Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Talk to This Year's Quirkiest Senatorial Candidate

Posted by Roblimo on from the plenty-of-substance-behind-the-laughs dept.

Not many candidates for the U.S. Senate are 4'9" tall and only have one hand. But Oregon Democrat Steve Novick qualifies on both counts -- and uses them as pluses in his TV ads. Like this one, where he shows why he's the best beer-drinking partner among all the candidates. Or this one, where it's obvious why he's for "the little guy." Also, as far as we know, he's the only candidate this year for any major office who has his own brand of beer. And his online campaign manager is a major Slashdot junkie, too, which is certainly in his favor. But will humor and oddness get Steve into the Senate? We don't know. So ask him. In fact, ask him anything else you'd like about campaigning and politics. He's promised to respond, and seems like the kind of guy who will give interesting answers, at that. (Please follow Slashdot interview rules, as always.)

66 of 364 comments (clear)

  1. Slashdot's Hive's Net Neutrality View by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Interesting
    From your website on issues, you say:

    I would join many other U.S. senators, and the rest of what we might call Google Nation, in supporting "net neutrality." We need to prevent broadband providers from creating a two-tiered system of access to information, in which content providers with money would have an advantage over those without it, and Internet users would often find it harder to Google their way to the information they really need. Your net neutrality rhetoric rings true with this readership, for the most part. How exactly do you propose you would enforce this?

    I mean, you say yourself that the companies with money are going to want this, how do you plan to fight the opposition? If your opponent Gordon Smith opposes net neutrality, you're going to face a lot more of that in the senate. Voting to ensure it in bills is one thing but what makes you unique to any other Senator trying to keep the net neutral? What are the best things we can do to help this? I tried explaining it to my friends and family but often find I've at best confused them.

    Allow me to play the devil's advocate, argue against this point:

    The government controls too much of our lives right now, why let them control the internet with a facade of "net neutrality?" It's just another form of restricting the market to evolve naturally, why would we want that?
    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Slashdot's Hive's Net Neutrality View by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Informative

      The government controls too much of our lives right now, why let them control the internet with a facade of "net neutrality?" It's just another form of restricting the market to evolve naturally, why would we want that?

      (Recogizing that you've playing devil's advocate, you may already agree with the following.)

      The nation's telecommunications infrastructure is in no way a "free market". Telecom companies were granted rights-of-way and extensive subsidies to lay cable; it's not like an mom-and-pop shop can start stringing copper from the telephone poles and start competing.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
  2. Environment & Fiscal Responsibility by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If elected as Senator for Oregon, how hard would you push for environmental action? You seem to promote fiscal responsibility and I find these two topics to have interesting relationships to each other. Hypothetically (and I know this wouldn't be your responsibility) if Oregon had the chance to switch to a garbage disposal system that resulted in twice as much materials being salvaged from waste but also cost the citizens twice as much to fund, would you make the switch?

    On Slashdot, we often get stories where great new ideas come but require extra cash to go green. They are under heavy fire from fiscally responsible people. Where do you stand on this? I can think of many things if you'd care to address them. Like the investment to move to a wind powered infrastructure, compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulb usage being enforced by the government, tighter emissions on all transportation, electronic circuitry recycling costs, etc.

    If you care to further elaborate, I'm also interested in how fiscal responsibility can be maintained in addition to your pledge to reform healthcare.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Environment & Fiscal Responsibility by SteveNovick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thanks for the question. Environmental action has been one of the centerpieces of my record of public service. I spent over eight years at the U.S. Justice Department, suing polluters for violations of the Clean Air and Clean Water Act and I was a board member of the Oregon Environmental Council for the past decade.

      Your question does raise a challenge of transitioning to sustainable practices. In some instances, like Superfund cleanup, there are steps we could take right now to reduce the burden on average taxpayers by restoring the polluter pays principles that originally paid for toxic waste cleanup.

      But in other instances, like making the investment in renewable energy or expanding mass transit and other conservation initiatives, it will cost some money. That is why in this campaign I have been advocating several moves towards better fairness in our tax code like requiring people who make their money buying and selling stock to pay the same rate as what people pay on regular income. Or that people making a million dollars pay Social Security tax on all of their income, not just the first $100,000. In the long run, reducing our energy consumption, using it more efficiently and reducing the massive cost of global warming and pollution to our economy, health care system and communities will save money. But you are absolutely right that it will take some money up front. I'm committed to telling folks the truth about that and how we are going to pay for it.

  3. Pork... by Notquitecajun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How willing are you to NOT "bring home the bacon" and possibly sacrifice local needs and wants rather than further inflate the budget? Are you for attempting to actually CUT the budget instead of cutting the rate of increase?

    1. Re:Pork... by explosivejared · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Adding to that, would you be in favor of tougher sunset clauses on appropriations? What about the much maligned practice of earmarking?

