McCain Answers Science Policy Questionnaire

thebestsophist writes "A couple weeks ago, I reported that Barack Obama had answered a questionnaire by Scientists and Engineers for America. McCain has now answered that questionnaire as well. You can also compare their answers. Perhaps with help from the Slashdot community, we can get all the Congressional candidates as well?"

Comments

Innovation

[Ethanol-fueled]

In the "innovation" category, one of the first things McCain mentions is

"I am committed to streamlining burdensome regulations and effectively protecting American intellectual property in the United States and around the globe."

I'll leave it up to the rest of you to flame McCain for that! I believe that it is also worth mentioning that Obama didn't bring up "regulation" or "protecting intellectual property" at all, especially not in the first paragraph as McCain did.

Re:Innovation

[morgan_greywolf]

Not surprised. McCain's made no secret of his desire to have Steve Ballmer in his cabinet. Ballmer himself probably put those words right in McCain's mouth

Re:Innovation

[gfxguy]

It was also democrats who proposed and extended copyright terms and signed the DMCA into law.

There's no party that is inculpable here.

Re:Innovation

[torstenvl]

Erm. The DMCA came to being under a Republican Senate and Republican House, and introduced by Republican Rep. Howard Coble. The only major part the Dems played was Clinton signing it into law, and his State Dep't helping to negotiate the treaties it's related to.

Re:Innovation

[FishWithAHammer]

Yes, and that's what he said. The "and" connects two separate clauses here.

It was also [D]emocrats who proposed and extended copyright terms

and

signed the DMCA into law.

His point remains correct.

Re:Innovation

[pieterh]

This rationale was proposed, and discredited, over 150 years ago. Trade secrets are notoriously hard to keep, as the poster JesseMcDonald points out.

More ironically: any secret that could be kept, would never be patented in the first place. There would be no point. So patents do not promote disclosure of trade secret. They reward the documentation of ideas that could never be kept secret at all.

There are many rationales for patents, and they are without exception bogus, except the rationale of an incentive to deliver nicely written patent documents which promote the collection of knowledge. Given that Wikipedia does this today, and that the granting of monopoly over the recorded ideas is insane in any high technology sector... high tech patents have lose their only plausible economic basis, and now exist purely on the basis of belief, inertia, and the power of special interests exercised via slave courts.

Yay! McCain's position on patents basically shows him as a protectionist 1800-era politician who won't bat an eyelid while raising barriers to trade, tariffs, and taxes.

Re:Innovation

[jedidiah]

Your comments are disengenuous at best.

At MOST the president can only rubber stamp what the congress has done.

In this situation, it still takes the active particpation of a lot more
Republicans to get something to a Democrats desk.

It takes a lot of Republicans willing to sign onto the idea even if they
never originated it.

Re:Innovation

[Yeff]

" What would have made a difference would have been pressure on the issue prior to the bill's signing, but Clinton was too busy defending his sex life from charges that ultimately didn't stick." Clinton was impeached, disbarred for five years in Arkansas, and disbarred from practicing in front of the US Supreme Court. Though he wasn't removed from office the charges did stick.

Re:Innovation

[Snocone]

That should tell you right away how much commitment there is to protecting intellectual property.

Yes, it should -- 100% complete commitment.

In all three of the cases you mention, an appropriate ASCAP performance license was obtained by the campaign.

There is no other legal requirement to perform a song, and there is no form of veto by the recording artist. The bluster in your links is just blowhard preening, there is no legal foundation for it whatsoever.

Re:Innovation

[Snocone]

All the more reason to get out and vote for Obama. Let's see how far the GOP is willing to go to retain power.
Voter caging and outright fraud might win them a state or two, but I really don't think they'll be able to turn back a landslide.

What "landslide" is this you speak of? The one that's currently in negative territory, making it an antilandslide?

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

I'm not really seeing where fraud is needed when the opinion polls have the results 270-268 in McCain's favour...

Re:Innovation

[Notquitecajun]

Oil drilling and extraction and production. Pharma research (take out profit motive for THAT and watch more garbage happen). Defense R&D (to a point). Growing food. Making stuff.

