liberty and property. Or that was its original purpose, anyway. Interesting how things are always dome "for the common good" in a collectivist vision -- the common good, as decided by who, for who?
There has never been a viable alternative for universally helping everyone
You mean, forcing everyone to help everyone else. It seems to be a common lament that mankind is not suitable enough for a good society where everyone helps everyone out of their perfect, altruistic hearts. The fallback is always that people can be forced into "helping" their fellow man "for the common good" until they are better people.
_except_ through govermental action
I.e., the use of force, as I was saying. Why do people try to force people into the altruist mold over and over again throughout history? They're not acknowledging the realities of human behavior. People are selfish, and can't be made differently. All life-forms are selfish. They're also inter-dependant. Those two things are not mutually exclusive; they arem in fact, the norm. Capitalism turns the innate selfishness of each person to the common good -- by letting each person persue his own life, without being shackled to his neighbor. The end result is improved conditions for all -- unlike with socialism, which results in a steadily declining standard of living for all. It usually has good short-term results, but when it runs out of pockets to loot, it falters.
The Catholic Church was, in large part, the government in the middle ages (off-topic).
> It's as if people think that if we could
> just point the guns at the right people in the
> right way, our problems would be solved.
Speaking of straw men and slurs...
Not trying to slur, or make a straw man. But it seems that the use of force is always trotted out as the solution to our problems; that's what I'm saying -- that, and that the initiation of force to achieve one's goals is rarely, if ever, the right thing to do.
And you would get bread back as well. Or better said, some (not all!) of your wheat is taken from you, and you get bread back. So what?
So, what gives someone else a claim to my wheat?
If the people votes for the plan, at least a majority, then it isn't being forced to use it.
Yes, they are. If someone who voted with the majority changes their mind later, they will be forced to comply. The minority is forced to comply from the outset.
Or are you trying to say that every individual should just have a right to decide which laws they should obey, and which they shouldn't?
Nope. I'm saying that individuals shouldn't be forced to do things to benefit their neighbors against their will. They should be stopped from harming others, but not forced into some action to 'benefit' somebody.
Well, I hate to break this to you, but taxes are by definition there to transfer wealth
Taxes are of two types. One covers the operating expenses of the government -- paying for officers, desks, armies, etc. The other takes money from my acocunt and writes a check to someone else -- some other private citizen -- for their use. The former is fine; the latter is not.
In order to achieve goals in the public interest
Who decides what's in "the public interest?" Who's "the public?"
The point of the proposal is to have a "freer" market than the alternative -- socialized medicine -- while still achieving the aim
I can't see how a market is free if the outcome is pre-ordained. Please explain.
As a matter of fact, you have voted part of my paycheck to yourself and are benefitting from it (assuming you've voted).
I vote Libertarian, which means I don't vote myself any part of your paycheck inasmuchas that's possible. As I've stated before, the taxes that go to providing a common defense and preventing people from harming other people, are legitimate. I think you're being disingenous by equating that with the receipt of a personal subsidy.
Is it moral to let people who would be otherwise useful to society to go hungry,
Yes.
suffer disease,
Yes.
be victims of violence?
No.
Any "right" that must be paid for by someone else isn't a right.
magine for a moment that the government _did_ cease all social programs and taxation. Would the private sector really take up the slack? Highly doubtful.
100% doubtful, as a lot of what the government does is wasteful and destructive.
And the only body that has that kind of moral or legal authority is -- tada! -- the government.
I think you mean "necessary force," not "moral or legal authority." Correct my if I'm wrong. Plus, what kind of moral authority does a government have? I'm curious.
Where the people's representatives (politicians) have elected to do so with the consent of a majority of the people (the voters), and are doing so for the common good.
What about the minority? Who decides what "the common good is?" Does it mean simply "what is good for the majority, in the opinion of the majority?"
In other words, through fair (i.e. equally applied) and just taxation.
What's "fair and just?" If the majority, who is Protestant, decided to impose a 70% income tax on all non-protestants, who are in the minority, why couldn't they?
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Under the Federal Reserve System, a tax cut also inflates the money supply. Sounds strange, I know; but taxes, under a fiat money system, or one of the ways that money is taken back out of the system, thus lowering inflation.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
- "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed," - Alexander Hamilton
- "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press."--Thomas Jefferson
- "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."--Samuel Adams
-
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present
day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere
restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." -- George Washington
- "A free people ought
... to be armed, To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving
peace. A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined." -- George Washington
Heck, go back even farther:- "Both the oligarch and Tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms."--Aristotle
You may want to also consider talking to some police officers -- many of whom will tell you that the people shooting at them don't really care about handgun laws and waiting periods. Handgun laws disarm law-abiing citizens, not criminals. By definition, and in practice. What we need is training, not muddle-headed bans.________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
I suspect it was meant merely as an example. Poorly chosen, perhaps, autoworkers have unions after all. Still, one plant closure, and that's a whole lot of people who must have made "poor decisions" at some point or other I guess.
Intolerant people should be shot.
The short answer - nothing.
The long answer - if (if) Dubya gets in, you'll see some sort of tax break. Gore's tax breaks are only for breeders (and at that, not even every breeder gets the full amount). If Bush wins, you might get something back. If Gore wins, you get zippo.
As for their records in the past, they've done nothing. The bottom line is that (1) we're a minority, (2) most of us have enough free time that we've probably already made up our minds well in advance of the election. The soccer-moms are so busy that half of 'em haven't even noticed there is an election. And (3) we can't be swayed by "it's for the chillllldrunnn" rhetoric. So we're a harder segment to go for because we're harder to manipulate.
Pandering to us makes for poor soundbites, and we're not as easily-manipulated. Is it any wonder we're ignored?
As usual, The Misanthropic Bitch puts it best:
> the whole karma whore issue demonstrates that we're no less manipulable or pander-to-able than
> anyone else. It's just that what we want is different,
Sorry, I should have clarified:
Our wanting different things than most people makes for bad soundbites. (e.g. the false dichotomy that anyone who's against censorship is for kiddie pr0n, or that our opposition to DMCA constitutes support for piracy).
To use those two examples, anyone who panders to our segment of the electorate on those two issues, leaves themselves open to attack, and loses votes from the sheeple who fall for the "it's for the children" rhetoric and campaign donations from the entertainment industry.
As for the "not as easily-manipulated", I retract that. As much as I loathe the Demipublicans, I've observed that while Nader and Browne (Green vs. Libertarian) both have substantial followings on Slashdot, they're pretty much on opposite sides of most ideological issues.
And yet "the Slashdot crowd" appears to have split into two camps, each having been manipulated depending on whether they prefer Nader's anti-WTO rhetoric, or Browne's less-government rhetoric.
The situation isn't much different from Gore's "ban guns and save the spotted owl" rhetoric getting the "soccer mom" crowd out to vote Democrat to save the children, and Bush's "ban non-Christians and legislate morality" rhetoric getting the fundie "PTA-mom" crowd out to vote Republican.
The difference is that Nader and Browne are splitting the geeky 10% of the votes, and Gore and Bush are splitting the mundane 90% :-(
They also exist in Canada. Don't believe the bunk about Hagelin being a "physicist" in any meaningful sense of the word.
In Canada, the NLP is merely a front group designed to raise/launder money for the Transcendental Meditation movement under the guise of being a political party. Yogic flying? Puh-leeze. I suspect the same is true for the NLP in both the UK and US.
What is your stance on internet filtering for public schools/libraries which is being tacked onto the education bill (More information: http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/10/15/inter netfiltering.ap/index.html).
Since the government is the lender of last resort, the prime interest rate defines how much money they make from lending. Higher interest rates -> higher gvmt earnings.
How feasable would it be to completely remove taxes and only charge (higher, obviously) interest? This would remove alot of shoe-leather costs from the system, and also make avoiding taxes very hard (c.f. the recent revelations that microsoft et ali pay very little to none).
In addendum to this, I would like to know the candidates' opinion on including a 'Vote of No Confidence' option for elections.
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
Hands up anyone who changed their minds about legalising drugs
after learning about the important new contribution to the debate
provided by the above estimate.
Equally, how can Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan justify gping along with
NBC's exclusion of Harry Browne from NBC's third party debates?
"Remember, it's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom."
Bill Hicks.
The article goes on to note alternative systems, including "approval" based elections and the "Benbo" system. Approval elections allow voters one vote per candidate, giving the freedom to endorse (for example) the main party front runner of choice while also noting a vote for third party candidates. Benbo, on the other hand, asks voters to rank all candidates by preference. Neither system is perfect, but they both are better than the current system in that they guage which alternatives the voters would be comfortable with, and by so doing they gather a more accurate assessment of the general consensus.
The author of the article suggests that instating such a system would do more to bring equality to the electoral process than campaign finance reform could, though reform there is of course welcome as well. It is widely felt that the current elections -- especially the debates -- have unfairly and undemocratically excluded the voices of such candidates as Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanana, along with the millions of people who are saying that they would vote for these men. It seems clear to these millions that something needs to be done in order to bring more variety into the political process, and yet the two main parties do not seem interested in allowing it.
Where do you stand on such voting reform and campaign finance reform proposals, and the sentiment behind them that favors broadening the political dialogue in this country? What if any reform proposals would you endorse, and how far would you be willing to go to support it? Millions of people feel disenfranchised by the current system, and feel that something needs to be done. Are you the candidate to do it?
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
Say you're high on Marijuana and you're driving. If you get in an accident, who cares, you're only going 4 miles an hour anyways. You sit there for 10 minutes going, "whoa man, I totally wasted the garage door!" So the garage door needs replacing, you just created a job!
Long live Bill.
--
Al Gore never claimed to have "invented the internet."
But how about "The Information Superhighway" - meaning the phrase itself? Did he (or his speechwriters) invent this? Or was he just the loudest of the early mouths to use it?
That metaphor has always struck me as a gem of the propagandist's art.
It equates the Internet with the National Defense Highway system (now known as the "interstate" system). This sets in the listeners mind the idea that the Internet - rather than an industry / university / some-government colaboration grown around a seed from a plowshared military project - is a pure creation of the US federal government. From there it's an easy step to making it fair game for total government regulation. Think "Information 55 MPH Speed Limit".
Gore used the phrase when he was the point man for the Clinton administration's efforst to wire the nation's K-through-12 schools and libraries. This, of course, set the stage for the Communications Decency act (supported primarily by Democrats), censoring the Internet to "make the Internet safe for The Children".
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Two simple rules:
1.Are you on the ballot in enough states to make it possible to win the election (270 electoral votes)?
Check.
2.Are you one of the top 6 candidates in at least 3 of 5 independent polls? This one I am flexible with.
"Major Polls" are often biased and/or creatures of the Major Party / Media Complex (TM). Let's skip that.
Here's a potential way for one open network (Fox News comes to mind) to break the Biopoly:
While (nearly) every other network is broadcasting the debate, Our Hero Network runs it - but with a difference:
Rather than broadcasting it live:
- It captures it for "Instant Replay".
- It has, in its studio, any minor party candidates that met the network's cutoff and agreed to attend.
- It "Instant Replay"s the question.
- It lets all the candidates answer in random order - with two slots randomly picked for the majors (consumed in the order they answer in the original debate), giving the minors the average of the time actually given to the majors and STRICTLY enforcing (like by cutting off the sound).
- For rebuttal it again lets the candidates have one slot in random order (again replaying the majors in order, in two random slots) to rebut anyone or any set they chose.
- Segments where one major candidate gets to ask the other a question are handled by each of the candidates getting to ask all the others a question. The minors get to answer them all, while the majors get no slot to answer the minors.
This gives the minors equal opportunity (at least on THIS network) to show how they think on their feet, get exposure for themselves and their positions, and raise issues they consider significant.
