Slashdot Mirror
Obama Announces for President, Boosts Broadband
Arlen writes "As many as 17,000 people (according to police estimates) watched Senator Barack Obama officially announce his candidacy for President in Springfield, Illinois today. He mentioned several things that will interest readers of Slashdot. The Senator said he wanted to free America from 'the tyranny of oil' and went on to promote alternative energy sources such as ethanol — a popular stance in the Midwest where he announced, because of all the corn farmers. He also talked about using science and technology to help those with chronic diseases, which is likely to have been an allusion to his staunch support for stem cell research. Perhaps most of interest to readers here is the following statement halfway through Obama's speech: 'Let's invest in scientific research, and let's lay down broadband lines through the heart of inner cities and rural towns all across America. We can do that.' Like nearly everything in his speech, this was met with robust applause from the crowd. You can watch a video of the entire speech at Obama's website."
Is Slashdot going to have a story for every candidate who is running for President and discusses something having to do with energy dependence, stem cell research, and investment in science (which every candidate will have some opinion on)? Or is Obama getting his own story due to editorial preferences? I haven't seen a story for John McCain or Hillary Clinton. Why Obama?
Yes, it is added in places like Brazil, but that's because they derive it from sugar and not corn like the US would have to. If they could derive ethanol from any plant cellulose, that would be something.
I am an environmentalist, but ethanol is a BAD BAD idea.
Maybe the issue is more complicated than just non-specific summaries of gun control laws and crime rates? Those might work if we trusted you as an expert, but trust is in short supply in these debates.
I'm putting my money on producing oil from algae. The idea of a biofuel which doesn't require arable land to grow and can be used in common diesel engines seems like the perfect replacement for fossil fuels to me. It would be a much easier transition to make than the transition to other alternative fuels.
Like you said, the problem is the source of the fuel, not the chemical itself. Unfortunately, your post title would lead one to believe the opposite -- you ought to be more careful about that.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
The "tinyurl" version of your post is:
Obama says many things, but in the end he always votes extremely liberal.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Very true. Ethanol is viable only if produced from non-food-related products. Simple math, we don't have enough usable and fertile land to grow food crops AND fuel crops.
Wow, I must have missed the memo. How do black people speak? Cause I thought they were human beings and spoke just like anyone else with all the variations you can find in any group of people.
Obama wants to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. So do the rest of us. i.e., so do I, and I'm a member of the NRA.
There is nothing wrong (i.e., against the 2nd Amendment) with enforcing gun control laws. It's gun control, not gun banning. I am not a felon (and neither are you, I assume?) so I have nothing to fear from them.
As for redistributive economics, that's another way of saying "letting government do things that it's good at."
+++ATH0
I go to a big Ag/Engineering school in the Midwest, Obama will be speaking at our school tomorrow. I'm lucky to live in a unique area of the US where the energy alternatives (mainly ethanol) are actually cheaper than the regular fuels because of all of the tax cuts. If he brings pricing everywhere in the US to the levels it is in my state (about $.02-.05/gallon cheaper than non-ethanol fuels) I'll be much more likely to vote for him.
Me too, I live in Ames, Iowa. And judging by your mention of Obama visiting, you at least live near if not here. Iowa is full of corn, and now full of ethanol production. Scary thing is, we've all be sold on ethanol, but it really isn't a good viable solution in its current form. Let me preface my remarks by saying, I'm all for ethanol as part of our Energy Portfolio. 10% ethanol blends are much better than the former required additives and increases the market for corn, while slightly.
We're tying our food supply to our energy supply, which is very dynamic, inefficient from corn, (When compared to other food products), subject to natural disasters and raises the cost of food and food products in ways that most people don't realize. Right now the big push in the US is ethanol from corn, if we converted all of our crop to ethanol and converted all of our cars to ethanol, we wouldn't come close to the actual demand. However, as we push more demand into the market the cost of corn is going to sky rocket. In the US corn syrup is used for anything sweet that is mass produced. The cost of corn syrup increases and the over all cost of foods increase. The cost of feeding chickens, pigs and cows up, which means the cost of meat and eggs go up. The cost of dairy goes up. All because we've change our food source from a food to an energy because it is being sold as the cure for oil.
