Slashdot Mirror
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?"
Come on, are we to believe that the candidates actually wrote their own replies to these questions? I wonder how many people came up with the answers.
Palin is a Creationist. McCain is a fossil.
Of course they'll talk a good science game (after farming that questionnaire out to one of the lobbyist lawfirms that make up their campaign) when the geeks ask during a campaign. Then these "Compassionate Conservatives" will just show they were lying once they're past the Election Day "accountability moment", and get the power to drag us all back to the Stone Age.
--
make install -not war
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.
Um, yeah, but let's face it... Republicans aren't the type that exactly cares whether or not someone rips off a Madonna or a Kanye West song... if the whole media business went under because it was obsolete, don't you think Republicans would benefit more? Democrats -must- have a profitable media...but with Republicans well, its not like there's bootleg Rush Limbaugh shows out there.
This is my sig.
| is a one line answer: "Get the Federal
| government out of all science research,
| funding, grants and accreditation of
| science schools."
Ya. Because the private sector is so amazing
at funding science research, fostering
collaboration and sharing. They are especailly
good in pure research, where the time-line to
payoff is 10, 20, or 100 years!
I know that "intellectual property" is a dirty word. But patents are useful in fields outside the computer industry (you know, fields where things actually get done or built). Now please continue with your "oh noes, but what about my pirated downloads?"
That would NOT be a good idea. The reason is simple, businesses almost NEVER do pure research. Its hard to turn the results directly into money, and (rightfully) that is all a business is there for. Taxpayer funded programs do the pure research, then businesses take the result and do the research needed to turn that into a product. Take the Fed out of research and a lot of innovation will come to a grinding halt.
All of these kind of things are answered to encourage whatever somebody wants to believe. In the end, I think that we are far better off looking at the candidates voting record AND life. Look at W. He has bankrupted multiple companies; he mismanaged and lied on a number of items PRIOR to running as pres. Clinton, well known womanizer PRIOR to president. reagan, nixon, etc all had their issues before they got president (reagan ran up monster deficit in CA, and then got out of trouble because JFK started NASA).
What it comes down to, is these ppl already have their behavior in place. Just look at how they acted over the last 5 years and it will give you a better idea of what to expect.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The only way something like this makes sense is if a candidate has to respond on the record in real time. Otherwise, they just farm it out to an underling, who will provide a nice, safe, reasonably accurate series of answers.
I want to know if the candidate himself could pass a grade school science exam before he gets to make calls on science policy. Even somebody who gets spoon-fed their information has to have enough basic awareness of the subject to know when he's hearing a line of crap from his advisers.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Yeah... because we never got any benefit out of wasteful government programs like the search for a polio vaccine, or the integrated circuit for NASA, or the Internet.
does not at all have what McCain feels about science. It's just alot of "according to" or "on this date" or "this Reporter reported" There's absolutely nothing saying where he personally stands.
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
is a one line answer: "Get the Federal government out of all science research, funding, grants and accreditation of science schools."
No, WAY!!! Where would we be without a pen that can write upside down and underwater??
Seriously though, do you really want the only scientific research to be going on sponsored by whatever makes profit? The government is clearly not the most efficient (that's why the astronauts didn't use a pencil, right? Don't answer that.) but at least it adds a counterbalance and alternative source of funding for research. Who else would support social science research?
Qxe4
It'll make a lot more sense when you realize that we only have one party, and both wings of the Commercial party are pretty much the same when it comes to issues like NAFTA and DMCA and copyright.
I don't believe Obama is "in", so I'm fairly sure he'll be neutralized. It will either be strange voting machine results or something worse...
Seriously the standard of "hotness" is phenomenally low in US politics. We are talking here about someone who came 2nd in Miss Alaska (population 600,000) in a state where less than 50% of the people are female and isn't exactly known as the place where attractive people flock to. Hell this makes her less attractive than the 2nd most attractive person in DETROIT (population over 800k).