With ALL BUT ONE network playing the stock debate and ONE playing the "enhanced version", guess what the ratings look like? B-)
Of course the majors don't get to rebut the minors' points. But that's what they get for going along with the exclusion of the minors from the debate. B-) They could easily stop the charade by insisting that the minors be allowed on stage with them, refusing to debate (or moving to the "enhanced" version B-) unless that was done.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Al: 1. Popular folklore has you claiming to be the inventor of the Internet. I know that you never made such a claim. Don't you get tired of this distortion? 2. What do you feel _are_ your important contributions to the Internet?
George: 1. I spent a decade in the military protecting "the land of the free, and the home of the brave." I feel that I've earned the right to burn as many yards of red, white, and blue fabric as I wish. What do you think? 2. Should I be able be able to burn the bible or the Quran? What about the Book of Mormon?
Neopets - the best free game on the Int
But what happens when they take 'us' with them by committing crimes to finance their habits, and hurting the innocent 'us' along the way?
IF this happens, you arrest them for robbery. But you've unintentionally pointed out the main problem with drug laws. They fail to distinguish between irresponsible and responsible drug use. There are people for whom drugs "cause" many other problems, but there are also those people who use drugs for legitimate medical, social, or intellectual reasons. Many of these people never break any other laws. Many of them are actually more aware, more relaxed, happier, or free from pain because of their drug use. But they are imprisoned or persecuted along with the other drug users. Why? Paranoia. People are afraid of things, people, and cultures they don't understand. They think they if they eliminate the things they don't understand, then they can control their surroundings and everything will be perfect.
Sorry, doesn't work that way. There will always be things that cannot be understood and controlled. Not all of them are bad. Some of them are actually good. But we'll never know without an open mind.
--- "So THAT's what an invisible barrier looks like!" - Time Bandits
The people who live in the neighborhood of a drug addict become victims, because the drug addict brings along a lower standard of living and brings other people around the neighborhood that you don't want there... people who don't respect the law or human life very much at all.
If this was true, it would be a good argument. However, it's not. I have personally known drug users from all walks of life and all ages. Attorneys, computer programmers, airport employees, accountants, construction workers, car dealers, etc. I even know of a few VERY wealthy pot smokers.
Where do you get the crazy idea that drug users have any less respect for human life than anyone else? That's not true either. I would agree that some of them have bitterness toward the law, mainly because there are laws that they disagree with. But they are no less likely to respect human life that you are.
Is there anything you do on a day-to-day basis that has "zero risk of making someone else a victim?" There are drug users who are more responsible about their decisions than many of the other decisions people make every day. That's where the responsibility argument comes in. And if they live their whole life, and they really DON'T hurt anyone else, what are we punishing them for?
You really don't seem to be for individual freedoms. You obviously tell yourself you are. But when an invasion of privacy is required just to see whether a "crime" has even been committed in the first place, personal freedom suffers by definition.
--- "So THAT's what an invisible barrier looks like!" - Time Bandits
I see many infringements upon our Constitutional rights promoted and passed "for the Children"(tm).
Given the Supreme Court's ruling in ACLU v. Reno (the first CDA trial), and the Philadelphia Court's ruling in ACLU v. Reno (CDA-II/COPA trial), I ask the following.
Do you support the mandated use of filtering software for institutions that use government money (on any level -- local/state/federal) to provide Internet access for their patrons? Considering that most filtering software is notoriously inaccurate, with many false positives ("safe" material blocked) and false negatives ("unsafe" material passed), plus the fact that some companies are known to filter out their critics (see CyberSitter and Peacefire.org). Consider further that some of these false positives are especially egregious, and politically based, such as NOW being filtered, or funny, such as Rep. Dick Armey's site being filtered.
Now do you support Filtering software, and why? And, please no "for the Children".
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
There has been a trend toward the criminalization of intent in recent years, largely in the form of "hate crime" legislation. This type of legislation increases the penalties for certain crimes based on the motivation or intent behind those crimes. For example, a harsher or higher minimum penalty for killing a black man because he was black, or for beating a gay man because he was gay. As the underlying crime is already prosecutable, doesn't the increased penalty based on intent constitute "thought crime" in addition to the physical act? Is it not the case that "hate crime" penalties distort the law by punishing belief? To me, it seems that we should limit ourselves to punishing behavior, not beliefs.
http://drteknikal.blogspot.com/
Do you support the Federal reserve as an independant body and the sole manipulator of our economic system (free from political motivation)? If so, then how do you view concerns that a large tax cut might undermine Alan Greenspan's attempt to stablize our market system and economy during this time of "over-expansion"?
-Michael
-Michael
Both Candidates:
Life is cyclical. Economics is cyclical. Politics is cylical (dictatorship to freedom to regulated supression and back). What philisophical steps will you take as president to prepare and otherwise pre-empt such cyclical down-turns that may even already be present (such as political corruption and anti-Patriotic sentiments)?
-Michael
You should have made several individual posts. They're not going to bunch all those questions into one; and the moderators can't single out which of those questions comply with moderator guidelines, and are hence most deserving of karma. :)
-Michael
Why just Nader? Not only is Nader not the only third party candidate, but he's not even part of the largest and most recognized third party. I'm afraid its Buchanan that really got the shaft on this one, because if any of the third party candidates had a right to be there it is the reform candidate, especially considering the fact that they recieved millions in matching funds from the government in the first place.
-- Point? None! Cob.
Education reform seem to be a major topic in the presidential campaigns. I would like to know how you plan to fix America's currently failing system. Do you plan to create standards for schools, and if schools fail, how do you intend on raising those standards?
I've heard the call for school vouchers, but it doesn't make since to me. First of all funding for failing schools would be taken away, which would seemingly push the schools into further disarray. Secondly private schools aren't accountable. The major campaigns demand that public schools be accountable. If they fail then students should be sent to private schools, which aren't accountable, and can't ever be made accoutable. So my second question is, if you agree with school vouchers how would you make them work effectivly?
dont_forget
And this is a major point. If we taxed petroleum a whole lot more, it would instantly lead to inflation. No doubt about it. Cheap oil is actually one of the reasons our economy is so booming; it just doesn't cost nearly as much to deliver stuff here!
Of course, I don't think that's right, per se, but it's going to be damn hard to convince the average american to take a huge economic slowdown in order to clean up the environment. I mean, that hasn't worked so far.
I think it would be good to just tax automotive-grade gasoline. Or more precisely, cut back the subsidies on this commodity. Leave heating oil out of the picture; in fact, don't increase the price of diesel, even. This might prevent such a huge recession, but it would hit John Q. "Lincoln Navigator" Public right in the pocketbook. If gas was all the sudden 20 cents more per gallon, ethanol and other alternatives would look more appealing automatically.
Plus, if the consumer still isn't concerned enough to switch fuel technologies, at least there would be a few more cents per gallon to contribute to environmental protection funds :)
Wait. Isn't the energy density of methanol almost as good as gasoline? Also, current engines can run with a substantial amount of alcohol in the mix (like at least 20%). And that's without modification. I think if we had more alcohol-friendly engines we could burn a much better mix of methanol/octane without reducing apparent fuel efficiency very much.
By "apparent," I mean that the energy density of alcohol is somewhat lower and you need more gallons of it to go the distance. But it doesn't release the same nasty chemicals as gas.
Books such as Actual Innocence by Barry Siegel have documented the ways that provably innocent people have ended up on Death Row. If you believed innocent people had been executed, would you still support the death penalty?
[
Oops, my bad; I got the author of the book (and therefore the link) wrong. The following is the corrected question. Sorry. =(
[
You both support the war on drugs, which has swelled the American prison population with hundreds of thousands of nonviolent offenders. Both of you have faced questions about illegal drug use, and the vice president has admitted using illegal drugs. Yet neither of you has faced prison time or arrest. First, how can you be a credible force in the drug war considering your history, and second what will you do to make sure that the force of the law doesn't disproportionately fall on the underprivileged?
[
This country has long since been forced to admit that adults may subscribe to vices, but that the government may intercede when children attempt to partake of the same vices. (q.v. smoking, gambling, drinking, obscenity and voting.) Governmental intercession regarding youth access to all types of obscenity, be it pornographic, violent, or simply offensive, is becoming increasingly more difficult with the advent of the Internet. How do you intend to uphold the ability of adults to partake of obscenity, as is their sometimes right under the First Amendment, while still making access to such obscenities difficult for children? Or would you propose that the governments intent shift, either lessening adult access to obscenity, or reducing government restrictions on the same?
Thank you.
-=Best Viewed Using [INLINE]=-
Recently I went to pickup my 6th grade little sister at her school, and I was sort of shocked to see that they still had P-90 computers. She goes to a public school in a middle class neighborhood.
Do you have any plans to take money out of projects that are not working (ie. the war on drugs) and put them into public schools for computers and better computer classes for younger students?
When ever a question like this is asked, all canidates reply with a "what you want to hear" answer. I'd expect nothing less this year, but maybe someone should actually start making some changes in the way public education money is spent.
1. Do you believe the Internet needs more regulation? 2. Does the government want information to be free?
If it is a duplicate question why doesn't some moderator moderate it as (-1, Redundant) ? If there are more than 10 questions at 5, why doesn't a moderator moderate one down as (-1, Overated) ?
Because the moderators are on $3 crack.
Will someone with moderator points please moderate me down instead of using their points to increase the quality of the +5 level section ?
Thank you.
"Do you listen to everything that you hear???"
But finish your post by quoting "something you heard".
The lack of logic in this argument should be painfully obvious even to the most casual observer.
Fact is, Algore voted to fund a (at the time, really fast) backbone for internetworking super computers. One bill (albeit very important), at one point in time, along the evolution of the internet. What's not mentioned in the original post (and something I think is a serious issue) is Algores lack of self confidence to stand on his beliefs alone without "extending" himself into every situation in an effort to convince the listener that he's a player on the topic (when he's really just a punk).
The simplified version of the original poster question would be:
Why does Algore want to filter what he invented?
Given the recent concern about internet privacy brought up by Simson Garfinkel in his book, What is your vision of the future of privacy laws in the US to protect US consumers from the wholesale distrobution of their "digital biobroghies"?
I strongly agree. Please ask questions that are balanced. Don't give the candidates a ready-made opinion to agree with -- and don't convince them that we're all unreasonable ranting ideologues.
- Michael
-----
Go ahead, blame me... I voted for Nader!
The 3rd party candidates already had their own debate. Didn't you notice? (Don't feel bad, not many did.) You can find some info (with links) at Liberty Rally. (Oh, and if you're a big Nader fan, did you know that he didn't even bother to show up when he had the chance?)
Constitutionally Correct
Ralph,
I saw an interview with you in which you basically stated that your personal motivation for seeking the presidency comes from the your inability to remain an effective consumer advocate. Basically, you said that corporations have the legistative process so tied up that lobbying for non-profit consumer advocacy is like talking to a closed door. Can you expound on this and give examples ??
Of all places, the interview was on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
-Dave Blake
Do you support a national missile defense system?
If yes, why, despite the fact that nearly every global ally of the USA is against it? Who are the enemies who threaten us with missile attack ("rogue nations" is not acceptable, be specific)?
If no, why? How should the United States deal with potential threats? Do you also oppose using the US military as a peacekeeping force, such as was done in Haiti and the Baltics?
Wholeheartedly agree. A gradual increase in fossil fuel costs will fuel growth of cheap, alternative energy. Case in point: the recent NEC battery article. Imagine if the potential market for batteries with a high current capacity, high charge density, and fast charge times could double in the next year. With all the funding for R&D in alternative tech, we'll see the same "faster, cheaper, better" revolution occur in alternatvie energy as occurred (and is still occuring today) in computing technology. And on that note, a laptop battery that could do that would be very nice to have, too... except that it's not essential to the laptop that the battery last super-long; you could always carry around a spare or two; but powerful batteries are an absolutely essential source of power for electric cars, and there's a lot more money in that business, especially if gas prices climb higher. (and I ought to smack anyone who has bought an gas-guzzling SUV for their daily drive to work)..
:)
The only reasonable way to do that is taxation -- where it matters. If us US citizens saw our gas prices even approach what some Europeans pay for gas... it'd hurt in the pocket for a little while, but in the end we'd probably wind up paying less by buying more efficient automobiles and appliances, and later automobiles and appliances that use alternative, renewable sources of energy.