Re:Innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

As a bit of explanation, he probably called you a racist because Barr is a notorious bigot. Likewise, many Libertarian Party members are white supremacists using their party line as an excuse for their politics (note how many of them are in favor of repealing the Civil Rights acts, as well as Ron Paul's opposition to the 14th Amendment). Maybe the problem isn't that you weren't voting for Obama, but that you're voting against that guy's human rights?

Re:Innovation

[vux984]

Oil drilling and extraction and production. Pharma research (take out profit motive for THAT and watch more garbage happen). Defense R&D (to a point). Growing food. Making stuff.

Oil drilling, extraction, and production, growng food, and making stuff aren't R&D.

Pharma research takes anything promising from publicly funded basic research and runs the last mile to a commericial product. (I'm not saying that last mile is 'cheap', but its not more expensive than the basic research they are building on.)

And defense R&D by corporations is almost directly funded by the public.

My point was that the public is on top. The public "can afford" research that even corporations can't. Its true that corporations can afford research that small businesses and individual can't.

Re:Innovation

[Crazyswedishguy]

Except that if I remember correctly, that investment was made by the American people via tax dollars. That's kind of important to remember.

That just isn't correct. For the ancient copper networks laid in the time of the Bell Telephone Company, you are right this was government funded and the RBOCs still own the rights of way. But that's not where most of today's communication goes.

Modern networks - and I believe practically all cable networks - were funded by the cable companies themselves, which is in part why it took so long to build out cable in many areas. For instance, Baltimore didn't get cable until the 90s, whereas more affluent suburbs had cable in the 80s.

Fiber networks (metro and longhaul) have also been funded by the companies laying them out, and not by taxpayer money. For instance, all of Verizon's FiOS investments are funded by Verizon, without government funding.
The only exception to this are RLECs, which have been funded in part with USF (Universal Service Fund) funds, through which non-rural customers pay a USF fee to subsidize the rural customers. It's not tax money, but it's money that all of us pay and it goes to the RLECs. USF-funded fiber builds are a minuscule portion of the fiber builds, and metro fiber and longhaul fiber make up virtually all of the fiber - neither of which are paid for by taxpayer money.

This being said, it would be incorrect to say that the government does not play a role. The government gives "rights of way" to these companies (similar to railroad companies - is it surprising that Sprint was born out of the Southern Pacific Railroad?), which in effect makes it much cheaper for these companies to deploy their networks (otherwise they would have to buy lots of real estate!).
So yes, the government has a hand in this, but no, you didn't pay for cable or fiber networks.

Google cache link

[Cyberax]

Since site appears to be slashdotted, here's a Google Cache link:

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:MqO2cs2K3EUJ:sharp.sefora.org/people/presidential-candidates/john-mccain-presidential-candidate/+http://sharp.sefora.org/people/presidential-candidates/john-mccain-presidential-candidate/&hl=ru&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ua&client=firefox-a

Re:I hate these; they are SOOO rigged

[djh101010]

All of these kind of things are answered to encourage whatever somebody wants to believe. (BIG SNIP) (reagan ran up monster deficit in CA, and then got out of trouble because JFK started NASA).

JFK started NASA? Really? I find that somewhat surprising given the dates involved.

Re:The best answer to the science questionnaire

[ccandreva]

They didn't use pencil because broken leads would be a big problem in zero G.

Re:How the heck???

[XLR8DST8]

part of why he depends on his wife for help is his lack of manual dexterity due to torture experienced in vietnam.

Horizon

[BigBadBus]

The BBC science show Horizon is running a show tomorrow night in the UK about what the Presidential candidates think of science and what their policies are. Doesn't bode well since I found out that Palin is a creationist.

McCain and computers

[mi]

McCain must have had some help with this, we all know he doesn't use computers, doesn't know how to use e-mail and admittedly depends upon his wife for that.

Clinton, reportedly, has personally authored a total of two (that's 2, not 2000) e-mails in eight years in office. Certainly, McCain's wife could help her husband do as many — or more, as she wouldn't be distracted by neither her own senatorial and presidential ambitions nor by having to chase out the pretty interns.