Never before has a media image of what you should think been so quickly accepted by people. Palin isn't hot, she isn't an ugly bird but she isn't a stunner. Lets concentrate on her madly insane political views (abstinence teaching working for you kids Mrs Palin?) and not listen to the media's view of attractive. Put it this way, do you think that Fox News would have her as an anchor? Of course not, a we know that hot is their only real criteria.
Hot in Alaska? Let put politics first.
On the other hand look at FRENCH politics if you want seriously hot politicians with incredibly well educated views.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
This is Slashdot where almost everyone wants one of those nice R&D jobs. But yet they are against the ways of funding them. If you are going to spend 10 years of R&D and millions of dollars, more to fund the R&D that doesn't work, or product a commercial use. Then have competition use that Idea and make a competing product the next month, and able to product it cheaper because they didn't spend the millions for R&D themselves.
So what will the smart business man do. There isn't any money in R&D and more in blatant copying. So those nice R&D Jobs get reduced or killed. Leaving you to either take a boring job, or going back to the Education Sector and have 3/4 of your job begging for money, and 1/4 actually do real R&D.
When analyzing these laws you need to remember rule #1, IT IS AN IMPERFECT WORLD AND THERE WILL NEVER BE A PERFECT WORLD. IP Law yes protects those big heartless corporations, but without them you may not have a job. A heartless companies are not in it for the good of man kind, but to make money, if you can do both great if they conflict then the good of man kind will get shafted. IP Protection helps isolate the risks of R&D costs, and makes it possible for Greed and Humanity to work together for a common output.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Or anything that might have political ramifications as well. Does anyone in your research organization use stem cells that aren't from the the "right" source? No funds for you. Did your weather satellite see increased temperatures? Don't mention it in any of your papers, or you're fired.
Publicly-funded science is politicized science.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I want to know if the candidate himself could pass a grade school science exam before he gets to make calls on science policy.
It would be nice if our leaders were superhuman and were experts on every facet of policy, but the reality is that no one can be an expert on everything. The point of politicians is *not* for them to personally write laws. You want them be to able to surround themselves with the right experts who will do the dirty work of creating policy.
So, particularly in this case, having an underling write the policy is probably closer to the reality of what you'll get than if the candidate was giving some off-the-cuff answers on what they don't understand to any level of depth.
Or to put it another way, do you also insist your candidates to be expert artists so they can evaluate the NEA? Or experts in education so they can *personally* get involved in writing standards? I could go on and on.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
No one believes politicians. Why should anyone believe them? From the city councillor to the President of the Benighted States, there is no punishment for incompetence or lying. If you bribe the right people, there's no punishment for crime, either. A pretty good game to play if you have cash and connections. Make billions for your circle, even if you kill millions of people in a far-away land where they don't even play baseball.
Political parties are organisms that thrive on cajolery and deception. They pick "leaders" but these leaders are really just pushed to the fore to take the spotlight away from the cunning monkeys behind the curtains writing the speeches and glad-handing the lobbyists. These leaders aren't really meant to change anything profound.
Civil servants also do their best to survive. Sometimes politicians and civil servants cooperate. Most of the time, it's a null hypothesis. Sometimes, you get a highly-motivated evil cretin in power and other evil cretins join in the convulsions. Then you have efficiency at the expense of freedom, justice, and maybe even life itself.
Listen to people everywhere speaking today. This is the age of Peter Pan. Everyone's a child, wanting other people to do the work and make the sacrifices and unwilling to grow up. Give me my ear-pod and home theatre with a screen full of high-definition retardation and don't ask me to learn about the world. Then I can spend all my time talking with my idiotic friends about about which plastic Hollywood dolls we would fuck if we had the opportunity... when we win the lottery.
And when we tire of that desperate chain of infantile hope and outright stupidity, we post on Slashdot. (o:
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
then there's Biden who has made it quite clear he's alright with being lead around by lobbyists...
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Uhm, with all due respect, what planet are you f-ing from?!