Just imagine what would happen if all the fossil fuel supplies ran out today. Panic? Well with current rate of concern among people of "developed" nations, that might not happen today, but when it does, we will be no more prepared than we are right now. I'm not a pessimist, in fact quite the opposite; this should serve as a wake-up call. We can do something about it. Get out of your dream worlds, people. We were born into bondage, slaves of OPEC and the oil companies...
Tax cuts financed by borrowing do tend to increase the money supply, but through an indirect linkage rather than a direct one.
So long as you are happy for the funds borrowed by the government to force up interest rates and crowd out private sector investment, then you are right that this doesn't represent a direct increase in the money supply. (In the IS-LM picture it is the IS curve which moves, not the LM curve).
But the fiscal expansion still acts as a stimulus, increasing aggregate demand, leading to increased inflationary pressure.
At this point there is a choice. The Fed could leave its interest rates unchanged, so the LM curve stays where it is. But the LM curve represents the real money supply: preserving it means acquiescing to the inflation, allowing the nominal (dollar) money supply to increase. Alternatively, it can refuse to allow the dollar money supply to increase, but only by further increasing interest rates to tighten the money supply.
So you can have tax cuts financed by borrowing without inflation, but only at the expense of doubly increased interest rates.
Printing the money is much worse; but financing the tax cut with borrowing is still somewhat inflationary.
See the post 'A more considered answer', above.
Incorrect.
When a bank takes your money and lends it to somebody else, your wealth isn't diminished: so you go on spending like a rich person; but the poor lendee now can buy what they wanted. In effect you are both behaving as if you each had the money. So in economics the creation of a loan increases the total money supply.
The converse is that if the government uses tax money to clear debt instead of buying goods and services, the debt really does effectively disappear from the money supply.
At the moment the Fed is increasing interest rates to try to reduce aggregate demand to avoid an inflation bubble. The poster's suggestion of keeping taxes where they are, and deliberately running a larger government surplus, could be attractive compared to the alternative of even higher interest rates. It would mean that the pain of keeping demand within readily supplyable levels would be spread evenly across the whole tax base, rather than being concentrated as a squeeze on people and businesses who are in debt or need to borrow to invest.
Consider:
1. The Government borrows the money from you.
The Government spends the money. You are still rich, so you go on spending money.
2. The Government taxes you.
The Government spends the money. But you are poor, so you stop spending money.
Conclusion: replacing taxes with borrowing increases the money supply.
This is what economists mean when they say that tax cuts inject money into the economy -- tax cuts increase government debt, which injects money into the economy.
This is true only if the government borrowing is unchanged -- ie if every tax cut is 'earned' by a corresponding spending cut.
Strangely, this appears not to happen in practice.
Tax Cut + No Change In Spending = Increased National Debt. Inflationary.
Tax Cut + Spending Cut = No Change In National Debt. Broadly Neutral. (OK, maybe somewhat deflationary).
No Tax Cut + Spending Cut = Reduced National Debt. Deflationary.
Rather than put the whole weight of demand deflation on the Fed and its interest rate policy, the same effect could arguably be achieved with less economic pain by increasing the budget surplus.
This is not a sane way to judge electoral systems.
Worse, the electoral college focusses a narrow race entirely onto the few swing states, and can make many large states and their concerns entirely irrelevant. This is not a good way to get a reflective government.
Treasury bonds are not part of the money numbers M0 to M4 etc, which are only supposed to reflect ready money, rather than long-term investments.
On the other hand, with credit now available to almost all, reserve money available to banks on demand, and assets far more liquid and traded than in previous times, M0 and friends look less and less like drivers of economic activity and more and more like mere flawed and distorted reflections of it.
Our discussion was framed in terms of central bank interest rate policy, which needs to consider the prospects for inflation up to two years ahead. Mindlessly slaving policy to the latest money-supply numbers might have worked in a highly regulated monetary system in Germany in the 1970s, but is just not relevant in the current open environment.
The important driver for consumer consumption is arguably now not accessible ready cash, but total perceived total net worth (including stock market share values, relative real-estate prices, and the sober T-bonds, as well as the narrow bank balances)
As an example, compare the situations:
Debt redemption: A has $5000 in cash, B has $0 extra in cash.
Tax credit: A has $5000 in T-bonds, B has $5000 extra in cash
I claim that A will be no less likely to demand goods and services over the next two years just because some of his money is currently sitting in T-bonds rather than a bank account; but B will be likely to try to spend at least some of that extra $5000 cash.
Dear Candidate:
Much has been made in the current presidential debates about the foreign policy of the United States, and whether it is the role of the U.S. military to intervene in humanitarian crises around the globe. This was hotly discussed at the time of the Kosovo atrocities, of course, but "humanitarian concerns" have been cited as the reason for U.S. military intervention in Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, and elsewhere.
Some of you have called for a "compelling national interest" before committing U.S. troops; others have rejected the use of U.S. troops for humanitarian intervention--or indeed for any purpose at all. One of you, in particular, has decried the "interventionist" policies of American presidents since Roosevelt, who interfere abroad in the affairs of other sovereign nations.
It is 11 o'clock Eastern time as I write this. It is not quite dawn in Khartoum, in the Sudan. In just a few hours there will be Dinka slaves sold in the marketplace. 137 years after the Emancipation Proclamation--135 years after the end of the American Civil War--there is an active, vibrant slave trade in Africa today. Black Africans from the southern part of the Sudan are being captured and sold into slavery by Arabs from the northern Sudan--according to many sources they act with tacit approval of the Sudanese government. Several freed Sudanese slaves have made moving presentations in the media, but to date there has been little or no official comment by the Clinton Administration. To date, the most effective voice in the U.S. has been a class of fifth graders from Colorado that have raised $50,000 to buy slaves and set them free.
I ask you--is the worldwide traffic in human slaves a compelling humanitarian interest of the United States? Is the capture, sale, and breeding of black Africans cause to consider U.S. military intervention?
If your answer is "no", what can you say to the millions of American citizens whose ancestors were brought to these shores in chains? If your answer is "yes", what--precisely--do you propose to do?
It's been quite obvious that under the Clinton administration, the prosperity of our country has risen dramatically, with praise being spread across the board (to Clinton, Alan Greenspan, the media, the citizens of the US, etc.). A thought in my mind remains though: who (or what) is responsible for the prosperity of this country? But in thinking about that, here's the question I want to propose:
What do you feel is the SINGLE (aka: one and only one) most imporant person, event, or situation that will maintain the prosperity of the United States into the next presidental term? Please be specific and direct here; don't just say "a good economy" or "a strong military." Place credit where you think credit is due.
To all:
What is your plan to pay down the debt? Many have said that they will be able to work with Congress. Bah! How will you be albe to stand up to Congress trying to spend more instead of paying down the debt? Will you be willing to shut down the government to prevent Congress from spending?
Thanks,
Poiu
---
---
"Don't anthropomorphize computers. They hate that."
simply because you are ill-informed and do not research any claims by the candidates.
... helped to shape the development of the NSFNET--a national network with international connections that took up where its predecessor, the ARPANET, left off. ... By the mid-late 1980s, then-Senator Gore had become a visible proponent of NSFNET, which enthusiasm and insight continued and grew with his election to the Vice Presidency. For having seen the potential in these technologies, and for having pursued and argued for legislation and administration support for research in these areas ... I think it is entirely fitting that the Vice President take some credit for helping to create an environment in which [the] Internet could thrive."
Do you listen to everything that you hear???
Thanks to Eric Zorn with the Chicago Tribune for this:
In June 1986, back when there were fewer than 5,000 network host sites (there are tens of millions today) available to a comparative handful of knowledgeable users, Gore, then a senator from Tennessee, introduced the Supercomputer Network Study Act in response to fears in the research community that the U.S. was dangerously lagging in this area.
Then in October 1988, Gore introduced the National High-Performance Computer Technology Act. After it died, he reintroduced it in May of the following year. It called for more ambitious funding to improve and expand the connections between universities, libraries and other institutions. Both before and after the act passed in 1991, Gore spoke frequently of "the information superhighway," a phrase he is widely credited with coining and that recalled the key role his late father, also a U.S. senator, played in building (figuratively, of course!) the interstate highway system.
Computer scientist Vinton Cerf, sometimes called "The Father of the Internet," was co-designer of the communications protocol that forms the backbone of the Internet and a pioneer in the academic/military computer networks from which the Internet sprung. In a statement sent to me Monday by MCI WorldCom, where he is now senior vice president of Internet Architecture and Technology, Cerf wrote:
"Gore's support for the research agencies
There you have it. If you wish to read the entire article that I got this info from you can either do a simple search on google or you can just click on this link:
GORE'S INTERNET LINK IS NOTHING TO JOKE ABOUT
Jeez, you could maybe use this great resource of information called the internet to answer your own question!!
Here is a good article by Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune
Thanks to Eric Zorn with the Chicago Tribune for this:
... helped to shape the development of the NSFNET--a national network with international connections that took up where its predecessor, the ARPANET, left off. ... By the mid-late 1980s, then-Senator Gore had become a visible proponent of NSFNET, which enthusiasm and insight continued and grew with his election to the Vice Presidency. For having seen the potential in these technologies, and for having pursued and argued for legislation and administration support for research in these areas ... I think it is entirely fitting that the Vice President take some credit for helping to create an environment in which [the] Internet could thrive."
In June 1986, back when there were fewer than 5,000 network host sites (there are tens of millions today) available to a comparative handful of knowledgeable users, Gore, then a senator from Tennessee, introduced the Supercomputer Network Study Act in response to fears in the research community that the U.S. was dangerously lagging in this area.
Then in October 1988, Gore introduced the National High-Performance Computer Technology Act. After it died, he reintroduced it in May of the following year. It called for more ambitious funding to improve and expand the connections between universities, libraries and other institutions. Both before and after the act passed in 1991, Gore spoke frequently of "the information superhighway," a phrase he is widely credited with coining and that recalled the key role his late father, also a U.S. senator, played in building (figuratively, of course!) the interstate highway system.
Computer scientist Vinton Cerf, sometimes called "The Father of the Internet," was co-designer of the communications protocol that forms the backbone of the Internet and a pioneer in the academic/military computer networks from which the Internet sprung. In a statement sent to me Monday by MCI WorldCom, where he is now senior vice president of Internet Architecture and Technology, Cerf wrote:
"Gore's support for the research agencies
There you have it. If you wish to read the entire article that I got this info from you can either do a simple search on google or you can just click on this link:
GORE'S INTERNET LINK IS NOTHING TO JOKE ABOUT
My question is this: When I went for a job interview this year, I was asked to take a drug test at a designated hospital as a pre-requisite to getting the job. Most americans have experienced the same, and also being tested once a year at their jobs. Recently in a book about president Nixon, one of his advisors said that Nixon was addicted to some pills not prescribed by his doctor. So, are the canditates for President of the USA getting tested for drugs so we can be sure they are drug free? Would you both agree to being tested before the election, and every year if you are elected President? This should also be required of all the staff.
~~~Please pass the salt, I hate unsalted MD5s
During the past few years, we have seen a wealth of software patents that have been granted by the USPTO. Many of them have been trivially simple ideas (Amazon's 1-Click patent stands out, but I could easily rattle off several more.) Many feel that software should not be granted patents, while others feel that the length of time to a software patents should be shortened (because of the speed the technology moves, the next generation of software usually repaces the current every 18-36 months). A few business people believe that software patents should be treated the same as current non-software patents.
How do you feel on this issue regarding software patents, and if you feel that things need to change, what do you plan to do?
Doh!
For those of you who oppose the electoral college, read this article. If it doesn't change your mind, it will at least give you food for thought.
I think this might need to be expanded to include more information. Possibly UCITA, the ever-growing copyright terms and ridiculous patents.