As for McCain's being reluctant to type, maybe, the fact, that his arms were repeatedly broken by his Vietnamese torturers, has something to do with that? The man can't raise his hands above his shoulders — must you blast him for depending upon his wife to comb his hair?

Talk about out of touch with the 21st Century.

Gee, if this were required qualifications for an executive office, certainly, the blind Governor of New York should be disqualified, because he can't drive and is thus "out of touch" with New York's horrific traffic congestion problems.

When repeating Obama's ads on other forums, check the expiration date — they get stale very quickly.

Re:Old Skool Science Mavericks

[Yvanhoe]

Wasn't there a veto thing also ?

Science Debate 2008

[MN Science]

A point of clarification: McCain and Obama submitted answers to ScienceDebate2008's 14 questions directly to Science Debate staff. We have a great relationship with SEforA, have benefited from it greatly and want to thank them for putting out the word on this. If the SEforA site is still down you can also view the answers to the questions at ScienceDebate2008.com as well as learn about who has been involved in the effort to bring McCain and Obama to the science table and answering these important questions. ~Erik Science Debate 2008 MN State Director

Re:Old Skool Science Mavericks

[Martin Blank]

Bush hasn't even been present for most of his catastrophic reign

In case this is a reference to his vacations in Crawford, Kennebunkport, and Camp David, it's important to know that no president ever gets a true vacation. Even IT geeks chained at the neck by their Blackberries can find some spot with no signal somewhere away from the cities for a weekend. The president cannot do this. The ranch almost certainly has a room with communications gear, there's a helicopter available to whisk him to the airport, he holds daily meetings with his staff, and he continues in his role as president, even if it means that he meets with fewer guests.

This applies to everyone. Clinton, the elder Bush, and Reagan took vacations, too -- and all of them were surrounded by Secret Service, military personnel, and communications to keep them in touch with the rest of the government. It will apply to the next president, whoever it may be, and for all presidents for the foreseeable future. Being president doesn't just mean always being in the spotlight. It also means never getting a break from the pressure for the entire duration of the office.

Re:Old Skool Science Mavericks

[CaptPungent]

The Democrats only have one half of Congress, everything they try to pass in the House gets destroyed by the deadlocked Senate, where the Democrats do not hold an overwhelming majority. After that, they have to try to get past a President that is among the most stubborn ever. Besides this, they've only held it for 2 years now, and have had to try to clean up the mess from the previous 8 years of a fully Republican controlled Congress.

Did you fail Civics class in high school, or did you just forget how our government works?

Re:How the heck???

[mhandley02]

He does use email. He cannot type because of the pain, so his wife does that part for him..

Boston Globe (2000)

http://graphics.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/McCain_character_loyal_to_a_fault+.shtml

"McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes.

Forbes (2000)

http://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/0529/053_print.html

'In certain ways, McCain was a natural Web candidate. Chairman of the Senate Telecommunications Subcommittee and regarded as the U.S. Senate's savviest technologist, McCain is an inveterate devotee of email. His nightly ritual is to read his email together with his wife, Cindy. The injuries he incurred as a Vietnam POW make it painful for McCain to type. Instead, he dictates responses that his wife types on a laptop. "She's a whiz on the keyboard, and I'm so laborious," McCain admits.'

I blame both major parties equally

[tepples]

The DMCA was SIGNED into law by Bill Clinton.

Both houses of the U.S. Congress passed the DMCA and the Bono Act by voice vote. Article I of the U.S. Constitution, which gives the procedure for a bill to become a law, requires 81 percent support to make a voice vote[1] but only 67 percent to override a presidential veto.[2] So had President Clinton vetoed either bill, the Congress would have easily overridden the veto. So I blame both major parties equally.

[1] From section 5: "the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal."

[2] From section 7: "if [the President does not approve] he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law."

Poor geography!

[feranick]

You can't see Russia from Wasilla or Anchorage or Juneau. It's like saying you can see Indiana or Ohio from New York City. The only place in Alaska where you can actually see a small (very small!) chunk of Russia is from the Bering strait (~50 km). Claiming you can see the actual Russia from anywhere in Alaska is a plain lie and shows how little these folks know about geography. Besides, It's not that you see the real Russia from Alaska anyway. As many Russian commentators said, that part is a chunk of ice. The place in Russia where the power, the economy sits is in a different timezone. But I am sure Alaskans know that.

