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."
It's also worth noting that, in addition to things like 1 million strong for Barack, his team has set up it's own social networking site where Obama supporters can share photos, messages, groups, fundraising, and events.
Dean ushered in Internet fundraising in 2004. Could Obama harness social networking?
I may not agree with his stance on every single issue, but I have to say, I don't think I've ever felt genuinely excited about the prospect of any particular candidate becoming president before this election. Usually I'm just hoping for the guy I mind the least to get in.
It's sad when choosing an installation directory on your own qualifies you as an "advanced user."
This is pretty much what Bill Clinton did. He didn't run on anything extreamly radicle but hope. It was the enternal optimist that painted every picture as better with him. The same stock numbers as we have today, the same or worse unemployment numbers as today, Most of the same if not worse economic indecators as we have today, But the picture was painted so much brighter when he was president. (note that By worse only represents that levels have grown today as a natural prograsion of events, Not something specificly wrong in eiother adminstration)
Did you miss the last 4 years. I am a canadian and we noticed in the last 4 years you've changed a lot. You went from a mostly harmless slightly loud giant with too much money to an antogonistic bully who doesn't have the sense not to spend himself into massive debt. I don't think you've been paying much attention.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
But look closely. Where does it say exactly what he's going to do? He hasn't signed on to any of the resolutions disapproving of Bush sending more troops. He does have a bill (S. 433) with regards to Iraq, but Thomas doesn't have it up yet, so we'll have to see how he wishes to "end the war". Anyone can say they are for "Improving Our Schools" and for "Creating a Healthcare System that Works". What is his specific plan to do so?
His bills on Thomas are generally good, but as of yet, I've not seen him do much more than use "everyman" politics in order to get people to like him. When you think about it, elections are about getting the least informed people to like you better than the other guy. Until he starts putting actions behind his words, I could care less about him.
As it's the wee hours of the morning, and I'm hoping to go to bed, I'll have to find a specific reference for you later (assuming I remember to do so, of course), however at one point the gun registry started a programme where they sent registration representatives all across the country, to rural, remote, and Native Canadian community areas to personally register people due to very low compliance levels.
Hiring, training, and flying hundreds of people around the country to help people fill out forms doesn't come cheap. Now I won't disagree that the overall start-up cost wasn't outrageous, and that there wasn't any waste -- but the same can be said of pretty much anything run by humans. The Government of the day, however, bent over backwards to make sure they weren't making criminals out of gun-owning Canadians. Registration deadlines were pushed back, people were hired to fill in forms for people who should have just picked them up from their local post office or community centre and mailed them in, and all sorts of allowances were made to try to prevent creating criminals out of tens of thousands of citizens. And let's not forget the advertising budget -- the Government didn't sneak this legislation in and then send the cops to peoples doors -- to try to encourage registration complience, they had several major advertising campaigns, including to-the-door pamphlet mailings, 1-800 numbers for asking questions about the registry, etc.
People seem to think that such services come for free. They don't. The Government could have taken a hard-line stance, and as soon as the original registration deadline came and went start sending the police to peoples homes, but instead they extended deadlines, had further advertising and educational campaigns, and sent staff to peoples homes to fill in the forms for them. Such services weren't budgeted for, as the Government of the day failed to anticipate how much of a backlash they would see from instituting the registry.
(FWIW, I know a number of gun owners, my father included, who were 100% FOR the registry, and who registered early and on-time).
As for long guns and crime, it happens way more often than you might think. That police woman killed in Montreal two or three years ago was killed by a long gun. The gunman who went on the rampage at Dawson College in Montreal last September was using a long gun. The gunman who killed 14 women at Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal used a long gun. The Taber, Alberta school shooting was committed with a long gun. These were all very, very high-profile crimes here in Canada, and each and every one of them was committed with a long gun. Long guns play a very significant role in crime. Methinks that all too many long gun owners here in Canada have a very short memory when it comes to the crimes committed here using them.
Yaz.
Yaz.
Obama, Clinton, McCain, etc, all of them make me want to never vote again.
I've always voted for third parties, since I refuse to buy into the belief that a vote on principles is a wasted vote, but I think we need a new option on ballots:
"Throw the bastards out."
If this wins the majority, the candidates for the parties are legally prohibited from ever running for office again, and we start over with new primaries.
It'd be nice if we could go so far that if this option wins, the candidates and all their cronies get exiled to some godforsaken rock in the Pacific.
Yeah, it'll never happen. Let me dream please.
Ethanol is supposed to be a more efficient way of using oil. The oil is used to produce corn and refine the corn into ethanol, which produces slightly more energy than just burning the oil directly. The corn captured some energy from the sun that ends up in the ethanol. You can think of ethanol as hybrid oil+solar energy. In the case of corn, it's 90% oil and 10% solar, if that. Sugar cane is much better, but needs to be grown closer to the equator where there is more sunlight. Only Hawaii and the southern parts of Florida, Louisiana and Texas can grow sugar cane in the US.
Actually, The fact that he voted against private gun ownership is not really the point; when a political candidate looks like a possible contender to me, I try to get some idea on how the candidate feels on issues that I care deeply about.
One issue I feel very deeply about is the 2nd amendment, our national failsafe. When, in researching this candidate (I was interested in him because he seems well spoken and pro-technology) I discovered that he has a long standing dislike for private gun ownership, it disqualified him as a candidate in my eyes. I posted the reference to the vote in 2003 because I like to provide some sort of background for my statements if possible, instead of appearing like a every day gun nut.
Don't get me wrong, I AM a gun nut, but a president who wants to illegalize private gun ownership seems like a pretty damn polarizing issue.
I do NOT want to vote republican this election; I want to vote for someone sane who will restore our personal freedoms, get us out of foreign adventures, and leave my guns & rights to them alone and undisturbed. That someone is NOT Obama.
Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
FYI: I was convinced of this issue after I read a United Nations survey which reported on every nation (they also broke-down states within large countries like the US), listed their gun-control laws, and the corresponding non-suicide handgun related deaths. In short, it showed that gun control laws are not statistically related to gun-related death rates. What I found interesting, was that deaths are proportional to education rates. Maybe THAT is why the U.S. has such trouble.
I'm trying to find that survey now. I'll post again if I find the link. I read it years ago. It was very eye-opening.
"the Republican party need to spend a while in "time out" after the total fuck up they've pulled on the country between the corruption, the misrepresentation, and the disregard for the *rest* of the Bill of Rights."
Amazing how the people you vote for become "them" when the policies you voted for blow up in your face...
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
The key problem with Obama is that his platform, or lack thereof, consists of nebulous hopes wrapped up in positive wordplay. He isn't actually proposing a plan to enhance broadband accessibility or promising to do anything to help it. He's just hoping someone will do it and saying he thinks it would be a good thing if someone does. You can see a dramatic illustration of this in the difficulty the poster in the summary (pretty obviously a shill) is having concretely describing this in a way that would appeal to the Slashdot crowd:
* "Boost broadband? - This is a meaningless statement. How do you "boost broadband?" Did broadband access increase overnight? Did he actually propose a way to increase broadband access?
* " Like nearly everything in his speech, this was met with robust applause from the crowd" - Exactly, because they aren't listening to the what he is saying, they are just listening to the words and audience cues built into his speech through pauses and wordplay. I suspect that actual neurological activity in the average crowd member would be around that of watching television - they are just being entertained. Also, the shill is trying to use social proofing to make you think, hey, everyone else was cheering this, I should to. Unfortunately, it invalidates the salience of the boost broadband comment used as the lead to capture the interest of Slashdot readers because, if they were cheering for everything, then their cheering for broadband is meaningless.