In my opinion, for the leaders and symbols of a free nation to cower behind these barriers is pathetic, and makes our nation appear weak and frightened rather than the confident people I believe us to be. Further, to be denied access to my own Capitol and monuments is a serious infringment of my liberty.
What is your opinion of the recently imposed security restrictions, and what specific actions will you take regarding these restrictions will you take should you be elected?
Specifically, the current Solicitor General of the United States has recently stated that the sole purpose of the Second Amendment is to prevent federal interference with organized state militias.
As a candidate for the Office of President, I would like a clear answer from you to the following question; Do you believe that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms?
....bald is a hair color
What about Harry Browne, Pat Buchanan, Howard Phillips, David McRenyolds, and all the other third party candidates out there? If everyone is defending Ralph Nader's supposed right to attend the debates feverishly, then why not support all third party candidates as well? Just because everyone else isn't ranting about corporations like Nader is doesn't mean they deserve less support to have their chance to speak up.
My anti-Nader rant aside, IIRC, you need 5% in the polls to be in the debates. That's why guys like Nader aren't in there. Not because of a conspiracy theory, but because they're below the 5% mark. That's why we saw Ross Perot in the debates back in the day, because he had about 10% in the polls AFAIK.
--
--
The real Raunchola isn't cool enough to have any imposters
Oh boy, hit submit instead of preview.
Let me correct my spelling please.
Presidential Candidates:
With the media and public acknowledging the failures of the "War on Drugs" what do you
plan to do with this "war" if you reach the White house?
If i recall correctly, things like "under God", etc got added to their respective areas during the Eisenhower administration as sort of an anti-communist backlash since communism is atheist
-Aaron
Since the 10th amendment to the Constitution states that any powers not given to the Federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the People, would you please tell us where (Article and Section, or Amendment) in the Constitution the power is granted for each of the Cabinet-level Departments?
First of all, the states were always free to prohibit alcohol. The Commerce Clause allowed the Feds to regulate interstate commerce... and while this was intended as a means to control interstate trade wars and punitive tariffs, the text does not specify what sort of regulation. So even at that time, the Feds could ban interstate transport of alcohol.
But the key difference between the '20s and today is the status of the Commerce Clause. Up until the early 1930s, the Supreme Court followed what is now known as the "qualitative interpretation", narrowly construing it to mean something like, "if it's commerce, and it's interstate, the Feds may regulate it". The 10th amendment would have prevented a federal statute banning drugs.
Along comes FDR, an amazingly powerful president. To cut a long story short, he made the "quantitative interpretation" the accepted one. This might be paraphrased as, "if it affects interstate commerce in any way, the Feds may regulate it". It would be impossible to overstate the impact of this change... it's the foundation of the US government we know today.
In the 1919, the Supreme Court would have struck down a statutory Prohibition. By the 1940s, they wouldn't have. And while I think you'll still find that today the Feds leave a lot of drug stuff to the states (likely for financial reasons), they might change this policy if Alaska or New Mexico legalizes marijuana.
This is a much-abridged version of a very interesting story, by the way. If you'd like a nice introduction from the "new federalist" perspective (or bias, as you choose), check this Cato article. Note especially the somewhat shocking (to me :-) ) case, Wickard v. Filburn.
With four justices poised to retire, and two more solidly in the minority camp, this is the issue of this presidential election. Judicial activism, or judicial restraint. The principals know it, but most folks don't understand it, so the dialogue remains focused on details of this or that program.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
A more important point should be made that encryption is going to be the future of any sort of commerce online. As 'online' can mean the entire world, how can you justify export regulations on strong cryptography? Also, how can you justify these regulations if the knowlege exists outside of the US regardless (think non-US in Debian).
.88 magnum -- it goes through schools.
--
It's a
--
It's a
-- Danny Vermin
If the government implements more gun control and the law abiding citizen complies with these laws, what will the government do to protect these citizens? Criminals will get more guns, take a look at countries that have done this.
Adapted from The Motley Fool:
1. What are you doing about the terrible kidney removal problem in our nation's bars? 2. Will the DOJ take action against Nieman Marcus' cookie selling regime? 3. Have you considered using funds from forwarding Bill Gates' emails to fund the Social Security trust fund? 4. Should the FDA regulate Pop Rocks after the terrible accident with Little Mikey? 5. Do Walt Disney's copyrights count from the time he was frozen, or from when he is thawed out and actually dies? And, of course: 6. Will you veto bill 602P if it passes Congress?
Law is whatever is boldly asserted and plausibly maintained. -- Aaron Burr
Off-topic:
Pick what you like, if any.
--
Moreover do you believe it would have been a good thing to through young George Bush and Al Gore into prison? 'Twould be good, but not likely at all. Both of their fathers were Washington insiders and their family fortunes were made on the backs of tax dollars. And you can bet that neither would stop the Con On Drugs. There is too much money involved: from the police who are given ransoms for drug busts to the DA's who are kept busy and flush with election-swinging cases to the corporate prisons with their decently-paid guards.
I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.
"On the supply side, Governor Bush will improve interdiction and stop drugs before they reach our children. He will use better intelligence and surveillance to track and catch drug smugglers before they reach our borders." oh yes, wont somebody Please think of the children! As everyone knows, all the domestic policies of this country sould revolve solely around what's best for The Children(tm). And where have I heard this tactic of 'stopping up the flow of drugs at the border' before? hmm Reagan? Bush(sr.)? and now where is the money spent on those idiotic and completely innefective policies? thats right. wasted, gone forever. maybe it's time to rethink 30 years of useless prohibition, TREAT addicts and actually allow the citizens of this so called free country to do what they wish with their own bodies. ie. im voting for Browne
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
This is a question for Ralph Nader.
Will you switch the government over to Open Source operating systems instead of proprietary corporate operating systems?
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
Mr Gore: Will you follow in President Clinton's footsteps regarding White House Interns?
=================================
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
Hmm, that shouldn't be too hard.
Let's see, to whose benefit would it be to keep this country deep in debt? Why, the banks who loan the money, of course! And who ends up getting that money? The bank shareholders! And who are they? All the shadowy, rich, influential people you can imagine.
It's a hell of a racket, funnelling your tax dollars into their pockets. The only tricky part is keeping people from totally losing faith in the system. Fortunately, that goes hand in hand with keeping a low profile about the size of the debt and the whole racket in the first place, and we are talking about people with *serious* money here...
Verily hath their moderation points been wasted upon me.
There is considerable worry in the technical community about the use of monitoring devices such as Carnivore and potential mandates for government access to private communications on the Internet. using key escrow or other techniques. The argument has been made that only criminals will actually have something to hide, but most of us would still rather not have someone else reading our private e-mail, even if there is nothing of any legal consequence in it. What will you do to protect both our constitutional rights, and our social rights, such as our right to privacy, online?
Hmm. Nobody.
Stop including Marijuana in the category of "hard" drugs like Cocaine and Heroin. No medical study in the world has ever claimed that it is as bad as those things. You associating it with them speaks of the degree of your ignorant faschist beliefs. That a human does not have the right to do with themself what they choose is absurd.
Nazis like you should be the ones we're focusing on, then the world would truly be a better place.
You ask 'Do you have and idea how many god damn stoners there would be if you decided to legalize drugs?'
Hmm I dunno, why don't you visit Holland and ask them what effects their drug policy has had on their country. I'm sure they'd love to discuss it with you, over a bowl or two.
The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all, is the person who argues with him.
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.
Precisely which invading army are we discussing here? I wasn't aware that the US was being invaded. Nor do I find it likely or possible that such an act would be possible in the future. Let's leave the soldiering to the soldiers. As to your general armament statement, how do we secure our weapons so our children can't get ahold of them, causing fatal violence to themselves or their peers? Education, you say. How does that prevent a four year old from getting daddy's revolver and killing junior? Trigger locks, right? Locked cabinets, right? And then you have to unlock the cabinet, open the trigger lock, load the gun and then shoot the guy? Nope. Wrong answer. Bang you're dead. You died when you were opening the cabinet.
Guns may be a leveler, or a deterrent...but does that stop violent crime in its tracks? No. Getting rid of all guns does. I'm not telling you how to do it, that's not my place, I'm not the legislator. I'm just telling you what I want done as a voter and as a citizen. And that is my point of view, and I'm more than happy to express it.
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.
As for firearms. I never said let's ban them, I said let's get rid of them. Let's gather them all up (and I do mean ALL) and toss them. They cheapen death by making it all to easy. One trigger pull from 100 yards is all it takes to end a life. Just a little squeeze. That's why I don't like guns. They take away life. Let's reissue swords. Those make death a lot more challenging. As for the founding fathers, the reason we have the second amendment is because we could not have raised a professional army without the help of the average citizen. Now, the government hires citizens to be professional soldiers, hence the need for the access of guns to the masses is pointless. Just why do you need a gun? Just because someone else has one doesn't mean you need one too. Be a man, use your hands, or a sharp implement.
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.
----
Would it be better if I asked "In light of the positions taken by the candidates in the NY Senate race, where do you stand on resolution 602P"?
-- He's fantastic, made of plastic....
That always bothered me. The GNP is well... here lookit this, from http://www.cyberus.ca/choose.sustain/Question/GDP- GNP.html:
". . . in 1991 the GNP was turned into the GDP - a quiet change that had very large implications.
Under the old measure, the Gross National Product, the earnings of a multinational firm were attributed to the country where the firm was owned and where the profits would eventually return. Under the Gross Domestic Product, however, the profits are attributed to the country where the factory or mine is located, even though they won't stay there. This accounting shift has turned many struggling nations into statistical boomtowns, while aiding the push for a global economy. Conveniently, it has hidden a basic fact: the nations of the North are walking off with the South's resources and calling it a gain for the South."
In my paranoid moments back then I imagined that it made US look better since it included what seemed like massive Japanese investments in US soil at a time when the GNP would have been sagging.
The Laffer Curve helps understand this if you believe that the Government exists solely to help business. Termed 'voo-doo economics' by G. Bush (the Original, accept no substitutes!), it provides the means for finding an optimal taxation strategy.
Crap, see what you did? Got me wayyyyy off-topic and now I have to come up with a question or get modded down since I can't delete my words and start over... but it would be an interesting question if the politicians were required to provide a single (single-digit?) numerical answer.
Too lazy to search too much. Egypt is at about 30%...
Ob Question: Al, please, with as much detail and insight as you can muster: Why is - as you say - Napster just like the early days of Democracy?
...then stand back and remember to take notes, BTW. Al is not afraid of getting into the details.
SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
What are your feelings on the DMCA, and what steps will you take to enforce/repeal it if elected?
Is Microsoft a monopoly that should be regulated by the federal government?
What are the benefits/costs to maintaining the status quo, or pursuing the DOJ's case for separation?
Personally, all issues are local--this is the deciding issue for me.
--
$tar -xvf
- - - - - - - -
"Never apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem."
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
The "First Right" is one's right of control of one's own body.
Examples:
Right to die
Right to abort pregnancy
Right to use drugs
I asked them to not talk about consensus building, because it is necessary for all presidents who get elected no matter who elected, but I do not want a president that will be ruled by what the poll says the people want. I want a president who thinks what he is doing is the Right Thing (tm).
The number was 15%, it was repeated several times before the first debate.
I'm confused as to how my comment was overrated. It was a direct answer to the parent as far as I was concerned. I personally thought the parent was overrated.
This argument by itself is too general in scope for anyone but a hardcore anarchist to accept. Apply it to *any* illegal activity, does it still make sense to repeal all laws? People are still going to do the illegal deeds regardless, right?
There is some stuff (such as murder) that should be punished. The societal super-organism finds it in it's best interests to prohibit such things in spite of whatever incentives individuals happen to have to commit these acts. Doing recreational psychedelic drugs isn't one of these things, however.
By the way, if drugs were legalized, most of them would be so cheap that people wouldn't need to resort to crime in order to feed their habit. Pot would drop from anywhere from $50/per eighth ounce to grow it in your back yard and smoke as much as you want for free.