      --
      I got a catholic block.
    2. Re:Pork... by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Excellent question. I would love to hear a Democrat actually answer this question and see if they care about fiscal responsibility. And yes, I know the Republicans have been spending like drunken idiots, but at least that is in contradiction to what they *say* they believe in. Democrats traditionally believe in large government transfers of wealth from one group to another. It would be interesting to hear what they say now that we simply can't continue as we're going.

      Prediction: If this is asked, he'll dodge the question by saying he'll cut the defense budget, and then use that money for social programs. Of course, the defense budget is a relatively small part of the budget, but he won't mention that, and he certainly won't mention cutting anything else where it NEEDS to be cut. And he'll totally ignore the part about pork spending.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    3. Re:Pork... by polar+red · · Score: 2, Informative

      Of course, the defense budget is a relatively small part of the budget, but he won't mention that, err ... I'll give you my source : http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm and you'll give yours ?
      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    4. Re:Pork... by eln · · Score: 4, Informative

      Defense is a "relatively small" part of the budget? Are you sure we're talking about the same country here?

      The 2008 budget calls for total spending of $2.9 trillion (on tax revenues of $2.66 trillion). Of that, $481.4 billion goes to the Department of Defense. That's 16.6% of the entire budget. If you count other defense related areas, such as the "Global War on Terror" ($145.2 billion) and the Department of Homeland Security ($34.3 billion), we're up to $660.9 billion, which is 22.79% of the total budget.

      All of this, of course, doesn't even include the cost of the Iraq war, which is financed through separate appropriations. Bush has requested an additional $105 billion for 2008 war costs, which would bring total defense-related spending in 2008 to $765.9 billion, or 26.4% of the total budget.

      That's right, more than one quarter of the entire national budget is dedicated to defense spending, including the war in Iraq. By comparison, the next largest budget item, Social Security, comes in at $608 billion, or 20.97% of the total budget. And I'm not even including any military-related spending that may be assigned to other Cabinet departments or other programs.

      Sure, people like to throw around meaningless numbers like defense spending is only around 4 or 5% of total GDP. But guess what: we don't pay for it with total GDP, we pay for it with tax dollars. It's absurd to compare budget items to the total GDP, because it implies that spending a giant percentage of our total production on the federal government (around 20.27% assuming a projected $14.31 trillion total GDP in 2008) is somehow okay.

      Sources:

      GDP Estimate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_future_GDP_estimates_(nominal)
      2008 Budget: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget%2C_2008
      2008 Iraq war appropriations: http://middleeast.about.com/od/iraq/f/me080225b.htm

    5. Re:Pork... by paitre · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When you speak of social program expenditures, please also include that for Medicare/Medicaid, SCHIP, and HUD.

      The combined total of which results in closer to 45% of the total budget.

      The last time I checked, SSA, Medicare/Medicaid and HUD were not explicitly mentioned as a role of our government in the Constitution, while Defense most certainly is. Unlike so many wrong-headed individuals, I believe that unless the Constitution actually grants a power to the Federal government, then it DOES NOT have it, regardless of what others may wish to be the case.

    6. Re:Pork... by SteveNovick · · Score: 4, Informative

      The first step on the path to fiscal responsibility is help the American public understand where their tax dollars go. In terms of federal spending, roughly 20 percent goes to defense, 20 percent to Medicare & Medicaid, 20 percent to Social Security, 8 percent to interest on the debt, and everything else is a relatively small portion for things like transportation, education and the environment. Even the earmarks that have been recently decried are only about 1 percent of the budget. Of course those earmarks include obvious pork like the "Bridge to Nowhere," but getting our fiscal house in order is going to take more than cracking down on appropriations.

      Part of what I would propose are moves towards tax fairness, like repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, or the capital gains and Social Security tax reforms I mentioned in a previous reply. But we also need to spend our taxes more wisely. I do think there are some programs - like the V-22 Osprey or the International Space Station - that are not a great investment of our tax dollars. I also think we can give federal agencies more of an incentive to save by rewarding them if they come in under budget.

      You can read a bunch more about this and my record of working to educate the public on budget and tax policy, as well as fighting waste in the Oregon State Lottery.

    7. Re:Pork... by Watson+Ladd · · Score: 2, Informative

      How else do you interpret the words ``general welfare''? What about ``necessary and proper''? The government is created to advance certain goals, and it is enabled to do anything necessary and proper to achieve those goals. Also, social security and medicare/medicade are not part of the general budget: If abolished those taxes would also be abolished, so general incomes would not rise.

      --
      Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
    8. Re:Pork... by rifter · · Score: 2, Informative

      Isn't most of that money being recycled into the hands of people? When it's "spent", it "goes somewhere".
      Raw materials, labor, R&D? Doesn't it serve to increase the value of almost every corporation and many, many small businesses?

