Slashdot Mirror
Presidential Candidates' Science and Tech Policies
gracey1103 writes "Popular Mechanics has put together an easy-to-follow matrix of where the '08 presidential candidates stand on different science, tech and environment issues. Everything is cited and links back directly to each candidate's published policy pages so you can get more info."
o Auto
o Digital/Tech
o Climate/Energy
o Environment
o Gun control
o Infrastructure
o Science/Education
o Space
WTF??
It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
"Easy to follow matrix"? Not exactly. At first, I thought the matrix indicated endorsements, but it doesn't -- checkmarks simply indicate that they were able to find out where a candidate stands. If you actually want to know what that stance is, you sometimes have to click through many screens to get to it.
Great idea, mediocre execution. (And why is gun control on a list of science and technology issues, but not stem cell research?)
Every election year, people get caught up in the candidates' "positions" as if they meant something. Face it: the Presidential election is the world series of lying, and you are not wise enough to detect it. In a political debate, you may safely ignore any sentence that does not begin with "When I faced this problem before, I ..."
Remember, under Jimmy Carter we got deregulation of trucking, airlines, and natural gas. Under Nixon we got actual wage and price controls (!), and the EPA.
The media has been doing and wonderful job of either making Kucinich look like a nutcase or just outright ignoring his existence. Being the best candidate for the people quickly earns enemies though, I suppose.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
So does Paul get your support, too? (Kucinich is my other favorite, of course).
I used to carry a bottle of whiskey for snake bite. And two snakes. -Nefarious Wheel
He opposes them personally. But his beliefs that the federal government should have no say on abortions whatsoever trumps that. You can either wait for a candidate that aligns with you on every single belief you hold, or you can go for one that might disagree with you but will never use the machinery of the state to enforce that.
That's not true. He does have plans; you're just not reading into it cynically or deeply enough to see them:
"I intend to pay lip-service to environmentalism while doing as little as possible to actually improve things, because if I really cared I'd have more to say about the issue."
"I support filtering by ISPs and libraries. OMG, think of the children! Oh, and by "child pornography" I really mean 'music, movies, and subversive speech' too. Anonymity is bad, mmkay?"
"I support 'securing our energy' by subjugating the Iraqis, and I support 'increasing domestic supply' by drilling in protected wilderness areas."
"Just like the environment, I don't give a shit about this issue either."
By the way: I don't have anything against this Thompson fellow; in fact, I know nothing about him except these excerpts. Any candidate that says the same kinds of things should be suspected of having the same real positions.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Some friends of mine were involved in a private launch company back in the mid '80s. (At their request it will remain unnamed.)
One of their major problems was obtaining components for avionics and for handling cryogenic liquids. These were made mainly by the companies who contracted to NASA for various parts of the (very lucrative) shuttle program.
One of their contacts told them that a NASA administrator had let them know that if they supplied any parts to a private rocket company they wouldn't be supplying any more for the shuttle.
The company thus had to make do without components that had been developed with tax money, and (on their shoestring budget) develop their own from scratch or convert stuff intended for other purposes - none of them space-rated.
They did some amazing stuff on that shoestring. But it was the failure of one of those re-purposed parts that ended up trashing their effort and running them out of money.
Now NASA was SUPPOSED to be ENCOURAGING the private development of space capability, as they had air flight. But the government space programs had put them in a position where doing so would undercut the funding for their own programs. So it was in their interest to keep the suppliers on a short leash and kill off any company trying to assemble and operate their own craft.
Pulling the plug on NASA as the government-run space transportation company (and boondoggle) would, IMHO, not just open up the field to private companies, but is a necessary step in getting to affordable private space travel in what remains of my lifetime.
Which is not necessarily to say kill it off completely. But putting it out of the transportation business and back to R&D, with private enterprise actually running the spacelines, seems to me to be a necessary minimum for turning space exploration from a government-funded boondoggle (ala Columbus) to an ongoing enterprise (ala private cargo and passenger ships crossing the Atlantic and Pacific ocean).
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I think it's safe to vote for him because there's no way he'd actually accomplish all that, but he would manage to prevent the Federal government from bloating further.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I support Paul and Obama at the same time. It goes something like this:
"I'd like the government to curl up and die [Paul], but if I can't have that I'd rather it be in competent hands with interesting ideas [Obama] than incompetent or malevolent ones [most other Democrats, all other Republicans]."
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
Actually, Paul is the exception to his statement. With his policies, he's so likely to run the the country into the ground that no amount of military budget reduction can offset it (unless he completely eliminates the military altogether, allowing the people to revolt against the quagmire government he'll create).
And you're against this...why? A government should be "weak" enough that it cannot survive a determined effort from its citizens to change its form. I sincerely doubt that Paul's policies will "run the government into the ground", but even if they managed to I can't see myself getting very worked up about it. Government has been running people into the ground for so long, it might do for a teensy change...
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
Competent and interesting ideas like more taxation, more spending, and bombing an ally?
Obama's entire qualifications are 1) he's not GWB, and 2) he's not Hillary. Once you get past those admittedly great points in his favor, all you have left is an utterly conventional politician.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."