At Iowa gas stations, higher ethanol blends receive subsidies and are usually cheaper than their non ethanol counter parts. Which is cool, if you ignore the subsidies cost at the state and federal level. Subsidies that place ethanol in a different tax category as gasoline and isn't subject to the same taxes as regular gasoline. There are many more negative sides and aren't just cost related.
The physics of the matter is ethanol is simply doesn't contain as much energy as gasoline and will actually require more to be burned, when compared to the same volume of gasoline.
Growing plants is hard work and is very seasonal in most of the US (like Iowa) adding to large (but seasonal) price fluctuation. Increasing the demand of ethanol also increases the amount of land needs to grow plants, increases the density required, fertilizer required and is considered by some (ironically, the same people who "care" about the environment) to be an environmental disaster in the making.
Mr. Obama is taking a rather popular (and uninformed) stand, and offering up a solution that has many problems that he doesn't know about, most americans don't know about and will probably never addressed either in a campaign or in the future, but saying "I'm all about this ethanol stuff" in Iowa is required, just ask John McCaine.
I think his issue positions are pretty darned acceptable. He's able to talk nicely to the Right while maintaining a largely traditional Democratic set of positions, without going completely far-Left overboard (see Hillary). Folks who claim Obama has no record are also off-base -- there's quite a bit of legislation he's sponsored, it's generally pretty commendable stuff (as opposed to the traditional solution-in-search-of-a-problem or show-we're-doing-something BS which comes out of Congress these days).
Anyhow, he's running for President, not dictator. Consensus-building is much more important than having the right positions on the issues -- after all, it's Congress that's doing the lawmaking. What we need right now is a President who isn't going to go power-mad overboard again and who can foster a less poisonous political environment. I think Obama is the person to do precisely that.
How many people really need to drive 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year? I live in montana (read: it's cold and there is very very poor public transportation) and I still walk/ride bike every where. Why can't more people do this? The problem with the us is that we are to car centric. When the automobile stops being the american icon is when we will be free of oil. Once that and all it's ramifications settles into your brain, it's quite eye opening what a oil free america would look like.
Money is the root of all evil?
You could not be more right.
Algal biodiesel is *the* way forward to an oil-free, carbon-neutral energy cycle. Now if we can just get the industry to support it.
I'm in favor of incentives to car companies, as opposed to legislating "you MUST produce x number of BD-powered cars."
+++ATH0
I am a Canadian liveral. I disagree. Our gun control has had no effect on gun crime and it cost 2 bil a year. It's poverty that spurs urban violence. Canada has lower rates due to social programs. Europe as well. Guns are a complete red herring.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Have you been actually following the issues? They may both be democrats, but Hillary and Obama are night and day on their historical stances on issues. Obama was against the Iraq was from the start; Hillary just got on the bandwagon when it looked politically safe. Hillary sponsors bills that help protect people against some real or imagined danger; Obama sponsors bills that support some useful function. Etc.
My inclination to believe that people are generally reasonable beings[1] compels me to believe that folks are going to look past race and gender on this election -- actually, to the extent that there is a black voting block, it's largely composed of folks who are inclined to vote for Hillary because they were so happy with Bill. I think this is unfortunate, and hope positions will change as we get closer to the election -- I liked Bill for the most part myself, but Hillary != Bill.
[1] - Call me naive if you like -- but I find that my quality of life is significantly better if I avoid cynicism.
Which is more important? Buying military grade weapons at walmart on a whim, or lowering health care costs and taking care of people's health, education and repaying the insane debt we're in thanks to the republicans?
:)
When the results of global warming release natures fury, you can shoot at the ocean as it trespasses on your property in Texas.
