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."
If Obama and Biden have a joint ticket, do you think they will call it obama/biden?
If they do, will they be "cashing in" on the popular the "dyslexic terrorist" vote?
(If there's going to be a political flamewar, it may as well be my political flamewar).
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Like Trickle Down economics isn't redistributive?
besides, in large urban centers and suburban areas Gun Control LOWERS crime rates, not increases them.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
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?
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."
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.
Honestly, I don't even see a negative side to ethanol (other than it's still a fossil fuel). It reduces our dependance on foregin oil, and would (presumably) lower our national trade deficit and keep more money within the borders (something that conservatives are sure to be happy about).
It will be interesting to see Obama's commitment levels on the issue as we progress toward Nov, 2008.
besides, in large urban centers and suburban areas Gun Control LOWERS crime rates, not increases them.
You mean like in Washington D.C.?
Or maybe you mean Chicago
Both cities have what is considered to be fairly draconian gun control laws by US standards. Both have violent crime rates well in excess of the national average.
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.
i predict that this upcoming election will have the best voter turnout of all of history.
/but at the same time/
:p
the vast majority of african-americans will vote for obama to see a black man elected president (likely even putting their political beliefs aside)
the vast majority of women will vote for hillary to see a woman elected president
(likely even putting their political beliefs aside)
then you have to consider the other side of this
how many non black people will vote for hillary to prevent a black man from taking office
(likely even putting their political beliefs aside)
verses
how many men will vote for obama to prevent a woman from taking office
(likely even putting their political beliefs aside)
african american females will have reason to be happy either way i suppose
undoubtably many people here will respond to this post as 'you idiot, those aren't the only two choices', but i disagree. america is so blatantly retarded these are in fact the only two choices, regardless of what is written on the ballot.
in 2002 at work i predicted that hillary would run in 2008, and even said 'i bet she will win, just because of the female vote' (i never would have imagined it would come down to this though, this puts a whole new spin on it) and i even made it clear i didnt want her to win. this one guy in the room got very very upset with me and heavily ostracized me for even mentioning it.
someone do some stat searching and find out how many women and how many african americans are in the usa.
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.
Slate currently has an "Obama Messiah Watch" column that chronicles the media's excessive praise of the would-be-president.
http://www.slate.com/id/2159502/?nav=navoa
And this interests readers of Slashdot ... how?
Latest figures I've seen say if every grain of corn was turned into ethanol that it would only represent 12% of total USA gasoline usage, and that's only gasoline, which doesn't affect other energy usage. And we'd starve Mexico in the process. It's more political fluff on the part of the this article poster, than reality. And does he want to ban alcoholic drinks as well, and pour them into cars? Furthermore, burning ethanol does nothing to significantly reduce CO2 emissions, which I thought he was also unrealistically big on.
Politician and Science -- a very bad mix.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Thats like asking not to win. Oil is the true leader of this country. What he should have done was cozied up to oil companies, then fucked them over hard core. That, would have been sweet. Now he's just going to have the full might of the oil companies after him.
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
And how much does that make up for the inherent inefficiency (MPG) of ethanol (up to 33%) compared to regular gasoline? Or does the feel good quotient make up for that?
And ethanol does nothing significant for CO2 reduction, or is Global Warming not your concern?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
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."
That he's not Hillary.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I find it doubtful that you will find a viable candidate that leans far enough to the left to garner the support of the crypto-communists over at Znet.
The editor of Zmag, Michael Albert, has been a consistent and harsh critic of Marxist-Leninism. Here he debates a representative of one of the more moderate communists parties (the ISO). Most of the people published in Zmag are social democrats, anarchists, and other non-Marxist left wing radicals. Zmag is probably less communist than The Nation, and certainly less so than the countless Trotskyist party papers. Nader is seen as the most viable third party candidate in recent years and he often writes for Zmag.
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
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.
besides, in large urban centers and suburban areas Gun Control LOWERS crime rates, not increases them.
Would you like to cite a source on that besides your rectum?
Gun control has never been shown, at least in any respectable study that I've ever seen, and I've been following the issue for a while, to lower the crime rate, except in theoretical situations where you can magically cut urban areas off from the outside world, or where you only look at specific categories of crime and neglect the crime reduction due to civilian gun ownership.
The usual anti-gun arguments that get trotted out in these situations are Europe/USA comparisons, and those are bogus for any number of reasons (simply: there are far too many variables besides gun control that lead to Europe having a far lower violent crime rate in general than the U.S., regardless of their gun control policies).
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Freeing America from oil via ethanol.