      I don't think so. It would seem that most of this money is going directly to 3-4 giant companies that are designed to handle this sort of thing. Maybe some of it trickles down (if the contractors live, and are still being paid the higher wages they used to rather than the relatively low wages people talk about now, they might be able to spend some), but most of it seems to be going into profits. For those companies that have stock (IIRC Blackwater is still privately owned) that could mean a bump in stock price, so theoretically others could ride the gravy train. But it's usually a few big contractors that make the best money off of wars. The rest of us are paying the big contractors the big bucks out of our paycheck. I am not sure we are getting a very good deal there.

    9. Re:Pork... by paitre · · Score: 2, Informative

      I believe, at this point, that we are quibbling on the definition of 'general Welfare', of which I do NOT believe Social Security, Medicare and the specific granting of public monies to individuals is a part.

      Specifically, you are referring to the "general Welfare of the United States" NOT "the People", which is a distinctly separate class within the Constitution that DOES refer to individuals.

      see http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aa699b23882.htm if you're further confused on the specific meaning of this clause. In particular, read Mr Madison's comments specifically regarding the 'general Welfare' clause in which he eviscerates any attempt at misreading the clause such that it applies to individuals.

      It absolutely does not, and this is a very specific example of why the 'living, breathing Constitution' 'idea' is so abhorrent, and further, why political litmus tests have so thoroughly permitted the judiciary to, themselves, permit the entirety of the Federal government to ignore the document under which our Republic was founded.

  4. Why Democrat? by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    After reading your views, I see a few things that put you at odds with the current Democrat party. What causes you to align yourself with the Democrat party? What differences do you personally see in yourself that by and large the Democrats adhere to? If elected, would you promise to remain Democrat or would you entertain the idea of going third party/independent?

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Why Democrat? by SteveNovick · · Score: 4, Informative

      I have been willing to buck the establishment in this campaign and I think voters will appreciate that. But let me make clear that I am a Democrat through and through and will stay in the party no matter what. As Paul Wellstone said about himself, "I represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party."

      I will continue to stand up for my principles, even when I disagree with my fellow Democrats. But I truly believe that by expressing the progressive values, we will strengthen the Democratic Party. It is that willingness to tell the truth, regardless the consequences that I see as my biggest contrast with the D.C. Democratic establishment.

  5. Nucular... by Notquitecajun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Are you in favor of nuclear energy, or are you afraid of it?

    1. Re:Nucular... by Notquitecajun · · Score: 2, Interesting

      People only fear what they don't understand. Then you'll fear my nucular gun.

      Oddly enough, it's the people who understand the most about both in which nuclear energy and guns find the safest hands.

    2. Re:Nucular... by andphi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you're presenting a false dichotomy. It's possible to both fear and favor a given course of action - expanding our nuclear energy base, changing jobs, or owning a fire-arm for self-defense, for example - if the alternatives are less favorable or more fearful than the one which worries one even as one chooses it.

    3. Re:Nucular... by Null537 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Isn't this a bit of a weighted question?

      "Are you in favor of nuclear energy, or are you afraid of it?"
      "I'm against nuclear energy"
      "Ha! Nuclear fearing member of the sheeple!"

      How about "Are you for or against nuclear energy, and why?"

  6. Mending the "Unchecked President" by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Complaints have been registered far and wide of our cowboy president. Democrats voting on bills hasn't done anything--some Democrats seem to have sat idly by as it happened. If you're elected into office, how are you going to stop this? More importantly with the president in his last term, how are you going to undo what has been done? Whether Clinton, Obama or McCain win, give us plans of action for how you intend to undo what you listed on your site: "warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, covert CIA 'black site' prisons, use of torture in interrogations and other tactics in tension or direct violation with the law have sparked outrage here at home and sullied our name abroad."

    --
    My work here is dung.
  7. Universal Health Care by pudge · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Steve, your state already tried, and aborted, an attempt at universal health care. Do you want federal universal health care because Oregon needs to take money from other states to make it work? Would you raise federal income taxes to make it work? How much?

    1. Re:Universal Health Care by Notquitecajun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also, how will you prevent universal health care from being abused - IOW, how would you prevent the fat, lazy, and stupid from running the health bills up that the rest of us would have to pay for?

    2. Re:Universal Health Care by ChristTrekker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That right there is a good argument against universal health care. Unless you really want government intruding on and micromanaging everybody's life. You don't have to worry about it being abused - universal health care, by its very nature, is an abuse.

      --

      Constitutionally Correct

    3. Re:Universal Health Care by imag0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Please remember that, when using inflammatory rhetoric like that, the largest receivers of government welfare money happens to be large, multinational companies and not the "fat, lazy, and stupid" that you are probably thinking of.

    4. Re:Universal Health Care by Dice · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not just abuse by We The People that we need to worry about. A federal health care system means putting control of what goes into our bodies in the hands of the government. Let me remind you that this is a government which has a well documented history of experimenting on its own people for the purposes of developing mind control drugs and the like.

      I, for one, do not welcome our new Big Government overlords.

    5. Re:Universal Health Care by UdoKeir · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oooh! I got a troll mod too!

      I guess this Mr Novick must have the Republicunts running scared if they're having to silence any opposing views.