Criminalization created the black market and the massive costs of hiding an underground industry and providing the incentive for taking the associated risks. So if you want to stop people from stealing so they can afford more drugs, legalize them so that they'll become cheaply available.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
I'm not arguing against a standard. But Ralph Nader, for example, is on the ballot in most states (link is to map showing which states) in the country. Yet the vast majority of people heading to the polls will have to form their opinion about the choices on their ballot through some means other than having seen him in the debates (or the relentless onslaught of post-debate deconstruction). This amounts to free publicity for the two candidates who need it the least. In fact, stations that did not carry the debates have been chastised by the chairman of the FCC for not doing so. This is not only unfair, but dangerous to democracy. I have a right as a citizen to more information than I was given about my choices on the ballot this Novemeber-- and the government and the broadcasters behind these debates have a responsibility to provide it in a more even handed way. The effect is almost censorship, in that the loud chorus of Republicrats has the fundamental effect of drowning out the other voices.
I do not have a signature
The number is at 15% for the debates. 5% of the popular vote is the amount you need for tax-based funding (this may vary by jurisdiction). Incidentally, the whole idea of this exclusion based on such a percentage basis is crap. It's self-perpetuating. He doesn't resonate with people without free access to the people, therefore he won't resonate with the people even if we let him talk? Talk about assuming the conclusion. It's a no-win situation. How can he possibly expect to gain support when they won't share airtime with a man whose 4 or 5% represents literally millions of citizens? You know why the Republicrats did this? Jesse Ventura. He was showing 5 to 10% in Minnesota polls prior to being asked to join the debates by the Democratic (DFL in MN) candidate (who felt that Ventura would be a spoiler for the Republicans, thereby enhance the DFL showing). However, Minnesotans of all stripes had a chance to hear this man speak (and much of what he said was off the wall, legalization of victimless crimes being a biggie). And lo, the polls were packed with new voters who felt that their opinions had a chance. And he won.
So, um, why shouldn't we let these "minor" candidates speak? Oh yeah, they might win by accident.
I do not have a signature
All I can say in response is that I'm glad the newspaper and most voter's guide producers don't take the same narrow view of what information is important for the voters to have access to. But on the other hand, how many voters actually read those things? Then how many non-voters? How many voters watch the TV debates? How many non-voters? How many voters and non-voters read the quick blurbs about the debates on the front pages? How many voters and non-voters see the 30 second spots about the debates on the morning and evening TV news? It's not the debates themselves that are significant. It's all the subsequent discussion about them. It's the assumption that the polls are accurate, fair, and meaningful in a way that should affect our civil right to information about candidates. The way it's operated there is no real election in November. All the real voting was done in "public opinion polls". And honestly, if someone can't get it through their thick skulls that people died so they can vote for a president every four years, and therefore consider it a duty to vote-- and this describes a huge number of Americans. Then do you expect these people to really take the time to answer phone surveys? The one phone survey I was subjected to was hardly fair, I was given only three presidential choices, and only two state senator choices. And I still have to wonder about the privacy of my answers, my vote is confidential. A phone survey carries no such gaurantee. Considering the treatment afforded to political radicals in this country (Red Scare for instance), could you blame anyone for not answering that they'd vote for the Socialist on the ticket to a stranger over the phone-- if that choice was even given in a way that made it clear that a Socialist was an option?
I do not have a signature
In some ways, we get what we ask for. Don't want a tax cut? No tax cut for you!
sulli
RTFJ.
To all the candidates: Why not use the surplus to pay down the debt, and then cut taxes when we need it (during BAD economic times) instead of now, when we don't need it?
sulli
RTFJ.
Each state has different requirments on how a person can get on their ballot. If a candidate doesn't fullfill those requirements, then he or she won't be a choice for you.
Some states have little to no requirements, and so everyone and their brother is on the ballot; some states have very tough requirements and few people other than those who are involved with the major parties will be on the ballot.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for you are crunchy, and taste good with ketchup.
Good point. Tom Paine was a deist (along with me) and he was insulted (and called athiest, which is different) by Ronald Reagen for it. What a way to treat our founding fathers.
Good point. I'm pretty sure number 565 (mine) wouldn't have gotten to +5 without my asking others for support. I saw a lot of very silly questions, and a lot of "traditional" questions - the things that should be asked on places like MSNBC and CNBC, but not on Slashdot. C'mon, this is Slashdot. Please, guys, think. Use your brains, and ask the candidates the tough questions! Make them think.
Let's see if any of the candidates are savvy enough to catch that bit.
Lol! I know you meant geographic, but that's an interesting thought. Genetic voting, hmm...
Actually, there's a much stronger problem going on: we have no purpose as a country. (Read my question, #565 for what I'm talking about.) And that's a very dangerous thing, because what you describe is an effect of politics with no purpose. When the country has a purpose, we have no problem voting money for things that matter: WWII, the Cold War, the Depression New Deal, etc., but when we have no money we vote it for ourselves. I think that your (important, nonetheless) issue is a side effect (symptom?) of this bigger problem for the country.
For gosh sakes please make the candidates think! They're sleeping right now (except for GWB, but he's using up his brain trying to figure out how to pronounce his name). This question does nothing.
That's right, we're all being called athiests by fools like Reagan. (He made some very negative comment about Thomas Paine, author of Common Sense)
Hrmn... depression? Not just that. Without a national mission, I think that the entire country is going to go to hell in a handbasket in the next couple of decades... say goodbye to Uncle Sam!
Much has been said in the press and in the televised debates about the promise and perils of the Internet. As technology junkies, we are concerned that lawmakers and politicians may not have the same understanding of the technology as those "in the trenches".
How much time do you spend using computers, and what qualifies your technology advisors (assuming you have some)?
From WWWebster Dictionary:
agnostic: n: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.
I think that's about as un-dogmatic as anything can get. When was the last time you had an agnostic trying to convert you to agnosticism? "Hey, man, have you heard the word? There may or may not be a god! Hallelujah!"
What do you most admire about each of your opponents?
(I think this would be a great question if for no other reason than to see who can be nice and who either can't answer the question, or feels compelled to use it as a launching pad for his own agenda.)
Do you think that there are too many "preventative" laws in this country which restrict these rights unneccesarily, and that the restrictions should be lesser, with perhaps greater punishments for those who use these freedoms to violate the rights to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" of others? Or do you feel that we can only guarantee a certain level of freedom by imposing a large set of restrictions on everybody, so as to quell the criminals before they act?
11*43+456^2
Until the debt goes away and the feds start buying stocks bonds the social security system is just another income transfer program. But then it gets really scarey because the gov will start voting its shares!
Can both of you put to rest the foolish idea that many of the internet audience and slashdot especially do of thinking that there is one political party and that you are *not* controlled by various industry interests. I really feel that democracy works and that there is little to fear but many of my associates feel that there is some problem. Could you set this straight.
Respond to s
Well, I am sure this won't go far with the moderation, but I am going to try.
The US Government WASTES billions upon billions of dollars every year on pet projects, military, social services (very broad meaning), internal affairs, and much more indeed. This has gotten worse every year, and even though there are no hard facts on this, it is quite obvious.
My question is: What are you going to do to STREAMLINE government operations and prune out the unneccessaries? If this were done quickly, efficiently, and carefully (which is possible), it would definitely bring positive changes overall even if there are a few glitches from the process. Do you have what it takes to get this done?
-- ERICmurphy -- www.jabber.org for open-source, XML-based IM
How do you propose to get parents more involved in the education of their children? More computers is not the answer - that's obvious. A T1 in every classroom is not the answer. If they were, then pervious generations would not have gotten decent educations, but they did.
We all know that parental involvement in the education system is dropping. Coupled with the massive epedemic of illegitimacy in the U.S., the educational institution is producing people who can't read and write properly.
You can't legislate parenting. How will you get parents more involved in their children's future?
-- bearclaw
Neither has anything particularly helpful to say on the subject.
Agreed, where Dubya is concerned, the answer to a shortage is to drill for more oil. Gore, to his credit, is for encouraging energy responsibiliy, rather than tap into less accessible or wise reserves.
I'd be more interested in drilling Dubya on this point. The US is now consuming more petroleum than in 1973, prior to the oil embargo brought on by the Yom Kippur war and Henry Kissinger's meddling. Whatever lessons where learned have been quickly forgotten and SUV's have taken the place of fuel efficient autos. Guzzler taxes have no impact, as they only apply to autos, not trucks which were formerly viewed as utility vehicles. 25 years into the era when we were assured there were only 40 years of petroleum left and we've apparently learned nothing from history.
In 25 years Amtrak is plodding along a slow growth curve. Bullet trains are still a pipe-dream. Techno evangelists propose airliners which exit the atmosphere and fly from New York to Tokyo in 2 hours. And we have 25 less years of petroleum left to prepare for absense of cheap energy.
At the end of the next presidential term we will be 29 years along this path. Who will demonstrate the courage and leadership it will take to discourage the waste and lay the foundation of a world without petroleum.
--
Chief Frog Inspector
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Anyone besides me read Tom Clancy?
In one of his books, one of the characters mentions a solution that would probably work rather well...
Punish the drug users, particularly the middle and upper class ones, through shame. Make them do community service, cleaning streets, parks, etc.
If you make using drugs less 'fun', then people stop doing them. And that would drive the dealers out of business faster than anything.
Of course, this probably makes too much sense to actually be implemented.
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
(I apologize in advance if this has already been beaten to death as my browser doesn't want to load all the current posts)
I would like the candidate's responses as to why our country has fallen down to two major political parties and what can be done to encourage more political parties to represent the viewpoints of more Americans. Neither of the two major parties can represent my opinions: I pull from both, thus neither fit me.
Additionally, I would like the candidate's responses as to why we still need the Electoral College. It made sense in the 1700's and 1800's as a representative democracy before we had effective mass communications to use this method to elect the President, but why in this day and age is such a system maintained?
And finally, why should the debates be restricted to the two major parties' candidates. As I understand it, the Libertarian candidate, Harry Browne, is on the ballots of 49 states. This represents a serious candidate whose views on the issues will not be exposed to the voting public because of his exclusion from the public debates. I do not feel that every candidate who is able to get on to the ballots of 2 or 3 states should be included, but 49 states is serious popular support.
--
When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
I got my absentee ballot and several of these candidates aren't listed and others are... Can anyone explain this?
This is who is listed on my absentee ballot-
Harry Browne - Libertarian
Pat Buchanan - Reform
George Bush - Republican
Al Gore - Democrat
John Hagelin - Natural Law
James Harris - Socialist Workers
Denny Lane - Vermont Grassroots
David McReynolds - Liberty Union
Ralph Nader - Progressive/Green
Howard Philips - Constitution
My home state, Vermont, legalized "civil-unions", giving many of the same privledges (but not all) as a marriage to gay and lesbian couples.
Right now there is a great deal of hate being spread around my state with people who don't agree with it. They started a campaign "Take Back Vermont", in order to, supposedly, take Vermont back to it's "roots". To me, this against what Vermont is about, once our own Union before joining the US, it's always been for equal rights, respect, and understanding.
I went to a local fair a few weeks ago, and just for showing my support for the civil unions law, I was continually harassed, told to "go back to California" (when I've lived in Vermont all my life), called a dyke and lesbian (though I am a heterosexual woman), purposely run into by "innocent" bystanders, all for wanting the same rights for gays that I will enjoy should I ever get married. I was also told that "shit is for spreading on fields, not for packing".
Pat Buchanan took it upon himself to come to Vermont this week and express his disgust for the Vermonters that support this bill, the ones that actually elected the officials and pushed for the bill, understanding that all Vermonters are equal, even in God's eyes. He was very demeaning and extremely anti-gay.
We that support the civil unions bill, we understand that not everyone has to accept gays, but what happened to RESPECT?
Thus, mny question is for Pat Buchanan- why does the Vermont Civil Unions bill affect you so that you feel it is ok to use such slanderous terms and support a slogan that is known in Vermont as a symbol of hate as that of "Take Back Vermont"? Are you not secure in your own sexuality? I want to take Vermont back myself, to a time when it was an open and respectful state that always valued EVERYONES rights, not just a certain group's...