I'm being a little silly but there are more important things than gun control. I hope no one basis their vote on that single issue. There is so much more at stake in our daily lives. If you live for guns and guns alone you have a problem. I beleive in the right to self defend yourself, own a gun etc... but there really are other important issues and we only get two fucking choices unfortunately. Hopefully no one actually does vote based on a single issue... but this country is certainly full of people that do.
No, it cost $2 billion to set-up. And a very large part of this cost was to accommodate people who were trying to circumvent (or simply avoid) registering in the first place.
Gun registration has never been about crime reduction, and more than the fact that the Province makes me register my car reduces traffic accidents. The idea of gun registration is about investigating gun crime, and in this regard the gun registry has been a major boon for law enforcement officials (note that every time the Conservatives start making noise about scrapping it, the police unions step up and plead their case that the registry routinely aids in their ability to investigate gun crimes).
Maybe we should just make the registry a system that needs to pay for itself, and we can increase the registration fee by $500 per gun owner. Then there will be no operating cost to the average non-gun-owning taxpayer.
Yaz.
Our cities and infrastructure were planned with an assumption that fuel would be cheap. If our localities would give more than lip service to mass transit, perhaps some of us could do away with the cars.
As it stands, I'm not up for a 35 minute bus ride to campus when it takes me about 10 minutes by car. If the cost savings were more than marginal, I'd think about it.
By increasing spending on social programs like prescription Medicare and schooling?
It was never this admins focus. There was an increase. That was a good step.
As for the bullying, we removed the Taliban and finished the Gulf War that Bush and Clinton had not finished.
This one is now wandering into "fox news is my only news source" terroritory. Removing the taliban had as much effect on global terrorism as Clinton had on teen abstinance. The Iraq war has eroded away not only your prestige in the global theatre but also eroded your economy by inducing a massive debt, your cohesion as it's divided your nation, and your security because every orphan you make today is a guy with a backpack bomb tommorow. Security was not the focus. I understand that in order for the american empire to persist you need to control the oil. Not just have oil but keep it away from the 1.3 billion strong chinese. This unspoken but obvious goal of the Iraq war is unethical however I would support it. But the Admin botched it. They are inciting a civil war, shattering their beachhead and they borrowed from their biggest threat to do it. They also weren't paying attention when China secured moderate amoutns of oil from America's much underestimated nothern neighbor.
Do you think we should wait for Canada to keep the terrorists at bay? With what? Snowballs?
You seem to be doing a great job at promoting terrorism with bullets. Snowballs would be just as effective as what yoru doing now. Your liberties are at a all time low as well. The US has never been so hated abroad as now. The US dollar has been at an all time low. The US now expends 2 mil everytime someone yells "bomb". I think the "terrorists have won" and it's gee dubya that did most fo the work. Who are we kidding, it was really cheny ruinning the show. Cheny won one for the terrorist. Good job Cheny.
As for Canada are you aware that Canada fought the US to a "draw" in 1812, Canada did as much or more in WWI, Canada also did the same in the european theatre of WWII. Did you know that your Secret Services as well as britians are partly the creation of a Canadian? Canada has it's own problems and lately a beligerent US is one of them. From protectionist tarrifs to the attitudes of the "average" american. America is seriously trying to alienate it's largest trade partner.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Everyone knows that the color of a person reflects on their intelligence. Blond hair? Room temperature IQ. It is a fact.
Well, we act like it anyway. We know it is a joke and yet, can you truly honestly say that if you are introduced to a brunette and a blond you do not instantly make an judgement on their IQ?
The problem is not as simple as racism. Well, unless you are an tv-show host. I think it is closer to a negative spiral.
Blondes are stupid, so teachers spend less time on them, so they receive less education, so they truly are more stupid. Blondes then learn that being stupid can work so pretend to be even more stupid to "fit in" wich reinforces the idea that blondes are stupid.