    6. Re:Universal Health Care by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Insightful

      how will you prevent universal health care from being abused - IOW, how would you prevent the fat, lazy, and stupid from running the health bills up that the rest of us would have to pay for?

      How will you prevent universal fire service from being abused - IOW, how would you prevent the accident-prone, careless, and stupid from playing with matches or storing oily rags next to the furnace, and running up the tax bills for fire department services?

      We don't worry much about that because we know that no one gets their house burned down by choice, even if fire service is free. (I.e., without additional cost to the recipient - of course TANSTAAFL, it's paid for by taxes.) We do of course engage in public education campaigns to reduce the risk, mandate building codes, put warning labels on dangerous things (I love the label on my water heater, which features a burning stick figure running from an explosion - a very clear message of "do not fsck with this appliance"), but by and large we don't interfere with people's daily lives to make sure they're not risking the public expense of a fire.

      And in the same way, no one gets sick by choice, even if medical care is free. I don't care if you start giving away coronary bypass surgery, paying the sick leave, and giving away a free bottle of single malt with every surgery (a drop of the craythur thins the blood and helps prevent blocked arteries, you know) - I'd rather not have my chest carved open and a vein ripped out of my leg, so I try to eat right and exercise.

      Also, we understand that it's to my benefit to have my neighbor's flaming house put out before the fire spreads. We ought to understand that it's also to my benefit to have my neighbor get his TB or herpes or bird flu treated before it spreads - or better, gets preventative care to maintain his health so he doesn't get infected in the first place. Especially in this age of bioterrorist threats, universal basic health care is part of the state's mandate to "provide for the common defense".

      If the Interstate Highway System is seen as part of the nation's defense (as it allows for troop mobility), surely an Interstate Health System that protects against epidemics (natural or through enemy action) and keeps Americans healthy enough to fight ought to be justified as well.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    7. Re:Universal Health Care by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Funny

      Going to the emergency room regularly when all you need is some 'tussin.

      Because, you know, going to the emergency room is so much fun that you have to charge a cover to keep it from getting too crowded. Nothing I love more than getting sick or injured so I can go sit and wait in line with a bunch of other sick or injured people.

      Yes, you get the occasional edge case who really does enjoy it. You'll spend more time, money, and trouble trying to create a system to keep him out than you would spend if you let him in, gave him a bottle of cough syrup, patted him on the head, and sent him on his way.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    8. Re:Universal Health Care by SteveNovick · · Score: 2, Informative

      I would suggest that Oregon's attempt at universal health care never got off the ground because major portions of it were blocked by the Republican-controlled legislature. I think that experience underscores the need for us to address health care reform at a national level. The path our health care system is on is clearly unsustainable, with exploding costs and declining coverage. I think there are several comprehensive plans out there to ensure everyone has affordable health care, while tackling the cost of care. Here's a fuller explanation of what I think that will take and several measures we need to take to control costs.

      With the current path we are on, we will need to raise taxes or slash benefits to cover the cost of Medicare when baby boomers retire. Neither of those are good options. That is why we must reform our system now, before it is too late and we are faced with unacceptable options.

    9. Re:Universal Health Care by sethawoolley · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My only assumption is something everyone agrees with: that it will cost a lot of money. Therefore, how that money will be raised is a perfectly reasonable question.

      Universal Health Care is cheaper than the current system due to economies of scale, less bureaucracy, more preventative care accessibility, and more, as it is everywhere else in the world. It will thus cost less than what we pay now.

      Unfortunately, that is false, on several counts. The first is that it is a false dichotomy to say we should do Universal Health Care because it is better than "the current system," because there are other options to improve the current system.

      I never set up a dichotomy. I think it's the best system of many alternatives.

      For example: deregulating who can provide basic preventative care would make it far more accessible than the current system, and perhaps moreso than a universal system. Deregulation (along with other reforms) can also reduce the COST of health care, thus reducing the need for insurance to cover many things, thus reducing bureaucracy. And don't say it won't work, because this is how it used to be, and it still works for many people today.

      Single-payer health care does not regulate the decisions of the AMA and other medical agencies composed of practitioners who would be delegated the role of making policy, just as it is done in many other western nations.

      Are you clumping one proposal with another? Clear your mind, first.

      Another way that you're wrong is that you assume that bureaucracy will be smaller, or that we will necessarily pay less due to economies of scale. I see no reason to accept either of these assumptions.

      I don't actually assume it. Insurance company overhead is around 25%, but medicare is less than 5%. Insurance companies consistently pay more than medicare reimbursements, as well. Total cost of providing health care is greatly increased by private insurance. Since you haven't actually worked in the industry and clearly make false statements without having done any research, you don't have a basis either in experience or research for understanding the problem.

      And most obviously, you are wrong because many people WILL PAY MORE, and will get no better care for it. It may cost less overall -- that is unknowable -- but we absolutely do know that many people will pay more. Even John Edwards, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton -- and even Dennis Kucinich -- admit this. Saying it will cost less is false.