Re:Choices, choices

[mcgrew]

Isn't it great that we have so many choices for leadership?

Actually, we do. Unfortunately the corporate owned media backs the two corporate owned candidates and refuses to cover any of the other three candidates who are on enough ballots to win. They say a vote for any of the other three is wasted, well, since McCain is a shoe-in, a vote for Obama is wasted too.

Kind of silly in that light, isn't it? Unfortunately, the other three are as bad as McCain and Obama.

You can vote for the Reverend Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate who thinks (incorrectly) that America is a Christian nation. It isn't and was never designed to be. It is a secular nation whose inhabitants mostly pretend to be Christian while actually worshiping the almighty dollar. I'm a Christian but no way could I vote for him. Real Christians respect the religious beliefs of non-Christians, even of athiests. Baldwin would disenfranchise atheists, agnostics, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Bhuddists, Wiccans, and everyone else.

Or you can vote for Cynthia McKinney, the Green Party candidate. If you're white, she has the advantage of your being able to say "I voted for the black candidate". Unfortunately, IMO she's a dangerous nut.

Or you can vote for Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate. His minuses are that he's really a Republican, and the Libertarians are pro-corporate. However, I'm voting for him because a vote for someone who wants to put me in prison for smoking pot and hiring hookers is WORSE than a wasted vote. I'd have to be out of my mind to vote for Republicans and Democrats.

I don't think I need to link wiki entries on the two Corporate Republicrat candidates. The media blabber about them both constantly.

There are dozens more candidates, but the three I mentioned are the only ones with a mathematical possibility of actually winning (even though it would take the Heart Of Gold's infinite improbability field to get them elected).

Not just McCain - whacko Palin too

[SpinyNorman]

It's sad the the media isn't focusing more on Palin's extremist views (& piss-poor record), since of the two she's the one much more to be scared of, not just because McCain is old enough for possible succession to be an issue, but also because he's already reversed himself to agree with her on a number of issues (off-shore drilling, etc), so her views apparently trump his.

As far as Palin and science/etc:

- She's a creationist, and advocates teaching it in schools

- Up until two years ago (when she became govenor) she was a Pentacostalist for 20+ years, and still has contact with the church. Does she speak in tongues and handle snakes? Who knows, but she's apparently comfortable hanging out with people who do.

- She is totally against abortion under ANY circumstances (science would at least distinguish between prior/after the development of the nervous system, brain, etc), incuding in cases of rape and incest (science tells us that incest is likly to result in genetic abnormalities).

- She is against sex education and believes teaching abstinace as an alterntive(!). Not coincidently her teenage daugter is pregnant by some dimwit who's myspace page is full of "F" bombs and states he doesn't want kids

- While mayor of bumfuck, Alaska (pop. 5000), her only experience prior to becoming govenor two years ago, she fired the local librarian for refusing to remove books that Palin found offensive. Later, after protests, she was forced to reinstate her. As a self-professed "hockey mom" she also ignored requests to improve the town library and instead built a multi-million dollar pro-sized hockey rink. Not very science friendly to be anti-education/library.

- Her record in Alaska has been that she fires those who disagree with her, and instead surrounds herself with "yes" men. Doesn't want anyone near her more experienced who'll show her up.

- etc, etc

Oh, and despite her breezy "yeah! fer sure!" recent interview answer to the question of whether she would be qualified to be president and commander in chief in the event that happened, she herself is on record as noting that her prior job as mayor was so simple ("only $6M and 5000 people") that it didn't even need any experience (convenient as she didn't have any).

I wish the Dems had a stronger ticket, but at least it's not downright scary as hell like McCain/Palin. The last thing the USA needs is another 4 or 8 years of being run by people who make decisions based on whacky religious/gut beliefs rather that facts.

Re:Bush saved the economy

[Breakfast Pants]

How much you tax doesn't really matter in the long run--it is how much you spend. You will eventually have to either tax or inflate to pay for what you spend, and Bush spent way more than Clinton. AND it was spent mostly on destroying things rather than working towards any progress.