Both the recently deceased Jack Valenti and the current MPAA chairman Dan Glickman are loyal Democrats.
This is the point, where an honest man in your shoes either commits suicide or promises to vote for a Republican as a penance...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
And Obama will not do whatever the industry tells him to do nor set his policy according to industry lobbyists?
Like standing up against the industry and refusing to vote for telecom immunity?
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
publicly-funded science is politicized science.
and research funded by companies is little better.
Would you trust a study funded by the tobacco industry which showed cigarettes to be harmless? Or a study funded by microsoft which showed FOSS to be full of bugs, viruses and child porn.
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.
Which is what the OP said: "It was also democrats who proposed and extended copyright terms and signed the DMCA into law. There's no party that is inculpable here."
Copyright was EXTENDED in 1978(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law#Duration_of_copyright) when Jimmy Carter was President and Congress was controlled by Democrats. The DMCA was SIGNED into law by Bill Clinton.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Technically true, but disingenuous.
That's right, make fun of a war hero that sustained permanent injuries while serving his country. A simple Google check would have shown why it is extremely difficult for him to use a keyboard. You would think that Barry knows how to use Google and would have known this before releasing his attack ad. Or maybe he does, and likes to attack cripples, like he attacks women and bitter people that cling to guns and religion.
Do you seriously think that a Naval Officer TRAINED TO FLY FIGHTER JETS and TAKEOFF/LAND ON AIRCRAFT CARRIERS doesn't have the mental capacity to use Google Mail?!!!
I'm wondering about the mental capacity of some of these Slashdot posters.
"the only major part the Dems played was Clinton signing it into law"
You make it sound as if the Dems had nothing to do with it's passing. The President is one third of the government. If he hadn't fully supported it, shown by the fact that he actually signed the bill, it would not be law. Don't blame it singularly on Reps when both parties screwed us!
We The People need to take responsibility for getting things done, instead of deferring every concern to government.
"Private sector" does not necessarily have to be a synonym for "profit-oriented business." Imagine if the same portion of your paycheck's federal withholding that is being spent by the feds on science, were instead voluntarily contributed, by you, to a foundation of your choosing. Imagine choosing foundations based on the directors' expertise in science and grant proposal selection, instead of choosing senators and reps and presidents based on a such huge array of factors.
There is no reason we should have to use the same small group to make every decision. When you put politicians in charge of this stuff, you get situations where, say, a certain party's position on global warming, embryonic stems cells, etc. matters. Their opinions on these things shouldn't matter. We send them to Washington to set policies based on the topics mentioned in Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution, not to vote on whether or not to believe scientists. Think about how absurd it is for them to voting on science.
We could be voting with our wallets instead. We don't need a republic for this. The possible tyrannies of democracy aren't a threat here; one person's decision to fund research doesn't take anything away from you, in the way that passing laws or pointing guns can.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Sex Education In a 2007 interview, Senator McCain said that sex education in the United States should follow President Bush's policy of abstinence-only education. HIV/AIDS McCain participated in ONE campaign's On The Record project. See Youtube (below). In a statement released by his campaign on Global Aids Day (December 1, 2007), McCain supported maintaining the United States commitment to fighting AIDS, writing: "It's critical that we face this crisis head-on, which is why I have consistently supported the most aggressive global AIDS program in the history of this pandemic, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Afflicted nations with whom we partner to fight this disease must also know that we expect a level of governance, transparency and effectiveness from them in order to make the fullest use of AIDS assistance so we can make the greatest impact on people's lives. Our commitment must be sustained, and our nation must always be faithful to those at home and abroad as they cope with the ravages of HIV/AIDS."[3]
Wouldn't fighting AIDS be easier if people where at least aware that Condoms can be used to prevent the spread of STDs like AIDS? Isn't prevention much less expensive than treatment? Wouldn't any real effort to fight AIDS include more than "abstinence only" education? This is absurd. How could anyone take such a candidate seriously?
Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
Troll? I think not. This is a major problem here at /.
Post anything that the majority of people disagree with (correct or not) and you will end up with bad karma.
So, in mccain's view, Comcast has "control" of the pipe, and can do as they see fit. Don't forget that.
Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
That's what's now being called "lies" by the desperate one of the presidential campaigns :-)
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Quick government lesson:
Laws can be passed even if the president vetos or refuses to sign a proposed law. It can go back to congress and get a 2/3rds majority to override the president. So even if the president didn't play ball, it would have likely passed anyway. but by playing ball, the president probably got something in which he was interested in the bargain. That happens a lot.
It always feels like the issue here is that everyone wants to take sides and polarize the issue to the point that arguing about it is absurd.
How about looking at some of the gray levels here, because there are plenty of them.
IP was originally useful when data transferral was significantly slower, when the industries involved did not evolve beyond recognition in 5 years, and when the people granting patents and the like were somewhat knowledgeable of their field.
The usual statement is that IP law is to protect the people who paid for the research to allow them to recover what went into it. This is STILL APPLICABLE. I completely agree with the parent in this regard. The problem people have with patent law is that it no longer seems applicable. A patent lasts for too long for the amount of innovation involved in the tech industry.
Three words:
One Click Patent
Because the balance is off in the tech sector, the benefits are being trumped. Patent law should exist. It needs to adapt to changing times. It isn't, so people who don't reap the benefits of it want to see it go away.
Thoughts?
I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
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.
If what you say is true, that "we only have one party" (and I don't believe that), then we're fighting for which direction that party is going to take. And one thing I think everyone here can agree with, is that we definitely need to go in a different direction than we've been going in the last seven years. If you don't believe that, I suggest you go take a look at your last few statements from your 401k.
The Republican Party wants to privatize Social Security (along with every other function of government). There may still be some of you who think that the FDA, the FCC, the FDIC, the military, national security, FEMA, etc are better off with profit-driven entities in charge, and that destroying the ability of workers to bargain collectively will help our standard of living, but I think a picture is starting to emerge of where this "free market rules" thinking is taking us. And it's an ugly place.
Goddamit, we've got private contractors protecting our generals in war-zones. There are more contractors in Iraq right now than there are US military personnel. There is a private army in this country that's more than a half-million strong. If there should ever be an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, this private army is going to come home. How do you think they're going to feel about going to work as shopping mall security guards?
One of the two political parties in this country is absolutely hell-bent on the destruction of our government (by their own admission). This weekend we saw what happens when there is little or no regulation of the financial industry. We've seen what de-regulation has done to the airlines, banking, media ownership, etc.
We cannot let a man who has been so cozy with the corporate lobbyists become president again. We cannot let someone who says that he can't use a computer because of alleged physical handicaps become President (maybe he never heard of Stephen Hawking). We cannot let a man who has sold his soul to religious fanatics become President (he once said these same fanatics were "agents of intolerance", but I guess that's changed).
Most of all, I'm just tired of having to apologize to all my friends from overseas for having a dumb fuck in the White House. Being a top Constitutional scholar may not automatically make you Abraham Lincoln or Franklin Roosevelt, but it's a damn site better than what his opponents offer in the way of qualification.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I don't know. I was taught that Jesus hung out with poor and sick people, told us to love everybody, and warned about things like greed and deceit. McCain's version of Christianity seems more the corporate variety.
That is one way of interpreting it, but it could also mean that one should be able to earn some profit (i.e. provided that they are competent managers) but that profit is neither assured nor guaranteed. He did not say that he who controls the Pipe must have profit or is entitled to profit simply by virtue of ownership.
When you're the only game in town, profit is most assured.
My blog
Hey. Just a little heads up. I know you've probably been slurping down the palin talking points when she says things like "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" just cost the people too much to remain viable. Unfortunately both of you are completely wrong. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are Government Sponsorded Enterprises (GSE). This means that they were incorporated by an act of congress, but are PRIVATELY OWNED. That's right privately owned. THEY WERE NOT RUN BY THE GOVERNMENT. The deregulation (by republicans) of these two organizations allowed them to be run into the ground. Now the taxpayers are HAVING to pay for a bailout to slow the plummeting republican shitstorm that is our current economy.