      Of course some people will pay more. That's fine with me, particularly if they have the income to afford it. That's the entire basis for progressive taxation and the role of all healthy, modern governments: to ensure a strong middle class by wealth redistribution and equal opportunity.

      If you'd like, I'd just have a 100% estate tax that would cover it and every other social program we need instead of an income tax, but an income tax is simply a more market-based approach. But I suppose being born with equal opportunity is not really an important part of your desires for the role of government.

      If you're asking where the money would come from: the same place it comes right now: the existing health care system.

      Nope. Many people would have to put more -- far more -- into a universal health care system than they do into the existing health care system.

      I've actually worked in the health care system in Oregon

      So have dozens of people I know personally, including members of my immediate family, who oppose single-payer. You won't win on an appeal to authority. Sorry: you have to try to win on the strength of your arguments themselves.

      You're still not qualified to discuss the matter. I am, you are not. Get one of your family members to discuss it with me so we can talk about real issues.

    10. Re:Universal Health Care by ChristTrekker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And the reason they keep going is because, by and large, they don't pay for it. Third-party "insurance" picks up the tab. If you don't pay for something yourself, the tendency is to try to milk it for everything you can get. This is why universal health care is a boondoggle. It will only be more of the same problem.

      In the US, calling it "insurance" is really a misnomer anymore. It's not just for unforeseen catastrophes. It's more like a payment plan system that covers even "maintenance" and routine expenses.

      --

      Constitutionally Correct

    11. Re:Universal Health Care by bzipitidoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      An abuse? Oh really? Are you aware that city water supplies are an example of universal health care? Fluorine is added to reduce tooth decay. It works, and it's pretty cost effective. Benefits everyone except possibly dentists. Lots of other things are done to the water supply. So we dodge the thrills of cholera epidemics that happen all too often in places that don't have good water supplies. But maybe you'd prefer to dig your own wells and buy your own filters and softeners, giving up the cost savings to be had from doing this on a massive scale, and do all the maintenance and monitoring yourself and worry about whether your neighbors' wells will dry out yours, stuff like that? And wonder when your young one will end up in a class seated next to the child of someone too poor to afford such niceties? That's why we have very low cost vaccinations, and will even give them away to the desperately poor. They're so worth it.

      Likewise there's a lot of savings to be had if we'd just put up a little money up front for checkups and preventative care. Sadly, you can't just get a blood test, no you've got to fill out a ton of paperwork about all the details of your health insurance, questions about your health history, and read and sign many pages worth of disclaimers, permissions to disclose info, permissions to substitute generic drugs, acknowledgments that you owe what your health provider fails to pay, and maybe an arbitration agreement, and, always, always pay some kind of fee. Often, poor people are poor because they have no financial sense. They find it very difficult to budget such things. The fee alone is enough to keep them away. Even if it's free of fees, it's not really free if you have to spend an hour or more on paperwork, sit on your butt in a doctor's waiting room for more hours (don't you just love being told that you can put your wait to good use by filling out forms?), and perhaps drive 20 plus miles just to reach the place. Our health care system is full of those kinds of inefficiencies. So if one such poor person works as a janitor at a school, and comes down with tuberculosis or the flu perhaps and feels very ill but does not see a doctor and instead keeps on working because he needs the money, and consequently gets half the student body infected, that's going to cost a whole lot of money. A few free tests and doctor visits for everyone once every 2 years or upon reaching certain ages, or some such, could save us all money. You may have noticed that often employers will spend a day or two to host some kind of health checkup for all their employees. Once had my cholesterol levels checked that way. Pretty haphazard and spotty checking, doing it like that. If you're away on a business trip or sick that day, guess you just miss out.

      Forcing people to pay for basic health care is like forcing people to pay to use toilets. Some airports used to do that. If you make it cheaper to crap on the floor, then some will. Those persons might care that it's unhealthy, and understand that it will cost society more in the long run, but feel they need that quarter more right now, and find their act to be the most pungently appropriate way of expressing their displeasure over such a system.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    12. Re:Universal Health Care by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wall street pays for it themselve.

      No they don't. We all do. You're full of it if you think they pay for anything. And the way they throw money around in their tight little circle, it just pushes prices up for everybody else. And just in case you didn't notice, I was talking about their latest and ongoing bail outs, not about their doctors bills, which you can be sure are also covered. The saying has changed. The biggest welfare queens wear Armani. So let's ask our latest "big man of campus" if he would continue bailing out the Forbes top 500. And anybody who thinks he should has no room to complain about universal health care or any other social program.

      There's some more fodder for you idiot troll mods from the pudge FOX network. You've revealed yourselves quite clearly.

      --
      What?
  8. Most quirky? I dunno... by R2.0 · · Score: 3, Funny

    That blue guy Stan Jones http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_Jones was pretty cool.

    Just picture him at a Senate costume party with deelybobbers on - instant Andorean.

    --
    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
  9. Beer by esocid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What will you do to get more Oregon beer east of the Mississippi river?