8 41462
t s_for_growth/nitrogen/anhydrous_ammonia.jsp
Read this: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=219742&cid=17
One ton of dry biomass = 2 barrels of oil
The USA burns about 20 million barrels of oil per day. As I incorrectly pointed out in the prior post - this is 10 million tonnes of dry biomass per day (I had a brain fart which no one picked up on and wrote 40 tonnes).
It was nicely pointed out and correctly I might add that if we were to produce the amount of ethanol required to offset the oil being burned, then we would need more than the world's production of grain.
I did a google search on "world grain production" and was impressed with the increases since the 1960's.
Since I grew up on a grain farm I have a gut feel for this. The increased production came from dwarf grains (more grain, less stalk), irrigation and fertilizer. At this point much of the north amercian farmland has been badly raped of its nutrients. As I write this a major part of the North American fertilizer industry is shut down because of a shortage of Methane. They use methane to create anhydrous ammonia.
Check here:
http://www.agrium.com/products_services/ingredien
The thing is the irrigation is not sustainable.
The dwarf grains and genetic manipulation lead to mono culture which is questionable sustainable.
The use of methane to create nitrogen fertilizers is past peak by over 5 years in North America. Its a big problem.
The short of it is that there is no way on earth we can double our grain production. We can however produce Ethanol from other than grain.
Cellulose to ethanol is a possibility with fungii like Trichoderma reeshii. But plants also contain pentosans and lignins. T. reeshii likes cellulose.
Personally I think a fungus with more potential is in the Pleurotis genus.
But that is just my guess.
The short of it is that we have a big problem - do we want to eat (grain) or do we want to drive cars.
I hope the cars lose.
As I pointed out before.... the USA would have to convert more than the whole world's supply of grain into ethanol to keep its fleet of car toys on the road.
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.
You are free to remove it from your article listing, if you like.
Yes...
...but the devil weed also makes the dirty mexicans and niggers rape white women!!11!one!
Yep, that's what all those racists claimed back in the day, which is why marijuana is illegal*, and why any discussion of "industrial hemp" is dead-on-arrival. Sorry, no miracle energy source for us!
*Technically, the federal government didn't outlaw the substance (as that would be unconstitutional); they just made it so that a permit was required to grow it (citing the Interstate Commerce Clause) and then refused to issue any permits. Fucking NAZIs, circumventing the Constitution!)
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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 know the reason Mr. Obama is saying all of these things: He wants to be president. That is all. And I don't say this because he is a democrat. I don't say this because he is black. I say this because he is a politician.
Oh, whoop-de-do! So that disqualifies him?
One one hand that's a valid point, but on the other hand it probably also helped him get enough perspective to see the problem in the first place (as he wasn't mired in it himself).
My (multi-racial) girlfriend's brother exhibits exactly the kind of attitude problem we're talking about, and I can damn well tell you the cause is the "culture," not poverty or discrimination.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
This is just totally out of the mainstream.
70% of Americans want our involvement in Iraq to start decreasing. Did you miss that?
Everyone agrees that health care is poor-to-mediocre and getting worse. Something has to be done. Everyone agrees on energy independence.
Repeating lies over and over again doesn't make them true.
+++ATH0
Why not? It worked in Blazing Saddles.
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.
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
The inefficiency is only true for gas engines converted to run on booze. When you design an engine that cannot run on gasoline but runs well on alcohol, you design it to use much, MUCH higher compression ratios that would be impossible to use in a gas engine, and efficiency actually surpasses that of gasoline.
+++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."
He may have good chances. It appears (32% approval, etc.) the electorate is tired of a president that is not articulate nor prone to careful thought and analysis.
They just might go for the opposite.
This country is not yet ready for a black prez, particularly the one whose father is from a predominantly Muslim country and who has the last name that rhymes with Osama. If he goes on ballot, Republicans will win again by unleashing a horrific misinformation campaign right before the election. Sadly, in order to win presidency in this country one needs to be a white, Christian-god-fearing male. I'd love to be wrong about this, though.
A tiny issue to be sure, but I'm appreciative of the website linked for providing a video link that's easy to use, even in Linux.
Addressing the larger scheme of things, I'd just like to say it's sad how politics seems to eventually run into centrism, especially for the presidential elections, due to the "winner takes all" approach. I was really rooting for Dean during the last primaries, but it seems like the Dems preferred a more bland candidate. Oh well. Here's to hoping that people have wised up since '04.
http://cltracker.net -- powerful craigslist multi-city search
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."
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.
Hussein Obama has said publicly that he believes in the Wahhabbi doctrine that denies the rights of non-Muslims.