Do you underwrite the growing feeling that the lives and liberties of normal citizens are increasingly being curtailed by the interests of large corporations and special interest groups, or is it your opinion that these corporations and special interest groups are representative of the American people at large?
I want the fire back.
How do you feel about the current electoral system? Do you find the use of popular media an effective way to get an objective message accross, or would you prefer a more controlled method of campaigning? Furthermore, traditionally a large percentage of the American people chooses not to exercise their right to vote. On one hand, it is known that something as simple as pleasant weather on an election day leads to a higher turnout, and a better result for left wing candidates. On the other hand, in Belgium, where voting is mandatory, a high percentage of the population chooses to vote for extreme right wing candidates. Do you beleive voting should remain a right, or should voting be considered a duty?
I want the fire back.
Maybe the statistics might make it look like there was an increase, as people who did them would be more likely to admit to doing them, but i seriously doubt the number of drug users would drasticaly increase.
Ive never tried crack, but its not because ive been waiting for it to be legalized so i wont get in trouble... i just dont want to do it, regardless of the law. Similiarly, i might choose to do a drug even though its illegal, because i do want to; again, regardless of the law.
If people want to do something, they are going to do it. Illegalizing it only makes them criminals, and us hyporocrits. If we are so free, why are there so many things we arent allowed to do?
And please dont offer the argument "people steal things to get moeny for drugs." Does that mean if people steal things to buy candy bars, we illegalize cady bars? People steal things. What they buy with the money they get from doing so is irrelavent. They stole because they precived it to be easier then getting the money through honest means.
________
Magnus frater spectat te
What is your policy on the number of H-1B visas that should be allowed each year?
"pr0n": An anagram of "porn," possibly indicating the use of pornography. - www.microsoft.com
Is this:
Are you prepared to either get serious about the drug war, and execute all known drug pushers, including those who push tobacco, alcohol, and registered pharmaceuticals? Or will you continue to waste up to 50 percent of our national budgets (combined federal (including black budget which we're not supposed to know about), state, county, and local taxes) on a policy that you know doesn't work?
And, if you do intend to change it, would you go back to the two-thirds split of olden days, where two-thirds was for drug treatment and prevention of demand, and one-third was for restriction of supply?
Or, will you keep building more prisons and arresting and harassing those you regard as the underclass, which usually works out to those of African-American or Mexican heritage?
Hey, I'm just asking, since noone wants to deal with the real tax issues like the growing military-drug-industrial complex that saps our productivity and costs us more than our school systems.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
niceFire.com - Humor and Lego's or Lego's and Humor or Some Combination of
For all that so many /. readers tend to criticise SUV-driving suburban mothers, there's a tendency to ignore the fact that we're mostly doing rather well for ourselves, act as though we own the planet, believe that all our whims should be pandered to, selfishly enjoy our good fortune: in short, we're the spiritual cousins of those Fulham Farmers.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm no hippy bastard -- but I do find it a little disturbing that so many of you seem to believe that the government needs to spend more of its time working on behalf of those who are already plenty well of. Of *course* there are injustices perpetuated against us; of *course* the government does stupid things, is ignorant of technology and of the havok it so often wreaks - but the suggestion that these are the principal elements on which an election should be decided is rather callous, isn't it?
Fine, this is Slashdot - but still, too few questions have been asked about those more traditional concerns: what the government intends to do about poverty; about crime; about the environment; about essential human and animal rights. Yes, there are valid concerns about privacy and patent issues and the tech community and so forth - but I think a sense of perspective is needed...
This is a two part question. Part one is on the subject of Election Reform in general, and part two is concerning a particular piece of legislation (HR 1173).
Part One: As I'm sure you are aware citizens are becoming alarmlingly disiterested in participating in our Republic. Many point to Single Member Districts and Plurality Elections as a prime culprit. In many cases you live in a lopsided district that is heavily Republican or Democrat and feel that your vote isn't 'heard' due to you voting with a minority in your district. This applies to lowest level in City and School Board races up to the way districts are drawn for the US House.
What is your stance on election reforms such as Instant Runoff Voting (or Prefrence Boting) for winner take all elections (Mayorial, Gubernatorial and Presidential Races) and Cummulative Voting or Proportional Representation to fill out City Councils or National and State Congresses?
Part Two: I am a resident in North Carolina and the recent court cases challenging our 1st and 12th Congressional Districts prompted my research into electoral reform. Representatives Watts' and Clayton's (from NC's 1st and 12th districts) sponsored HR 1173 to allow the States to use alternatives to Single Member districts. Do you support or oppose their legislation?
Thank you for your time.
1) Recently the FCC has decided that they would like to mandate that consumer electronics companies build in chips that only allow certain programs to be recorded with new VCRs that can record high definition television signals. The networks are the ones that decide which programs can be recorded. This takes away the power of Fair Use in the copyright act but in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act there are very few provisions about fair use. What are your thoughts on this issue.
2) The FCC is passing Low Power FM broadcasts but it seems to be only available for churches and civic groups and not individuals. The radio industry is fighting low power FM because they think it would interfere with their signals and take away some of their commercial profits. Are you in favor of giving low power FM licenses to individuals?
--nohj
If, however, an individual performs similar espionage on a corporation - planting a computer program that covertly tracks network activity, for example - it is considered a violation of the rather severe "cracking" laws and can lead to imprisonment and permanent exile from the Internet.
Equal protection under the law would seem to imply that individuals should have at least the same rights to:
- knowledge and control of what their computers do
- knowledge and control of what is done with their data
- knowledge and control of how and why their activities are monitored
as coporations do.Will you support the application of cracker law to corporate privacy violations, giving individuals the same right to control their computers and keep their information private as corporations have now?
The World Trade Organization can order the United States and its other members to change their laws. It can inflict penalties if they fail to do so. Hence, the WTO now has a significant role in deciding how US law is determined - what we might call US "meta-law". But this, of course, is largely what the US Constitution addresses, and modifications to Constitutional procedures require Constitutional amendment, not simple treaties. Do you think US membership in the WTO is therefore Constitutional? Do you support the end of this membership?
Please walk us through the main points of your platform, constitutionally justifying each one. Feel free to quote at length from the Constitution itself to support your arguments. Please note that Supreme Court decisions are not part of the Constitution.
Check out The Frontline website for more info on this two part series. I still have both parts sitting on my TiVo and haven't watched the second part yet, but the first part has been a excellent eductional experience for me and will probably be good for anybody who doesn't remember a US president before Reagan. I think PBS is re-running both parts soon so prep your VCRs/TiVos if you're interested.
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
Don't forget that most of that debt is owed to ourselves (in the form of Treasury notes and other bonds).
A 'chance to win' and a minimum vote rule make sense for a debate system with a 'large' number of parties. However, 15% is a huge number to obtain, particular for third party candidates: Perot barely made it in 1992. The problem is that 15%. When the debates started way back, it was put on by the League of Women Voters (IIRC). Soon they lost interest and a special private organization was created to run the debates -- made up of Democrates and Republicans. They decided on that 15% number, knowing full well that the chance of a third party candidate getting that was rather slim. IMO, any presidental debate should include at least 3 and no more than 5 candidates, the 3rd parties chosen based on rankings in the appropriate pools but required to be above 2% (so that we don't have a dem, rep, and a representative of the silly party up there).
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Do you support the handling of the Presidential debates this election season? Specifically, do you spport the closing of the debates to any candidate with less than 15% of the polled vote, a number which creates a chicken-and-egg paradox for any third-party candidate? Jesse Ventura began with only 2% in Minnesota, but was allowed into the debates where his support grew and he eventually won. How would you propose to allow access to the debates by third parties without allowing any random person with fifty signatures and a name badge on stage?
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
What is the purpose of government, and how will you make the government's role more closely match that purpose?
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
So, for the candidates: What role and influence should these demands and actions have on the decision-making process of government, and what importance, if any, do any issues of this sort have in your platform?
Let us live so that when we come to die, even the undertaker will be sorry -- Mark Twain
Harry Browne talks about selling all public property (except military bases). The idea is that property held privately is better cared for. Beyond the argument as to whether that's true, I have another question:
How exactly will you sell this land? Take a big national park, for instance - Yellowstone. Are you going to sell it as is, in one big chunk, or will it be sold in parts? The reason this is important, in my mind is that how you sell it determines who could possibly buy it, and what use it will be put to. If sold as a whole, only a very large corporation could afford it, so you're not really selling it to anyone out there - you're locking out all individuals (except maybe a handful), and essentially only allowing corporations to buy it. In which case it will surely be used to make money.
If you sell it in small chunks, you are allowing a larger percent of the population a chance to buy, but you increase the odds that the park will be destroyed as the individual owners "do there own thing".
A related question is, who controls the roads? Right now, I leave my house, and I travel on public lands to get virtually anywhere I want to go. I cannot be barred from going most anywhere (even most businesses can't really bar me from their premises without reason). However, if that all becomes private property, is it possible that I could be barred from leaving my tiny yard? What's the libertarian solution to these concerns?
First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
That both Lazio and Hilary flunked in the NY senatorial debate...
If bill 602P, providing for a 5 cent tax on email by the USPS is passed by Congress, will you sign it, veto it, or do nothing. Why?
Of course, the correct answer is do nothing, since it's a hoax, but let's see how well these people do...
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Mr. Bush,
While I am in favor of providing some computer access to kids of all ages in school, I feel that there is too much emphasis on schools purchasing computers for what I would suggest is state-sponsored babysitting: math games, surfing the internet in class, etc. Rather than learning how to create with computers, children are just given eye candy to keep them busy.
My question is, as a candidate pushing a strong education platform, what role do you see computers playing in public education?
They call me the working man. I guess that's what I am.
Please list (without explanation), in order of priority, your presidential philosophical goals, so that we can understand what you are willing to compromise. Here are some important examples:
Reducing corruption
Reducing power / influence of government over our lives
Protecting the vulnerable (i.e. environment)
Fostering education
Fostering national productivity (i.e. supporting new technology)
Commitment to social welfare ( i.e. Medicare, social security, welfare, etc. )
Commitment to advancing the rights of citizens
Maintaining a strong economy
Laisez Fair economics
Providing a moral compass for citizens (i.e. abortion)
Providing a moral compass for other nations (i.e. human rights)
Avoiding wars / use of troops
Strengthen military
Trust in citizens to know what's best for them
Guide citizens to avoid the pitfalls of greed / selfishness / impatience / biased phobias (in spirit with retirement plans, universal education, and other social programs )
Resolving differences between parties (i.e. take lesser of evils instead of stubbornly holding out)
-Michael
Books such as Actual Innocence by Dwyer, Neufeld, and Scheck have documented the ways that provably innocent people have ended up on Death Row. If you believed innocent people had been executed, would you still support the death penalty?
[
K-12 schools work hard to spot gifted children and support their development. What would you do about school-age children who appear to have a gift for working creatively with computers?
In the positive sense, "hackers" are people with strong technical skills, curiousity and persistence. Yet, some people with these characteristics (and many more without them) commit crimes, acts of vandalism, and engage in otherwise anti-social behavior.
The Clinton administration and Congress, notably through its extraordinary funding of the NSF's Information Technology Research (ITR) initiative, has very soundly backed the notion that there needs to be a significant investment in (relatively high-risk) high-tech research -- and a fostering of potential scientists, software developers and other key people who will help move technology forward.
So, again: what do you propose for K-12 schools and other institutions to help develop these "good" hackers? Conversely, what do you propose to do about people who might use computers anti-socially?
Presidential Candidates: With the media and public acknowlidging the failures of the "War on Drugs" what do you plan to do with this war if you reach the Whitehouse?
It's been 20+ years since the OPEC oil embargo, yet the United States is even more dependent on imported oil than ever in history. Some have suggested that opening new oil fields (such as in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska) can help solve this, but it seems unlikely that the US has enough domestic untapped capacity to provide a long term (25+ year) solution to thew problem. Others have stated that we should allow the price of gasoline to increase in order to encourage research in alternative energy sources, but this may create problems for the economy.