    But seriously, you state that The manipulation of scientific data and government reports by political appointees must end. And we must stop the revolving door that has put industry lobbyists in charge of protecting our natural resources. How would attempt to improve the reliability of the EPA's research and encourage transparency within its ranks as to thwart its recent politicization and "bullying" of its scientists who don't produce data to support a political agenda?

    --
    Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
  10. Are you going to interview on Comedy Central? by davidwr · · Score: 5, Funny

    America's finest and most accurate television news and opinion programs, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report respectively, would be honored to interview a candidate of your stature.

    Have you considered gracing their shows with your presence? If not, why not?

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  11. Internet's Effect on Campaign Finances by roadkill_cr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does the advent of the Internet mean that a politician can win elections without requiring as much financial support? Or is it simply another media out of the many already used (radio, televsion, etc.) that one must now campaign on, making campaigning more expensive than before?

  12. Left hook by Lucas123 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I like the name of your beer: Left Hook Lager, but why choose a lager to represent yourself versus, say, a stout?

  13. Effect on Party Platform by explosivejared · · Score: 3, Informative

    You seem to be pretty frank about your policy on the war. How much effect do think you could have on the Democratic platform regarding Iraq? The party has equivocated (eg pulling funding) on whether or not it will go full force at ending the current deployment of troops and on just how it would plan to work with regional players. How do you think you can work to providing a consistent and working policy for Iraq? Your site says that you are amazed at the war can still be sold. What are you going to change about that?

    --
    I got a catholic block.
  14. I'm a fan by djcapelis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've been tracking your campaign for awhile, you seem like a really good candidate for the senate slot and a good fit for Oregon. Unfortunately I'm a Californian democrat... and I know that most Oregonians aren't terribly fond in Californians interfering with your state.

    Is there a way I can support you without getting you in trouble with your constituents? I know even a donation opens you up to the story of "funded by San Francisco Democrats" which would probably play pretty poorly in some parts of Oregon... Should we just stay on the side-lines or is there something folks outside your state can do to help you get your message out?

    And one more related question: In this increasingly interconnected world, how do you see interstate involvement in local campaigns as changing the United States as a whole? The DSCC seems to be a pretty critical source of extra-state funding for instance...

    --
    I touch computers in naughty places
    1. Re:I'm a fan by SteveNovick · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I need all the help I can get from the netroots across the United States. I don't have the DSCC tapping big national donors on my behalf and we are accepting contributions from all states via ActBlue, where my campaign total is currently third highest for all Senate candidates. I suppose some might argue I should only take money from Oregonians, but the reality is that campaigns take money and I'll be proud to stand up in the Senate for progressive folks from across the country. It is only through citizens from across the nation coming together to demand real change that we are going to change the direction of the U.S. Senate.

      Thanks for your help!

  15. Interrogation... by Notquitecajun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    With your opposition to some current tactics, how do you propose - in a positive light - to add to the national defense against militant Islamists, who have proven both time and again - in peace and war - that they want to attack the US?

    1. Re:Interrogation... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Insightful

      how do you propose - in a positive light - to add to the national defense against militant Islamists, who have proven both time and again - in peace and war - that they want to attack the US?

      Most of these people want to attack the U.S. because the U.S.'s policy in the Middle East has been brutal and stupid. Iran hates us because we overthrew a democratic government and installed the Shah. Bin Laden got people on his side because many were upset with a U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia. The U.S. invasion of Iraq has been an Al Qaeda recruiter's wet dream.

      If you want to defend against "militant Islamists", stop helping them recruit followers - reform foreign policy. Get troops out, make support of Israel contingent on human right improvements, stop backing dictators. Oh, and stop torturing people, that'd help a lot.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
  16. Building the team? by D3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When you decided to get into politics and/or make this run, how did you build your team? How did you choose your advisers? Were they all people you already knew or just knew one or two and they made recommendations? Basically, how does one go from "I think I could be a good Senator" to having the political machinery to make a run at it?

    --
    Do really dense people warp space more than others?
  17. Fiscal Responsibility by explosivejared · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You talk about fiscal responsibility. Does that include government regulation that promotes sustainable growth over growth for growth's sake? If so, what would such regulation be? Finally, I think we can all agree that Americans live beyond their means. What role should the government in dealing with the current credit crises? What action should be taken at the microeconomic level? Are you in favor of the Bear Sterns bailout, etc?

    --
    I got a catholic block.
  18. Medical Marijuana by phobos13013 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Where do you stand on the issue of medical marijuana in your state? For ten years, use of marijuana has and created a legal vacuum for the public interest versus the private use issue. Would you protect growers of medical marijuana in your state from federal prosecution when such situations occur? Do you support the free and open use of a chemical that has no known addictive qualities, no known adverse health effects and broad, diverse public support for its decriminalization?