I don't know where you get this whole federal money competes with and beats out private funding idea. Do you really think that federally funded research somehow precludes private research investment at universities? You obviously don't work in an academic setting. Both federal and private projects coincide together with no problem.
Great 25 charities fund $1.2 billion in private research. I think science (and subsequently business who can make money off freely published results) would appreciate and benefit from an additional $1.2 billion or so from the government. That $1.2bil can come from a slice of the money we are wasting in the optional war in Iraq that's distracting us from the real front on terror (Afghanistan) and real domestic issues.
--David
This quote is probably the most important
Never listen to a candidate speak. All politicans are liars. Like the politician in the movie The Hunt for Red October (which ironically had one of the Republican Presidential candidates before McCain sewed it up, former actor Senator Fred Thompson), "Son, I'm a politician. When I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their candy". (Thompson played a boat captain, not the politician, the line I quote was a different actor)
Rather, look at how they've voted. unfortunately, Obama's a first term Senator and hasn't cast enough votes to get a good picture of where he really stands.
It looks to me like McCain will be the next President. If so, since he's a Republican following a two term President who completely ruined the economy (like I said in great detail in a slashdot journal, Hoover for President!,
the next Herbert Hoover will also be a Republican.
The similarities I pointed out in that linked journal get scarier every day.
The losers in this Presidential race (we have five viable candidates, I'm voting for Barr) will be the real winners.
I sincerely hope I'm wrong. I fear I'm right.
Yesterday in a bar, a black man called me a racist because I'm voting for the Libertarian candidate instead of Obama. To a black racist, any white person who votes against Obama is, ironically, a racist. I wonder what he'd have said if I'd said "McKinney" rather than "Barr"? Since neither McKinney nor Barr will win, maybe I should vote for that nutjob McKinney so I can say I voted for "the black woman".
As I pointed out to the racially-obsessed gentleman, Illinois' electors will be voting for Obama no matter who I vote for. And considering that I believe the next President will be the 21st century Hoover, if Obama wins it will set black people back a generation.
Neither Republicrat candidate, in my opinion, will be good for us nerds. We're fuX0red, unfortunately.
Free Martian Whores!
I know I'm not alone on this and by offering up votes to a third party it's a way to show our disappointment in the current system.
Well, it's certainly an excellent way of helping to elect whichever of the 2 major party candidates you disagree with the most. Our plurality wins system may suck, but protesting it by letting its worst feature exploit you is just dumb.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
But here's the real question: do you think either candidate actually cares? Of course McCain is saying that; it appeals to his base. Obama's base, on the other hand, doesn't care, so why would he risk offending people by saying it?
Remember that the president has no direct presence in the law making process other than the veto, which is only very rarely used. The can, and do, set the mood of the government and push through things they care about. But if they don't give a damn, they just sign the paper. From what I've seen of these candidates and the others before them, they really just don't know or care about the issues that we discuss on a daily basis here at slashdot. I just can't believe that either one is going to do but just sign whatever bill hits their desk because things like health care and gas prices are the only things that the populous cares about.
(Linus 2012!)
The GP is asking for grade school, not graduate school. It's not a very high standard.
That's what the GP asked for, but it's not what the GP meant. There are no fundamental policy issues that can be understood with a "grade school" science education. The issues of our day are extremely complex, and actually one of the things that drives me crazy, particularly on Slashdot, is the arrogant oversimplification of issues.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
This quote is probably the most important...
So, in mccain's view, Comcast has "control" of the pipe, and can do as they see fit. Don't forget that.
I'm by no means a McCain supporter, but just because he says they should be able to make profit on their investment doesn't mean they can "do as they see fit."