No. He hasn't. What the hell are you talking about? Do you follow the Karl Rove doctrine that if you repeat a lie often enough, people think it's the truth?
+++ATH0
horse shit. even if you took away all the guns, which never happens, crooks find something else to use in the commiting of crimes, only with gun control they can feel safer knowing the house they are breaking into won't have anyone armed to defend it. remmeber, the only thing that will stop a rampaging lunatic with a gun, is another person with a gun.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
You left out yet another reason industrial hemp is DOA: the textile industry, which knows that hemp is a miracle plant and doesn't want to have to spend millions upon billions of dollars re-engineering their businesses to grow it instead of cotton.
;)
Shame on you.
+++ATH0
I agree with you. And yes, I remember the Brady Bill.
However, I think Obama's priorities are far, far away from making the possession of firearms unilaterally a crime. This would also be an excellent example of something he'd be willing to compromise on. How about enforcing laws on the books to make sure that only licensed gun owners can purchase guns rather than passing new and pointlessly restrictive laws?
+++ATH0
I think the fact that you think "compromise" is a dirty word says it all.
+++ATH0
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.
so long as they're not a woman...
Yes yes, flamebait I know. The curiour side of me wants to see a Clinton/Rice ticket...
The pragmatic side of me says we're all fscked no matter what.
If a good Libertarian or independent (Ross Perot anyone?) were to run in all 50 I bet they'd win. Our decrepit 2 party system won't let anyone else in, in enough states to matter.
I propose the following voting system:
Since we all generally consider our elected officials a compromise of whose less bad lets vote that way!
Vote for the one person you think is the absolute worst to have in office. Like golf, the one with the lowest score wins.
Simple and it would really spice up the mix of parties in office.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
The reason that there has been such strong resistance to the gun registry is that it includes long guns, rifles and shotguns, which play very little role in crime. Possession of handguns is very limited here. Target shooters and collectors can get licenses for them, with tight controls. Otherwise, for all practical purposes no one other than a police officer can possess a handgun.
And where do you get the idea that the gun registry has been so expensive because of the resistance to it? There's no connection, except for the fact that if there weren't such resistance more people would register and the registry would be even more overwhelmed.
Hey, instead of arguing about methanol and oil, how about just consuming less? Use energy efficient products, and shop wisely. All of you. Do you really need all your cars?
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.
those farmers deserve the same quality of internet porn as what slashdotters enjoy every night.
Had ross perot not looked like a jackass in 1992, he could've won then. He had the means, money and support.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Easy with the "everyone" comments. I live in England, and lived in Germany. I've seen Canadian health care first hand. The US health care system is better than all three of these systems combined.
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."
I'm from the Midwest. We're the ones who sent Obama to the senate, remember?
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
He is both black and white. Why would the race of anyone mean anything about his capabilities as a leader? All we care about is that we have someone who is smart enough to lead the country. We've been stuck with a moron for the past 6 years. It would be very refreshing to have someone who is intelligent for a change.
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
As many as 17,000 people (according to police estimates) watched Senator Barack Obama officially announce his candidacy for President in Springfield, Illinois today.
Obama was quoted as saying:
"NOBODY ROCKS LIKE... [quick glance at post-it note on back of guitar]... SPRINGFIELD!"
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
According to a black woman that Colbert interviewed, who authored a book entitled The End of Blackness (sorry, I forgot her name and don't watch such shows closely), Obama is not black. He's "African African-American." Apparently "black" isn't a color so much as a "had family who were slaves." From now on, you are a racist if you don't get the precisely correct number of Norses when you refer to the color my skin.
We have 20 months to go, during which time I have every confidence that golden-child Obama will end up like previous golden-child Howard Dean.
I don't really think race is a factor for most folks any more...if I thought Obama was the better candidate, I'd vote for him. Rice also could be a serious candidate.
Most folks I know don't really care much about race any more, that's mostly older, WW2-generation people who were raised in that culture. I think just about anybody from the '60s on (except those in hard-core racist areas, I guess) are much less caring about these things.
Ferretman
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Thankyou for that insight, I truely had never thought of that before.
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.
>>I want a black, gay, muslim woman for president!
I'm a white straight Christian man, you insensitive clod!
There is no such thing as an "expert" when talking about gun control. An expert is someone who groks both sides of an argument.
The gun control debate is so polarized, there's no room for anyone to get a full picture.
(As for me? 2nd amendment all the way!)
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
The only reason for them not providing real bandwidth everywhere in the country is because they
will see less profit from it than with the urban areas. It's not that they won't make money
rolling out broadband in rural areas- far from it. It's that they can clear 3-5 times as much
or more from someone in a major city than in a farm town or on the farm.