    --
    ...and it should be known by now
    1. Re:Medical Marijuana by Hatta · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Lets get serious here. Do you support the right of an adult to use marijuana for recreation? If yes, what are you going to do to support that right? If not, do you support the right of an adult to use alcohol for recreation?

      If you answered yes to the first, and no to the second, how do you reconcile those answers? Be sure to note the fact that marijuana is less toxic, less addictive, less likely to cause violence, and less harmful in every other way than alcohol.

      If you answered no to both questions, thanks for your time anyway.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  19. Iraq Pullout by geekoid · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While I was among the many Americans that didn't want the military to engage in Iraq, not we are there.

    You want to pull out of Iraq within 6 months.
    How to you propose to do that? What efforts are you going to put into rebuilding.
    Just leaving would be a horrible mistake that would cause even more strife to the Iraqis.

    Wouldn't it be better to ahve a rebuild plan that is shared with the rest of the world? remove more of out troops as specific goals are met?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  20. Because of the owls by iknownuttin · · Score: 2, Insightful
    How willing are you to NOT "bring home the bacon" and possibly sacrifice local needs and wants rather than further inflate the budget? Are you for attempting to actually CUT the budget instead of cutting the rate of increase?

    In Oregon?!? There's a bunch of folks who've lost their jobs because of Washington, as far as they're concerned (environmental lobbyists to be exact) and they want their due. In other words, start carving up that pork because the rest of the country owes them for keeping the owls happy!

    --
    I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
  21. Flat Tax, Fair Tax by penguin_dance · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Where do you stand on having a Flat Tax? What about the Fair (or Consumption) Tax? And why.

    --
    If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
  22. Have you considered hook alternatives? by jollyreaper · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hooks are so 17th century. Which of the following would you consider adopting if you win your election?

    1. Fighting claws as seen in Enter the Dragon
    2. Hydraulically actuated pincer
    3. Chainsaw
    4. Rocket fist

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  23. Senatorial candidates with national ambition? by rjamestaylor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Mr. Novick, your YouTube presence has attracted a lot of attention -- even mine. I find your ads pithy, sharp, witty.

    When Senator Hillary Clinton ran for the open Senate seat in New York everyone knew it was but a springboard to the US President campaign trail. When Senator Obama left the State Senate for the US Senate, many people dreamed -- and more, probably, feared -- it was but a springboard for the top national office.

    What is your opinion on candidates who use a limited election to project a national campaign? Who, while denying the charge, are seen as using an office for personal gain rather than determinedly seeking to serve in the very office they fight to obtain?

    Lastly...what makes your beyond-the-borders campaign different than those (named and not named) others whose State-representing Senatorial campaign have reached national (and international) attention?

    --
    -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
  24. Not like other politicians? by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In your television ads, you state that you are not like other politicians. How do your political actions differ from those normally held by politicians: namely, increasing budget sizes - whether for the war, healthcare, public schools, or other state-run programs - through taxation or deficit spending; and advancing laws violating human rights - whether through increased regulation of the economy, privacy violations, taxation, etc.

    Also, how do your political motivations differ from those that have become the norm in politics? Politicians, acting as the "supply", have increasingly manipulated the economy to service the demand of corrupt companies offering to fund their campaigns - such as by contrived monopolies or selective tax breaks. How do your influences differ from the standard fare?

    1. Re:Not like other politicians? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2, Insightful

      advancing laws violating human rights - whether through increased regulation of the economy, privacy violations, taxation, etc.

      Come on. You may oppose taxes or want a lazzie-faire system, but to put those concerns as the same level as human rights is pretty insulting.

      There are valid disagreements about the optimum role of taxation and government regulation (there cannot be none of either, even at the minimal contractual enforcement level of uber-libertarians). Whereas, I would say that human rights are things that are pretty universally agreed upon within the western world.

      namely, increasing budget sizes - whether for the war, healthcare, public schools, or other state-run programs

      I actually care a lot about which of these he wants to spend money on.

      through taxation or deficit spending

      Again, a distinction that I care about greatly.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:Not like other politicians? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Can you be more specific about what benefits you are referring to, and how the government is able to provide these benefits while private organizations are not?

      Heres a short list of things. Tell me where you think free enterprise can hold a candle. I'll even leave out the standard police/army examples.

      1. Fire departments
      2. Road construction
      3. Park maintence
      4. Libraries
      5. FDIC
      6. Rural electification
      7. Unemployment insurance
      8. Flood insurance
      9. Food and drug safety testing
      10. Welfare
      11. Social security
      12. Farm price supports
      13. Witness protection
      14. EPA
      15. Net Neutrality (coming soon?)
      16. Postal Service

      In all those cases there is a natural monopoly, a trajedy of the commons, an issue of ensuring fairness, or just the small size of private organizations.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  25. Water infrastructure? by bbasgen · · Score: 2, Insightful


      Infrastructure is failing in various parts of our civil society, while we also have droughts throughout the country that will continue to persist if not worsen. Oregon experiences its share of both of these important issues.