In fact, I'm not sure what you meant by "do as they see fit". But I can tell you that if companies aren't allowed to make profit from investments in fiber, there aren't many companies that are going to see a point in making such investments. And then the only way we'll see any fiber build-outs is through the government, and I'm not sure that's the best thing.
Maybe you didn't provide enough of a quote, and what you said is true, but the way I read it here your quote does not imply your conclusion.
This space up for sale.
"top Constitutional scholar "
A what?
He is NO MORE a Constitutional scholar the W. Bush is. Obama is the man who voted for the new FISA Bill! That alone finished off our 4th amendment rights. And that BONEHEAD didn't know it? He supports the patriot act that was the first nail in the coffin of our 4th amendment rights. I know more about the constitution that he does! I WAS an Obama supporter until he decided it was ok to throw out our constituional rights - of which he SUPPOSEDLY knows so much about. He showed he DOESN'T!
The Truth is a Virus!!!
The point of my post was, if you read it, that anything which could be kept secret would not be patented. If Coke had patented their recipe, they'd have lost their monopoly after 20 years.
"Notoriously hard" does not mean "impossible". It's notoriously hard to put a man on the moon. That does not mean the moon landings were faked.
My blog
Thanks for putting this near the top
It flagged up that I should be wary about the level of sophistication of the rest of your argument. All politicians are liars is a great sound-bite, and it might be a fashionable sentiment, but there's no evidence that the statement is true. I'm not a politician, and I belong to know political party, but many of the local politicians I've dealt with spend a lot of time dealing with hard, tedious local matters and are in the business of helping the local community. They are not *liars* except to the extent that we all are.
>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.
Yeah. Democrats against voting fraud -- but for heaven's sake, don't require voters to show a picture id. Change your stance on that, then we'll take the rest of your argument seriously.
>And one thing I think everyone here can agree with, is that we definitely need to go in a different direction >than we've been going in the last seven years. If you don't believe that, I suggest you go take a look at your >last few statements from your 401k.
If you think Social Security is better, I suggest you take a look at the financial direction that it is taking, and ask whether we want to keep depending on that for the next 30 years.
>One of the two political parties in this country is absolutely hell-bent on the destruction of our government >(by their own admission).
Smaller government != no government. But I suppose you already knew that. The government has been smaller (in terms of spending as a percentage of GDP, and in terms of amount of laws) for, roughly, the entire 225 years it has been in existence prior to now. And, hey, we're still here, so it can't be all bad.
>Most of all, I'm just tired of having to apologize to all my friends from overseas for having a dumb fuck in >the White House.
And this gets modded +5 "insightful". There's an insightful comment for you.
Sincerely, Derek
A curious little blog
Two examples:
(1) Obama wants to improve science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education by broadening its scope beyond just science and engineering majors:
All American citizens need high quality STEM education that inspires them to know more about the world around them, engages them in exploring challenging questions, and involves them in high quality intellectual work. STEM education is no longer only for those pursuing STEM careers; it should enable all citizens to solve problems, collaborate, weigh evidence, and communicate ideas.
whereas McCain sees science as being for geeks only. He wants more geeks, so the rest of the country don't have to bother their pretty heads while getting law and business degrees:
The diminishing number of science, technology, engineering and math graduates at the college level poses a fundamental and immediate threat to American competitiveness. We must fill the pipeline to our colleges and universities with students prepared for the rigors of advanced engineering, math, science and technology degrees.
(2) Obama sees technology leadership as being essential to national security:
It's essential to create a coherent new defense technology strategy to meet the kinds of threats we may faceâ"asymmetric conflicts, urban operations, peacekeeping missions, and cyber, bio, and proliferation threats, as well as new kinds of symmetric threats.
whereas McCain sees national security as essentially just military superiority:
As President, I will strengthen the military, shore up our alliances, and ensure that the nation is capable of protecting the homeland, deterring potential military challenges, responding to any crisis that endangers American security, and prevailing in any conflict we are forced to fight.