They don't need subsidies. They never really did. What they need to get told to do is if it's
not a dead loss, of which they need to honestly prove without magic bookkeeping, they have to provide
service in the less lucrative areas- period.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
You say that like it's a good thing.
Two sides of the same coin, my friend. Two sides of the same coin...
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
"..Two sides of the same coin, my friend. Two sides of the same coin...
I hear this a lot, but really do you believe that if Bush & Co had not won the Whitehouse in 2000 that we would be in Iraq right now? Do you really think that Gore had the same obsession with Sadaam Hussain as the NeoCons? Do you think that the Democrats would have blocked Health Care reform or protected oil company profits to give them the highest quarter profits for any company ever?
It's true that Democrats have their own flavors of corruption, but to say they are the same is ridiculous to me and often just an excuse not to vote.
There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
For example Reagan and Bush Jr. ran up unbelievable debts.
Clinton was running a surplus remember.
I wouldn't trust a republican to run a lemonade stand without him taking out a bank loan on the freehold and future profits and then running off with the cash.
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.
I had once read a study stating that most americans (90%) would have no problem to vote for a black president. They wouldn't have problems voting for a jew, a woman or an asian, so all of this has now become a non-issue. The only criterion that made a lot of people (50%) think twice was when they were asked if they would vote for an atheist candidate.
So, you can be any skin color, but you have to be a god-fearing american.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
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.
I sometimes wonder if a bunch of CNN reporters were sitting around having coffee one day, joking about how powerful they are. Then one guy was like, "I bet we could take a junior senator and turn him into a presidential candidate". Wager donuts for breakfast. OK! You're on. Loser has to sit next to cologne-soaked Carl on the next flight out to a location shot.
Oh, and it's fine to take surplus grain that's no longer fit for human consumption and use it as a reserve fuel; but it will never get us off oil. Reduce sprawl and improve battery life for electrics. Switching fuels is easier at the power plant than it is at the pump. With electicity as the fuel-neutral choice, we can shift from oil/coal/nuclear/natgas/bio/wind at will, based on the relative cost and availablity of any particular fuel. Oil spiking while natgas priced reasonably? Shut down generator 2 that burns oil, and fire up generator 4 that runs natgas. With electricity as the mediator, cars will always be fueled by the most affordable technology, and if any new tech comes online it will be incorporated with no fuss at the consumer level.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Maybe not. There's an argument to be made that the US needs a black man to become president at this moment in history. The black men I know who've managed to overcome the smallmindedness you often find in the US to become successful, have developed a real skill for seeing through BS, don't suffer fools and aren't easily played. I've still got a fair amount of faith in my fellow US citizens and although it sometimes takes them a while, they do learn. And the last six years have been a real hard lesson.
Anyway, I could walk down to skid row and pick up anyone stumbling out of a liquor store and he'd almost certainly do a better job than the current occupant of the White House. In fact, now that I think about his CV, that may be something like the way he got the job.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Do you know what "NeoCons" are? Why do Democrats keep using this term without realizing it doesn't mean what they think it means? It originally referred to Democratic Jews who switched to the Republican party at the start of the Reagan era.
For some reason, liberals online have turned this word into some sort of insult, I guess because it has "con" in it which sounds all mean and powerful like the word "kahn." I don't know.
"Sufferin' succotash."
and McCain is a crook. Remember the Keating Five? IMHO, he should have gone to prison for that...but it works out karmically because of his POW time. He talks a good game, but he's a slimy criminal backstabber just like most any other suckup politico. He's been alternately sucking up to/backstabbing Mr. Bush throughout his presidency.
If it ends up being McCain vs Hillary, it'll be too close to call...both have shady histories that will come out. Obama looks to be pretty clean, and relatively sane, and would probably trounce whatever republican he ran against.
It is for this reason alone that the Democratic party is incapable of nominating him.
It would, if those fighting in Iraq were the ordinary citizens. They're not. They're either the Iraqi Army of the Saddam era, who disappeared into the woodwork to fight a guerilla campaign, or the Al Qaida-allied religious freedom fighters. They both want the Americans and British out, and both have had serious miliary training, have access to some serious weapons, communication equipment, and intelligence. A bunch of civilians with limited or no training is not going to put up much of a resistance.