      I'm curious if you have considered a national water infrastructure? It would certainly be difficult, expensive, and time consuming. Is long term planning no longer viable in our modern political climate? Like so many other issues such as national debt, corporate greed, and the environment: is short-term expediency too powerful a force to overcome? Is it even conceivable in the modern political landscape for audacious projects to occur, such as the interstate system for water?

  26. Will you uphold the Law? by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Dear Mr. Novick:

    The Forest Grove School District is currently attempting to intercept conversations between students on it's school buses, in flagrant violation of ORS 165.540(1)(c) and Federal Statute 2511(1)(b). What will you do make sure all governmental entities comply with existing law?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  27. Interesting turn by greenies on Nuke power by spineboy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Many Greepeace activists are now in FAVOR of nuclear power - because it's less polluting than coal or oil. Doesn't screw up the environment like giant hydro-electric dams either.

    As far as what to do with the nuke waste - we do have a state called Nevada It's almost the size of California, but with only 2.6 million residents, with 85% of them living in Reno or Vegas. It's dry, so little worry about run off. I've driven thru it many times - there really isn't much out there at all, so even a 100 square miles is easily spared. Heck - Nevada could even make money off it, by charging for it.
    Am I "dumping" on Nevada? No...Every state has some resource that other states don't. Some have prairies/plains that are good for crops, some have coasts good for fishing. Nevada has wide open desolate space, and that's a resource for holding/containing things.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
  28. Drugs. by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 2

    would you support legalization of any/all drugs?
    If not how can you justify the 'war on drugs', and do you believe that people should be protected from their own stupidity by laws instead of information?
    If you will which drugs? and how would you defend yourself against the claims that this would create more drug addicts?

    --
    IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
  29. Health care by the+computer+guy+nex · · Score: 2, Interesting

    . I will be an outspoken fighter in the Senate for comprehensive national health reform. I want to make sure everyone has affordable health care, and that means doing the hard work of addressing the complex web of factors that drives up costs.

    Many democrats now support socialized health care as reform. Would you vote for or against Senator Clinton's national health care bill?
  30. As an Oregon voter, let me amplify that: by Penguinisto · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Okay Mr. Novick, I have a specific instance for you as an example:

    About 20 years back, Josephine County (Grants Pass, et al) got a massive infusion of cash in repayment for gov't-enforced restricted logging rights in their area. During this period of time, IIRC they spent it like drunken Sailors on Leave (e.g., they pretty much poured it into programs which has nothing to do with stimulating industries that didn't involve cutting down trees).

    The payments timed out last year, and now the county government is in full-on panic mode. They simply have no cash available to keep feeding all the expansions they poured the dough into all this time, and are even in a crunch as to funding basic services. Some towns in the Northern end of the county are even considering changing their incorporation so that they become members of the county to their north.

    So... if (okay, when) they come screaming to you for a return of federal funding to help dig them out of their (IMHO self-created) multi-hundred-million-dollar mess, what will you do? Tough Love, Open the floodgates, what? (and if there is any money going that way, please stipulate some sort of money-management controls for the idiots running the show down that way...?)

    /P (who lives in Portland, but have relatives living down that way)

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  31. Re:What Committees Interest You? by SteveNovick · · Score: 2, Informative

    I will take every opportunity to make environmental issues a focus of my service in the Senate. Whenever anyone asks which committees I want to serve on, I list the Environment and Public Works Committee, and explain that I would list the Energy and Natural Resources Committee if Oregon Senator Ron Wyden's presence there did not make such an appointment extremely unlikely. I hope that given my background at the Justice Department and my decade of service on the Oregon Environmental Council Board, Senate leaders will grant my request to serve on EPW.

  32. Re:Will the real Steve Novick please stand up? by SteveNovick · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes, this is the real Steve Novick. Thanks for the feedback--I was starting to feel like I was drinking from a firehose anyway. We're back in contact with the moderator and he is going to run things properly from here on out.

  33. Re:Will the real Steve Novick please stand up? by penguin_dance · · Score: 2, Funny

    Thanks for the feedback--I was starting to feel like I was drinking from a firehose anyway.

    Funny...we have one of those here too! :)

    --
    If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
  34. Bringing high-tech employers to non-Portland areas by Kymermosst · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Mr. Novick,

    First, I work for a large software company that has a significant operation some distance away from Portland. But, they are one of the only high-tech companies in the area. With the thinly veiled threat of outsourcing and off shoring, what are you going to do to bring more high-tech jobs to areas in the state that are not the Portland metro area? The economic benefits of bringing highly-skilled and highly-paid workers to the rest of Oregon should be obvious.

    Second, did you know that on the eastern side of the Cascades there is actually more of Oregon besides ski resorts and their associated towns? It always seems that people (and politicians) who live in the western portion of the state think that Idaho begins just on the eastern side of Bend and Sunriver - I was wondering if you knew about the rest of it, unlike the governor and most of the other state Democrats.

    Finally, can you do something about all of the Californians moving here? :)

    --
    "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.