For more contrasts, see my blog post
What did he *write*?
Who cares what legislation he wrote? If he becomes President, that task will no longer be in his job description.
Who cares what legislation he wrote!?!?
Seriously?
What legislation a congressperson writes is one of the best indicators of his/her stance on issues. Speeches, soundbites, and campaign promises mean very little from any politician. It's a way to not only verify that said person walks the walk, but also a good indicator of possible future positions on similar issues.
That he won't be voting as a congressperson isn't the point. Otherwise, why care at all what positions a candidate for President takes? The President can create executive initiatives, use the veto power, etc. to influence legislation and national/foreign policy.
Cheers!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
How is it technically true at all to claim, among other things, that Obama sponsored legislation meant to teach kindergarten students about sex-ed, when really it was mandating that children be informed about sexual predators and what to do if caught in a bad situation? Oh, wait, it's not, it is an outright lie. If I were to start a self-defense class that also happens to focus on what to do in a rape scenario, are you seriously going to argue that I'm teaching sex-ed?
"We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
I agree, and would more or less say the same thing about copyright law. There are valid reasons for both patents and copyrights, and ideally we can come up with a system to protect/reward inventors and creators (and investors who back inventors and creators) in order to encourage science and the arts for the sake of the common good.
But we should keep in mind that the purpose of those laws are for that reason: to encourage development of science and art for the sake of the common good. That's why those laws were created (at least in the US), and they aren't currently serving those purposes very well. Therefore, they should be reevaluated and rewritten with that purpose in mind, and also keeping in mind our current state of development.
The concept of "intellectual property" has to take a different role in the digital/internet age, where progress is quick and millions of copies can be made for free. Sharing of information and collaboration are much more powerful tools now that you can share information with the entire planet instantly. We need to seriously look at whether we can develop new systems to encourage people to invest time, money, and effort-- to encourage them to share-- while not restricting that shared information to the point where those restrictions are inhibiting the development of art and science.
These laws were not intended to "reward creative people" in a benevolent way. My government (who ideally is an extension of our collective will) is under no obligation to protect your thoughts from being thought by other people. I don't pay taxes to the government for them to protect (with law enforcement) your investment in art/science for your own sake because I think you're a super-duper great guy who deserves more money. I'm being repetitive, but people really need to understand it. The reason our collective will and our collective money is being used to protect copyrights and patents is specifically so that we, as a society, get to use your work. Maybe someone has to pay you something in the short term, but after a time, your work becomes ours, and we get to use it however we like, because that's the deal.
And if people/businesses, don't respect that deal and don't like that deal, and we can't make the deal work in favor of the common good, then I say revoke it.
Sorry, but when you sign that contract with the recording labels to produce a record, you often sign away your rights to when, where, and how your music is played. That's what pays for your ticket to appear on MTV Cribs.
Are you a fucking moron? From the first paragraph:
Legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners. If you're going to try to argue semantics at least do it right you typical windbag. Furthermore, as outlined in the page I just linked you to, "And the bill, which would have allowed only 'age appropriate' material and a no-questions-asked opt-out policy for parents, was not his accomplishment to claim in any case, since he was not even a cosponsor - and the bill never left the state Senate."
So what the hell are you talking about again? This is legislation he didn't sponsor that had plenty of ways for parents to keep the information away from their children if they so desired. Get a clue before you start trying to act like some pathetic internet toughguy on Slashdot.
P.S. -- You don't have to answer every single goddamn "WHY?" question a child asks, and if you're trying to tell them don't talk to strangers, don't take candy from strangers, and don't let strangers treat you like you're their best friend, and here's what to look out for, you are in no way saying the bad man wants to get off on you with his penis. Jesus Christ, you must be a horrible person to ask for directions and advice for sensitive subjects if you haven't the slightest idea how to speak in generalities and non-specifics when necessary.
"We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
It's funny that McCain dances around an answer and Obama lines out the methods in which he hopes to achieve his goals. One blows the typical smoke the other seems to have thought some of this through.