Plus, and far more importantly, the situation in Iraq is inherently different to an uprising in the US. The US can't pacify the resistance in Iraq as brutally as it would a rebellion in its own country. First of all, the US army doesn't speak Arabic (it keeps firing its interpreters), has really, REALLY shitty intelligence (see the first point), and has the eyes of the world staring at it to make sure it is there to promote freedom and set up a free government. Obviously controlling a rebellion in your own country means you will stop at nothing, as it's *your* government, and *your* country at risk. It's an all-or-nothing deal. Clearly that's not the case for the US in Iraq. There is no holding back. Look at Vietnam - that's a more accurate comparison. The US really DID feel like its ass was on the line (damned commies). The US obliterated entire villages of folks who were allegedly helping the Viet Minh. The only fighters who survived that were those soldiers materially supported by the north, not farmers or other civilians. They got roasted, yet they were armed. By your logic, those farmers should have been enough to send the US packing, yet clearly that wasn't the case.
As I said in my original post, if the US population decided the current president is an ass and storms government installations across the US, either the US government fights back (using its far superior weaponry, training, tactics, logistics, infrastructure, command hierarchy, etc.) and destroys them. Handguns are no match for a tank.
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.
That would be Jim "My name is not George" Ryan. He was spending too much time explaining that he was no relation to the Governor with the same last name (and party) who was being indicted for corruption.
Carol Mosley Braun was a mistake. I seem to recall that she leased an apartment for more than her annual salary.
Obama has a chance because he doesn't look like a lunatic.
So, It was never lies. Unless fance, germany, Russia, and Briton were in the habbit of passing lies to us. It would be a grand scheeme too, first they give us lies, then we use those lies to goto war and finaly they expose them to be lies and vilonize us. All for what? Well, i'm not sure were the benitift of doing that is. Maybe you could tell me seeing how you have done such deep analisis of our inteligences at works and have determined that everything was lies. I'm sure we will benifit from your explainations of what these other countries have made of this conspiracy.
The fact is, our intelignece was wrong. it was wrong for several reasons but the most important one would be Saddam himself needed to make it look like he wasn't weak because he had pissed a lot of people in the region off. France russia and china were against the war because they had secrete oil deal and used the UN sanction to get them at a better rate. they hid behind the oild for food and sanction that limited the amounts of oil Iraq could sell and thee countries came in in vilation of the sanctions and got discount deals that they would loose if the US went into Iraq. And onw they have lost them, this is why they hate us right now. Of course you would hate me too if I stoped you from buying somethign below costs because i was going to do something that took your advantage away!
It's the way that you and others brand all who disagree as "liberal". Sure, I've no problem with being liberal, I'd rather be liberal than fascist, but the word liberal is thrown about like an insult. There's also the implication that anyone who opposes some new authoritarian law must hold a viewpoint at the other extreme (i.e., liberal), when actually it would be opposed by anyone who does not support authoritarianism.
And I'm not liberal in the not-conservative sense, I'm liberal in the freedom-and-not-authoritarianism sense. Ironically, "liberals" these days are behaving rather conservatively, in wanting to keep things as they are rather than throw out long established freedoms for the sake of a supposed war on terror.
so long as they're not a woman...
Well, so long as they're not THAT woman.
I'm a hardcore Democrat, and I'd actually like to see a woman president someday, but Hillary Clinton just rubs me the wrong way. She's another unexciting DLC Democrat whose stances blow with the wind, and the only stances she seems consistent on are ones that I disagree with (e.g. her stance on video games, her general anti-consumer voting record, etc.). Right now, the absolute last thing the Democratic party needs is to put another poll-driven, passionless candidate to win the primary.
Obama gets my vote. He's got solid values, and he's yet to do anything that shows he doesn't mean what he says. I've been watching him since 2004 and hoping for this day.
Vote for the one person you think is the absolute worst to have in office. Like golf, the one with the lowest score wins.
Horrible idea. Most obscure candidate wins. All you've got to do is get on the ballot in enough states, stay out of the limelight, and you win. The idea wouldn't work without the ability to select multiple candidates, and then it becomes the same as being able to standard approval voting.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Speaking of points going over heads, allow me to rephrase, your honor.
The most relevant thing about Obama (IMO) is his courageous anti-Iraq War speech, given back in 2002 when the wounds of 9/11 were still fresh.
Not his name. Not his race.
His position. His courage. His forsight.
He's quite an individual, a person worthy of my respect.
And, although I agree that it won't happen, I would vote for a 95-year-old African-American/Asian-American lesbian aitheist with a bum knee and poor vision- assuming I agreed with her platform.
In my opinion, this "Hillary is a woman" and "Obama is black" chatter is insulting to women and blacks. So what? OF COURSE a woman/black is just as capable, just as deserving of our consideration. To suggest anything else is silly.
barack to the future?