What are your proposals to solve the long-term US energy problem?
In your administration what will be the future of NASA.
Will you future cut the NASA budget?
Will you scale back manned missions?
Will you scale back any current plans?
Or will you propose perhaps any of the following?
Research & development of a reusable interplanetary space craft.
More research in to the possible setting up of a lunar Science station, with possible commercial follow up.
Stepping up of Mars research, and possible manned missions.
More Funding for finding near earth objects in space.
More funding into reusable Earth to orbit vehicles.
Will you at least increase funding so that mission critical systems have the proper built in redundancies, so they don't fail.
What truly are your plans for us in space?
Thanks
TeTalon
You are either a part of the problem, or a part of the solution, which are you.
TeTalon
You are either a part of the problem, or a part of the solution, which are you.
Well, this would be a nice time to remind the crowd that the EFF is not the only foundation out there who needs a lot of help to finance lawyers to make good laws instead of only bad ones.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is out there to battle cases of separation of Church and State, Religious Freedom for Atheists, discrimination on faith (or lack thereof) and publishes a nice monthly paper (Freethought Today), which will be mailed to you once you become a member.
Go on! Don't hesitate! Join now!
For additional information, see also the Secular Web at http://www.infidels.org/
I'll go back to lurking now...
--
If you want to live in a country ruled by religion, move to Iran.
A question for either of the 2 major candidates:
After watching the first Presidential Candidate debate, I discussed it with someone who is from Europe and he was quite confused by the blatent misunderstanding and interpretation of the financial outlines of each candidate. He made a very strong and prevelent comment: Why doesn't the American people have a structured independent body in place to publically review financial plans and post the results? W Bush can claim all he wants about Gore's financial plan, and Gore does the same for Bush; the American people then make their judgements based on who they believe more. This isn't a sales job they are applying for, why don't we have in place a public outlet for public examination of proposed plans such as the financial one? I believe this would alleviate some of the misconceptions that are based around these and other Presidential races.
"This is where god would go if he wanted to get off blow!"
For each candidate:
What is the most important issue that you would concentrate your presidency on? What is your stance on that issue? Why is it right? And how would you affect real change in regards to that issue?
P.S. Please don't answer vaguely...I want one issue. And DO NOT talk about building consensus. If the issue is that important, you BETTER have a position that you think is RIGHT and good REASON for it.
Admittedly this is a local issue, but to all the candidates: what would you do to promote environmentally friendly urban growth and reduce suburban sprawl, thereby preserving open space? Or do you think this is a good idea?
sulli
RTFJ.
That's exactly right. Over in Holland, where marijuana is legal, you don't see a nation overrun with potheads. More often you see Americans who have gone over there to escape some of America's drug laws.
People don't realize that legalizing a "bad" thing can have positive results. For example, drugs bought on the black market are usually more potent, as it is easier to smuggle a more potent substance, as was stated earlier. Legalizing drugs would allow for quality control. When you buy prescription drugs, you have some assurance that they are exactly what they claim to be, since you bought them from a licenced pharmacist.
Another way I like to look at it is the comparison between alcohol and marijuana. Alcohol is legal, and yet thousands of people die every year from alcohol and its effects (such as drunk driving). Marijuana is illegal, but how often (if *ever*) do we hear of anybody getting killed by it? Not to mention alcoholism, alcohol-related domestic violence, and so on, which do not occur with marijuana, since it is not addictive and, IMHO, puts people in a much more peaceful state of mind than with alcohol, making them much less likely to go do something violent.
Just something to think about...
--Ariston
"I'm never wrong--sometimes reality just disagrees with me."
One hallmark of a free society is the ability to expand one's experience through education.
Everyone recognizes that information-sharing mediums such as the internet can harbor ideas, sentiments, data thought to be harmful to children or unstable persons. But so can a library. Or a newspaper. Or the radio..etc.
What are the candidates' opinions on restricting access to potentially "harmful" information? Is it not better to restrict access on the "client" side than try to impose restrictions on the source of said information?
Thank you.
What concrete steps will you take to stop corporations from trampling individual rights or interfering with the political process, such as the usurping of the sovereignty of nations by the WTO? Do you believe that the legal fiction of corporations as "persons" is good or bad for our society, in the final analysis? Should corporations have rights, or only biological persons?
Are we to be governed by a government "of the people, by the people, for the people" or by amoral profiteering corporations and the WTO?
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
If the Dems and the GOP were corporations, they would have long-since been broken up under anti-trust laws.
Congress limits the President's power in a very healthy way, but when you have a single party in control of the Congress, it takes on the disturbing characteristics of a mob or a monopolistic corporation, depending on how it assesses threats and opportunities.
The dominant parties also make general election for our highest office something like winning an Academy Award. Out of hundreds of millions, only a few behind the curtains performed the real election which reduced the choices from dozens of excellent candidates to two.
That's very wrong.
If elected President, would you sign a bill to break up the dominant parties, allowing healthier competition for the office to resume?
Actually this is a two-parter:
1. Do you believe the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) is constitutional?
2. Do you believe the DMCA is in the consumer's best interest?
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
Sorry to be so blunt, but I don't quite know how else to ask this:
The candidates which I have heard in the media have made much of their efforts on behalf of, for instance, the elderly and the parents of school age children. Frankly, it's begun to sound like you think that I (a childless, working young adult in a high-tech field) and the similar majority of Slashdotters don't exist (or at least don't vote). I question whether you know what our concerns are, and am curious as to what you think our positions are.
So I would like to hear you expound on precisely what it is that you've done which you think we care about. I am asking about your record -- what you have actually already acheived as an officeholder or an activist -- not what you intend to do. In short:
What have you done for us lately?
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
Aexander Tyler wrote the following regarding the fall of the Athenian Republic. I believe it is a fairly accurate description of America today. Do you agree or disagree, and why?
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."
Do you feel that current implementation of copyright law is tipped too much in favor of corporations vs. individuals?
--
DigitalContent PAC
OliverWillis.Com
An Operative with an Agenda
It's thought that had the DMCA been law in the 80's, Compaq would never have been able to clean-room reverse-engineer the IBM bios, which many believe started the PC revolution.
In what ways would you modify the "fair use" clauses in the DMCA?
Chris
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
Which single response to a question during the Republican and Democratic Presidential Debates did you find most obejectionable? Put another way, which single issue do you think most differentiates you from the two "main" candidates for President? (If you are one of the "main" candidates, which single issue most differentiates your view from the other "main" candidate?)
Education is the silver bullet.
What is your opinion of the use and usefulness of the DMCA, and its application to the music, video and software industries? Would you favor a repeal?
Many in the technology community are concerned with the rise business practice patents. Many of the patents represent trivial applications of existing technology with Amazon's One-Click-Shopping patent being a notorius example. In addition, trademarks are becoming more all encompassing as Pepsi's trademark application of the color royal blue indicates. In light of these trends do feel that the US patent and trademark systems need to be reviewed and possibly reformed? Does the patent office need more resources to process the intellectual productivity of the new economy? How do you see broad patents affecting indidual creatvity and the ablity of smaller companies entering the tech industry late to innovate?
For those of you who think that the Gore-Lieberman ticket is better:
/.ers that have younger brothers and sisters (or, if they're really old, sons and daughters) to not say the "Pledge of Allegiance" at school. If the teacher asks a reason, tell them to say,
Mr Lieberman is on record stating that the Constitution was NOT for everyone, but for a "moral and religious people."
That is, he is another person who states that the First Amendment is the right to believe in how you want, but you gotta believe.
Yet another reason that, though I am an Orthodox Christian, I refuse to swear oaths "under God."
I also would encourage any
"This pledge says that I am subservient to the state. However, in a democracy, the state is subservient to me. If anyone should swear oaths, then the government should swear that it will protect me from those who would hurt me, abuse me, stop me from saying my mind and my beliefs.
"This country is supposed to be free, but this oath is to make a nation of free people into slaves. Amen."
Here endeth the lesson.
I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.
Governor,
Please describe issues where you will vote against your largest campaign donors.
"As a percentage of the GNP, how big should the government be? Patty-patty Buke Buke!!"
BUCHANAN: "I'd say about seventee..."
"WRONG! The correct answer is nineteen point four seven percent!"
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
How can the two of you (and your respective parties) justify:
1. refusing access to third parties to debate with you?
2. refuse to allow Ralph Nader to attend the debates as an audience member w/ a valid ticket?
The debate commission which sets the rules for the three debates is owned joinly by the dems & repubs. Those two parties own the elections... until the "third parties" get equal access to the debates & the public, the poor people of this country will be afraid to vote for anyone other than the D or R. Let's face it, at this point, a vote for anyone else is almost a wasted vote.. and that's truely sick and sad. Instead of seeing "_________________ won 7% of the vote, maybe we should start listening to the people that voted for him" we'll be hearing things like "_______________ took 7% of the vote away from ____ (---insert four letter word of your choice here)
Can I get a "none of the above" choice on my ballot please?
--Insert catchy
Lady and Gentlemen,
What precisely are your positions regarding the imbalance between corporate power and individual liberty and what do you specifically do you intend to do to safeguard individual liberty?
"...heroic hearts, made weak by time and fate, but strong in will, to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."
The War on Drugs has been a consistently neglected topic in discussions surrounding this federal election. My question is, do you believe the War on Drugs has been an unqualified success, and if not, what would you change about it if elected president? Further, does your solution represent a change in strategy, or just more of the same?
In this age of the Internet, intellectual property has become a very important concept to many people. Many companies make their living on the artificial scarcity provided by intellectual property laws, selling information that they have either created or aggregated. Some others, mostly in the Free Software world, make their living seemingly in spite of these laws, selling their services based on information that is freely given.
Do you feel that out current system of intellectual property is a good one? Which parts of it (e.g. trademarks, patents, copyrights) do you feel are well suited to the world of the Internet and which do you think need to be changed (and, if changes are needed, what changes are needed)?
--Phil (I'm quite glad to see this article and look forward to the responses.)
355/113 -- Not the famous irrational number PI, but an incredible simulation!
This isn't a question for the candidates, or even a suggestion for the people posting and moderating questions.
It's a plea to Roblimo and/or whoever chooses the final 10 questions.
With the Carnivore interview recently, I wasn't the only one to complain that a lot of redundant "why should we trust you" type questions were moderated up to a 5 (and then asked in the interview), to the detriment of questions moderated to 4 or even 3, and generally to the detriment of us all when we had to read the Carnivore reviewer repeatedly defending his character rather than answering more interesting questions about the review.
I'm worried that the same thing is happening here: among the thousand-odd posts, of course many people are repeating the same questions. Could we eliminate duplicates before sending them to the candidates, please? In particular, as I write this there are 4 DMCA comments modded +5, and more at +4. We only need one question on the DMCA.
Secondly, a request: Since you're obviously going to have to throw out three redundant copies of every question you ask, could you pick the least leading of the bunch for the question that gets sent? And could everybody just stop trying to seize the opportunity to tell the next president what to think, and take the opportunity to ask him what he thinks? I'm sorry, but a post that begins with "Little by little the rights of Americans are being taken away to protect the interests of corporations." or "Many tech people think that strong encryption is one of the best ways we have to protect freedom both now and for future generations." is not a question, it's the poster getting up on a soapbox, and inadvertently telling the politicians we're interviewing exactly how to best pander to him.
I don't want to be pandered to. I don't see any way to avoid it, since any smart candidate will have his advisors reading the last week or two of Slashdot stories and telling him what we want to hear. But do we have to do their research for them? Can we at least try and ask some unbiased questions instead, and maybe see what the candidates actually think?