There are others as well. People with glasses can't be athletic. Redheads are feisty. Very simple outward apperances (remember, glasses are nowadays optional so that super athlete may have contacts or laser surgery) that nonetheless most of us use instinctevely.
Oh you can claim you are above them but you are not.
I know you are not. You refer to American black people. Think you are PC? Well actually it is a horrible genetic slur against millions of americans. The "half-breeds". Simple fact is that millions of so-called blacks are in fact the result of interbreeding between different genetic races. If one parent is black and the other white why is their offspring called black? Is one gene superior to the other or something? In theory, since a popular racist theory is that "blacks" are strong and "whites" are smart, then at least some "greys" should be the combination of the best qualities of both and be superior to either. That is afterall how farmers create new animals/crops, mixing the best of two breeds to create a new superior animal/crop.
And why would a grey need black rolemodels at all? Why wouldn't a white rolemodel be just as good?
For that matter what is wrong with a yellow rolemodel, or a red one or a light brown one? Can I only have a rolemodel with extreme freckles?
By the very fact that you claim blacks need black rolemodels you are a racist yourselve. You are saying a rolemodel should be chosen based on their race and that is the essence of racism, to judge a person by their race in ANYWAY.
Can you only admire a person of your own race, surely not, do you then suggest that blacks are not capable of admiring a person of another race?
Lovely thing racism, isn't it?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Who's this 'we' shit, and who pays for it? Sounds like Universal Service Fee part II. I'm not interested in spending $25,000 per person to connect a bunch of people who choose to live in the Bayou. Broadband access is not critical to life, and I'm not interested in subsidizing it.
Obama has a lot of great ideas with no funding.
Speaking as a European, I really hope this guy gets in, he would do wonders for the global image of the United States. I'm not sure even the quite-worldly Slashdot crowd realise what damage Bush has wrought upon America's relationship with the rest of the planet. As previous posters have commented though, I'm not sure middle America is ready for him. Like many Europeans, I have enormous respect for the America ideal and I know that your government doesn't really represent you. But on the other hand, literally, it does. Good luck guys! Don't let the oil companies rig it. Unintentional pun, honest
Sounds more like a man who's honest about his convictions. Unlike most politicians who back away from making any statements which might lose them votes with a well-organised pressure group.
Consider, for instace, Bill Clinton. It seems very unlikely to me, just going on his character, that he would not have been happy to sign a law restricting gun ownership. But in eight years of ofice he never made any progress on that. Foreign affairs is really the only place a President can make and change policy and get his way.
Even if I were a gun nut, I wouldn't make that the number one issue. For one thing, Presidents can't push through laws without the support of both Congress and the Senate. The next President will have lots of issues with more support to spend his political capital on.
I'm a white guy (entitled to speak for all of them!) and I would vote for Obama over Hillary any time.
Hillary's dynastic candidacy bothers me for the same reason that the dynastic candidacy of George W Bush did, when I first heard about him in 1999 or 98 or whenever it was. I immediately assumed that I was only hearing about this guy, not because of any competence he had, but because of who his Daddy was. And guess what.
Obama is an excellent speaker and is very charismatic. On top of that, there is a media love fest that is just oozing over the fellow. This is where the warm and fuzzy feelings for him come from.
While the ability to speak is a big bonus (though apparently not required - see GWB), it doesn't make a good president on its own. Obama has done an excellent job saying nothing other then warm fuzzy shit that people want to hear.
He talks endlessly about compromise and understanding, but he has yet to spit out an actual innovative proposal on an issue that puts his 'philosophy' into practice. As far as I can tell from few things he actually has a REAL position on, they are straight across the board moderate democratic party line proposals.
Obama is a great speaker, but I don't trust someone who speaks of warm and fuzzy things yet refuses to take an actual stand. It is still early though. I don't discount Obama. He still has plenty of time to make some actual proposals with meat on them. I just think that the big media orgy and public love festival surrounding Obama is horrifically premature. See if you still like the guy after he actually takes a stand on an issue.