So you're saying that we shouldn't vote for what we want because what we want is not what we're going to get? Then what's the point of voting in the first place? *sighs* And you call ME names? Wow...
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Will the president after the "Hoover" also preside (in multiple terms) over a lingering depression ended only by a costly war, and start divers entitlement programs supported by onerous taxes? Will he not only escape any indictment for his economic incompetence, but rather be lauded as one of our greatest leaders?
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Libertarians on the Civil Rights act have a unique position that is grounded in the philosophy of liberty. It is a complicated thing, but it is quickly described by the party principle statement. "I certify that I do not advocate the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals."
Understanding that, the Civil Rights Act is a use of force. It is force that was used to repeal another forceful law Segregation. In comes the government to the rescue for the problem it created with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but this law has unintended consequences as all laws do.
From Harry Browne's book "Why Government Doesn't Work". He is far smarter than I and describes it better than I ever could.
----------
The political process always manages to turn idealistic dreams inside out. For an excellent example, look no further than the civil rights laws passed in the last 40 years.
For almost a century before 1964, governments in many southern states forced segregation on the people. Government prohibited companies from providing racially integrated facilities for their employees or customers. Whites and blacks were forbidden by government to sit together in restaurants or to use the same restrooms and drinking fountains -- and in many cases were forbidden to shop together or work together.
Civil rights advocates fought to repeal these state Jim Crow laws, but they failed. So they appealed to the federal government, which responded with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
But this didn't simply repeal state laws compelling segregation. It prohibited racial segregation -- voluntary or otherwise. Overnight, what had been mandatory became forbidden. Neither before nor after the Civil Rights Act were people free to make their own decisions about whom they would associate with.
The civil rights movement wasn't opposed to using government to coerce people. It merely wanted the government to aim its force in a new direction.
Although the activists believed coercion served the noble objective of bringing the races closer together, it was coercion nonetheless.
And coercive laws never stand still. No matter what a law's backers say at the time of passage, the law always stretches in surprising directions. The expansion occurs on at least two fronts:
* The law almost always is enforced more broadly than intended;
* When government benefits one group, other groups are encouraged to seek similar benefits.
And this is what happened to the civil rights laws.
In the first regard, the bureaucrats and courts set out to enforce the laws zealously, seeking to root out any kind of discrimination -- even though ending segregation, not discrimination, was the motive behind the original law. Companies were ordered not to consider race in any way when making hiring decisions.
But usually the reasons for a business decision are hard to prove. Unless a businessman is a noisy bigot, who can say whether racial discrimination has affected his decision to hire someone?
To avoid having to read minds, the enforcers examined results to determine whether discrimination had occurred. If you didn't have a suitable racial mix in your workforce (or even among your customers), you were assumed to be discriminating -- and the burden of proof was on you to prove otherwise.
So an employer could avoid charges of discrimination only by, in fact, discriminating -- by using quotas to assure that he hired the right number of people of the right races -- even though the original sponsors of the law had sworn that quotas were no part of it. The law against segregation had been transformed into a law requiring discrimination.
The law also encouraged other groups to demand similar coverage. Once it was established that government should punish racial discrimination, the door was open to using government to punish anything similar. If it's wrong for an employer, landlord, or organization to discriminate according to race, it
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
Seriously, I don't like either one of them, and I'll be damned if I'm voting for someone I don't want to be in office.
The point of voting is to select the best person for the job even if that means writing in your best friend Larry who knows a lot about foreign policy. The electoral college wouldn't have been put in place to protect voters from themselves if it hadn't been intended that people would say exactly what they wanted with their votes.
Obama spent 12 years teaching constitutional law. Read the wikipedia article, halfway through the second paragraph. Making sensationalist statements doesn't do anything but blow your own credibility.
What planet do you live on?
I'm quite comfortable in my belief McCain would not be a good president. Being a POW should get you a parade, not a free pass on an election.