I take it you don't spend much time hanging out in the poorer neighborhoods of major cities. No, the reason you don't see many opium addicts is because they've all switched to heroin, originally developed as an opium substitute by a pharmaceutical company (Bayer). The reason people use heroin now and not opium is not due to the 'success' of the various drug laws, but because of the effects of illegality -- the black market demands a more potent, concentrated drug that is easier to smuggle than opium. (In other words, it's 'better' to try to smuggle a kilo of heroin than a kilo of opium -- you get more out of it.) Now if drugs were legal and regulated, people might well choose a less potent preparation of opium over some kind of suspect black market heroin. As an example, in the Alcohol Prohibition in the USA in the 1920's, a frosty cold well brewed lager was hard to come by, but a bottle of 140 proof backwoods-still moonshine could be bought from nearly anyone of a certain reputation.
You really need to open your eyes to the true effects of our misguided drug policies. If people with your impressive grasp of the issues were running the country, just think of the state we'd be in. Oh wait, never mind... drcnet.org
There are a few issues that repeatedly come up on forums (fora?) like SlashDot. I am curious to know your positions on these issues; in the form of a simple "pro" or "con".
1) Software Patents
2) UCITA - the Uniform Computer Information and Transactions Act
3) DMCA - the Digital Millenium Copyright Act
4) The illegalization of DeCSS (open source software for watching DVDs - often mischaracterized as DVD copying software)
5) Extension of copyrights from 14yrs to lifetime and more
6) The antitrust case against Microsoft
For any items which you answered "con", please indidcate briefly what you will do to work against these, since all of them are currently happening.
(Note - as far as I can tell as a regular reader here, the only item on this list which is controversial on SlashDot is number 6; the first 5 are (almost) universally opposed here.)
Sure - we have freedom OF religion, but we in no way have freedom FROM religion. I can be any faith I want to - but if I am an Atheist I LOSE RIGHTS. Period, End of story.
For Example - The Predident of the United States - and Father of current Presidential Candidate George W. Bush said:
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God." George Bush
And Americans in general do not even agree that Atheists have ANY religious rights: (Taken from religioustolerance.org)
'Although adults in North America exhibit reasonable tolerance towards persons of different denominations and different religions, this acceptance does not necessarily extend to Atheism. Some older surveys published in the 1980's, showed that almost 70% of Americans agreed that freedom of religion applies "to all religious groups, regardless of how extreme their ideas are." But only 26% agreed that Atheists should be given freedom of speech to ridicule religion and God, no matter who might be offended." 71% believed that Atheists "who preach against God and religion" should not be permitted to use civic auditoriums.'
Hell - the constitution of Texas (the state of George W. Bush's governership) explicitly states that Atheists are not citizens of the state of texas, and my be discriminated against - luckily the US Constitution superceeds this.
Finally - may states are trying to take away my ability to keep my money from being spent DIRECTLY on the church - by sneaking in bills that allow for the use of 'school vouchers' - which are nothing more then a way to circumvent the inability for the state to give money directly to religious institutions.
So don't EVEN start to tell me that Atheists, Agnostics, and Humanists enjoy the same protection as everyone else in the US.
- The unexamined life is not worth leading -
A tax cut flies in the face of what Greenspan is trying to do. A tax cut will inject more money into the economy and do what Greenspan is preventing.
Why is a tax cut so big? Wouldn't the money be better spent on the deficit so when worse times roll along, a tax cut can be easily given by not paying as much on the debt?
Although the two main candidates disagree on how to handle the anticipated oil shortage this winter, they seem to agree that steps should be taken to keep oil prices low so that people can continue to use lots of it.
I fundamentally disagree with both of them on this point. I would like to see oil prices rise, so that people get the clue that this is not a good long-term solution for out energy needs, and I would like to see tax incentives for alternative energy (such as solar and wind, for example). Both tax breaks for alternative energy and tax hikes for oil would be preferable.
I don't care if gas prices rise. It is a small part of my budget and I hate to use more gas than I need to. That's why I drive a ULEV civic that gets over 40 mpg. Even with a guzzler, a trip across the country would only cost about 100 extra dollars in gasoline with the recent higher prices.
So here's my question: do you plan to agressively persue alternative energy sources, and reduce our reliance on oil to a minimum? If not, why not?
Vidi, Vici, Veni
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
The United States has long had a policy of meddling and imperialism in other countries. Our record in South America and the Middle East, coupled with the habit of Congress giving Ambassadorships to large donors or "retiring" Congressmen, added to the sheer number of people who despise the U.S., indicates we're doing something wrong.
The British ruled a larger portion of the world than we do, yet they are attacked, bombed, and the target of terrorists far less often than the United States.
Can you explain what would constitute your foreign policies?
Follow on military invervention in foreign countries: There is not a soul among us who would could stand to see our friends and neighbors butchered, raped, and driven from their homes -- if it were here in the United States. Why does our compassion suddenly evaporate when the victims are not U.S. citizens?
Would you support a constitutional amendment or other legislation mandating the protection of the right to privacy, especially with regard to the control of personal information?
Would you support legislation requiring the following: mandated health insurance for all citizens; standardized forms and other systems of information processing in health care (to cut down on bureaucracy); standardized health insurance identity cards (again to cut down on bureaucracy and increase mobility) using smart card technology; and reforms on health maintenance organizations (HMOs)? If not, what kinds of reforms of the health care system would you agree to?
Would you support legislation to increase use of renewable, non-nuclear energy by the Federal Government? Further, would you support tax reductions for those who willingly use renewable, non-nuclear energy?
Would you support a flat-tax scheme in which all income above a minimum level (for example, set at twice the official poverty level) is taxed at the same rate?
Would you seek to continue the moratorium on taxation of e-commerce, and would you seek to extend the moratorium globally via the WTO or other institution?
Would you renew funding of programs to research and develop global defense systems against asteroids or other such threats from space?
cya
Ethelred
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
To understand the true effect of the internet, one must be familiar with it. My question is: How often did you use the internet in the 90's? During the 90's, how many protocols have you used besides HTTP? (the web) Have you visited a pronography site? Have you played a violent video game? Have you visited some of the anarchist web sites?
Of the above questions,
If your answer is "No", then why do you think you qualify to make comments about them? If your answer is Yes, Please tell us how these contents affect your values and behavior.
Encryption policy is overseen by the Vice President under executive order by the President.
The current administration strongly promoted the Clipper chip, reduced key sizes and key escrow until relatively recently.
Question: What is your view on the use of encryption technology for protecting the privacy of US citizens and companies?
And, do you favor legislation that provides more substantive easing of export restrictions for strong encryption technology or use of encryption technology on the internet?
In light of the recent federal report finding that adu lt content is aimed at minors, much of this campaign's rhetoric has had to do with "decency" in the media and "protecting the children." However, no one has really said much besides "something must be done." For the candidates who said this, what, exactly is "something?" What specifically would you do to protect minors from violent content without infringing on the rights of musicians, writers, and filmmakers?
What, in your belief, is the US federal government not doing that it should be doing?
What, in your belief, is the US federal government doing that it should not be?
How will you rectify this situation? (assuming your answer to the above isn't 'nothing'.)
I don't subscribe to RMS's GNUtopian vision.
Some people, especially those that favor '3-rd' party candidates, have called for the ending of the electoral college system to be replaced by a simple purely popular vote, or at least allowing for splitting the electoral votes by each state. The best recent example was the Bush-Clinton election. Clinton received 43% of the popular vote (but a sufficient majority of the electoral vote), whereas Perot got at least 10% of the popular vote but zero electoral votes. If memory serves, Vermont is the only state which does currently allow for its votes to be split; if someone wins 60% of the Vermont popular vote, they get 2 votes and the 40% candidate gets 1. This in contrast to California, where someone can get 51% of the popular vote, and therefore gets 53 (or whatever it is nowadays) electoral votes. What is your position on this issue?
Just to give you some feel for the amount of debt that the US has build up. Lets play with this some more - there are approximately 250 million people in the US, of which approximately 180 million are tax payers. That means that to clear the debt in the US, each taxpayer would have to pay $31,400. Now all this talk of exponential growth in the economy is all very well, but when you consider that this debt is growing exponentially as well (deficit in June 2000 was $30.4 billion dollar) you have a big problem. The only thing keeping the US out of serious recession is the value of the dollar - if the investors believe that this debt is getting too large to service, the dollar will fall in value. Then things get messy.
To see the debt figures - click here
So I'd say that the US had better start servicing that debt - at a rough estimate, assuming a 6% interest rate, the US tax payer must contribute nearly $2000 a year which goes to stabilizing the debt (not paying it off). That is entirely wasted money that could be spent elsewhere if it wasn't being flushed around various financial institutions.
So it is difficult to see why there is little or no outcry about this - it is probably the most serious problem that the US faces internally and it will have to pay for it sooner or later. The longer it is left, if the interest rate is larger than the growth in the economy, the burden of debt becomes ever heavier.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
What will you do to protect the rights of athiests and those who hold minority faiths, such as Wicca, Santaria, Shinto, et al?
--
Feminism is the wild notion that women are human beings.
Recent comments at the presidential debates indicate that this issue is on the public policy radar. Moreover, we have heard from media and politicians alike that there is a growing epidemic of youth violence precipated from depictions of violence in the media and on the Internet. My first question is 1) Do the numbers actually show an epidemic of violence, or are we all caught up in the hype of recent abberant mass murders? Please indicate the source of your statistics. 2) Throurghout the nineties and starting in the eighties, real spending on education and youth programs have declined dramatically. What impact do you think this has had on youth crime and violence, and what do you propose to do about it? 3) Do you believe that filtering the Internet and other media can have a real impact on youth violence, especially when compared with racial, income, educational, and regional indicators on violence? If so why.
In lieu of the above, or in addition to, please summarize your social and educations policies and how they will effect the lives of young people. Of interest to me personally is what programs do you propose for high school age kids, and what plans if any do you have to make attaining higher education easier.
As a percentage of the GNP, how big should the government budget be?
Visit Savagenumber.com
Many tech people think that strong encryption is one of the best ways we have to protect freedom both now and for future generations. For example to preserve information that future not so friendly governments may think we don't need to have and to make sure that things we want to have remain private remain private. Given this what would you do to help preserve our right to privacy through the use of strong encryption? Also in a related question what are your thoughts and what do you plan to do about the fact that we can not export many forms of strong encryption?
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
This is a wonderful question but both the major canidates have come out in favor of continuing the war on drugs (each of them vowing to devote several billion dollars to the issue) so I propose the following addendum to the question.
Given both the major canidates have engaged in illegal drug use and have family members who have engaged in more recent drug use how can you realisticlly support criminalization and mandatory sentences over treatment without turning yourselves and members of your family in to prison. Moreover do you believe it would have been a good thing to through young George Bush and Al Gore into prison?
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
Little by little the rights of Americans are being taken away to protect the interests of corporations. We have especially seen this happen in the arts world where well established rights of fair use of a copyrighted work are being diregarded by laws like the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). What is your opinion of this current trend and what steps if any would you take to change it?
I'm very concerned with the future of the country, and about what our national mission seems to be. Looking back through American history, every period seems to have a defining popular mission - like the "manifest destiny" movement in the 19th century, the Depression, World War II, and the Cold War. During these times, there would be one struggle or idea that captivates the attention of the nation, sort of providing a national mission.
I'm a little confused as I look around today. What is our mission? To me, it seems to be "to watch TV and use the Internet." What would you say the defining national mission of today is? What should it be? Furthermore, how would you show this in your activities as a lawmaker? (For instance, if our national mission is the pursuit of science, then would you increase funding for scientific pursuits in the budget?)
Have courage when dealing with the government, it is there to serve the people, not the reverse.
My question: As the world petroleum reserves dwindle, as they are doing at the present, and prices begin an inevitable ascent, what plans do you have to make the United States less reliant on petroleum based energy and what infrastructure, such as a national passenger rail network, would you encourage before the plentiful supply is gone forever?
--
Chief Frog Inspector
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Do you feel that there are any issues regarding the United State's current use of the prison system?
Are too many Americans in prison?
Do their crimes fit their punishment?
Will the privitization of prisons help or hurt any of these problems?
Why, do you feel, are there unequal numbers of Americans with different skin pigmentation in prison?