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?"
"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.
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
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
I think he errs when he tries to establish a database connection.
I think it's a pretty common problem for older guys though.
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
| 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!
Error establishing a database connection
Isn't there a pill he can take for that?
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
I just *know* there's a good reason you linked to the hl=ru cache, but for the life of me, I can only think of /. memes.
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.
Oh, don't be silly. We all know McCain's/Palin's "science policy" is a huge load.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Question #1: As president what will you do to ensure that our webserver doesn't die a fiery death when this article gets slashdotted?
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
Bob Dole says yes!
turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
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. Talk about out of touch with the 21st Century. How is he ever supposed to become a Cybernetic Overlord? I mean really!
Vote Cthulhu 08
Why vote for a lesser evil when you can vote for a greater one!
The problem is that the "public sector" is amazing, first and foremost, in funding research ... with specific outcomes. Confirming politician's views of things. There are actual Chinese papers, peer reviewed and everything, "proving" Tibet is not a country separate from China.
If you let public funding fund science, then you might as well kill the research in social studies, psychology, languages, ethnicities, and (soon to come) evolution, history ... it will merely parrot the popular talkpoints of the day instead of science.
I'd like to agree with you, because you're right, private sector money is scarce and hard to come by, especially for pure research (then again, public money is not doing anywhere near enough to fund the only really pure science there is ... mathematics), but really, public money is only useful in sciences were people are not involved at all. Stuff like particle physics (since no particles go on any type of jihad for any type of religion or poverty), astronomy or maths. Heck even chemistry is getting infected with politics (are drugs bad for you ? Do they badly affect others around drugged people ? have become politically incorrect questions, merely because the answer is yes).
> And honestly, did you actually agree with every single thing Ron Paul advocated?
Forgive me, but that's childish. Are you suggesting that only a leader who agrees with you 100% of the time will be effective?
Like many here, I have a day job. I read a bit here and there, watch a little TV, and come to some conclusions. But in the end, I know that my judgement is easily flawed because I don't have the time or staff to properly evaluate the available information. So even if my core principals are somehow "right", my decisions are likely to be wildly askew from reality.
Therefore, I think it's ludicrous to pick someone who agrees with you 100%, or even close. See if you can match up some core values, check a couple of "key" (in your mind) decisions a bit more thoroughly, do a gut-check on the person, and vote. But trying for 100% is a laughable criteria.
-Jeff
Please learn the difference between a dissenting opinion and a troll before you moderate.
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
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.
You can't take the government out of research. Think of a world without your iPod. And I can't personally imagine a world without Matthew Lesko. Seriously though, Matthew Lesko!
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.
They didn't use pencil because broken leads would be a big problem in zero G.
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.
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.
My web domain.
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.
When the Federal government gets involved in a market, it often takes over the market inefficiently. See: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Federal research grants have co-opted the Universities, for sure (add in government accreditation and there's even more monopolistic powers). It's not correct to say that private institutions DON'T fund research, the reality is that decades of Federal intervention in research have made it difficult to compete with public dollars, public regulators, public mandates and public approval systems that defeat the heavy investments made by private institutions.
For example:
Wisconsin private funding of stem cell research better than public funding
25 charities in US fund $1.2 billion in private research
Private funding resources
There are thousands of organizations that fund research privately. Competing with taxpayer-funded research is difficult, though, but not impossible.
Isn't it great that we have so many choices for leadership? If we don't like the opinions of one person, we have one other person to choose from. Certainly each one of us can find one of these two people who will agree with and advocate for all that we believe in. Right?
In a sense, politics is a one-dimensional game at that level: at the extremes, either you believe that individual rights and responsibilities should be completely subservient to some "greater good" society, or you believe that individual rights and responsibilities are the dominant factor and any concept of society exists only to support them. A great many of the big decisions do flow naturally from this simple distinction: a preference for big vs. small government in general, and many more specific issues such as socialised healthcare vs. the private insurance model.
Of course it's not that simple in reality. There are some issues of ethics where perhaps people from both ends of the spectrum would agree. And there is no single concept of "society".
It seems to me that the biggest disruptive factor in politics, particularly in the US in recent years, is the concept of the corporation: entities that started as a group of individuals, taking advantage of collaboration in a free market to build a power base, are now recognised as having rights of their own, which necessarily compete with those of both individuals and society as a whole, while the people controlling those entities are shielded as individuals from most responsibility for the actions they control. Thus we have things like the recent banking collapses and the Enron fiasco, where the laws have not served to protect either individuals or the community as a whole for a long time, and now it is the rest of the people who have to deal with the mess. Likewise, we have Big Media raking in most of the profits from the work of a few individuals, backed by laws which have been distorted so they serve neither the individual artists nor society as a whole.
Right now, there are only two parties with a realistic prospect of winning power in the US in the near term, and both of them are heavily pro-corporation, so there is no real choice at all. It is an eternal mystery to me how this position was reached, given that corporations do not (yet) have the vote and there are other candidates in most elections. But now that the position has been reached, it seems that nothing short of fundamental reform of the electoral system will fix it. Of course, the parties in power are unlikely to do that voluntarily given their corporate affiliations, so it's going to need a slow, grass-roots process.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
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.
In her interview with Charles Gibson, Sarah Palin claimed to have foreign policy experience because, "You can see Russia from Alaska." Is this true? Is Alaska so close to Russia that you can see it? From a world map we can see that the state of Alaska is indeed close to Russia. (Use Google Maps) They seem to be closest at the Seward Peninsula. But, both the peninsula and the part of Russia that it is opposite are snow covered mountainous regions that are separated by about 50 miles of the storm tossed Bering Strait. Not a likely invasion route. But since they are 50 miles apart how can you "see Russia from Alaska"? Well between the two peninsulas there are two islands Big Diomede and Little Diomede. Big Diomede is indeed owned by Russia and Little Diomede is part of Alaska, since they are separated by about 2 miles of ocean, you can indeed see one from the other. Little Diomede is 2.8 square miles and has a population of 146, mostly Native Americans who make their living from whaling and ivory carving. Not a tempting target for Russia. So where did Palin get the idea that Russia is such an immediate security threat to Alaska? Well, if you look at the Risk game board there is indeed a dotted line where you can move armies from Russian territory to Alaska. Is playing Risk where she really got her foreign policy experience?
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.
Saying the Democrats are not tied to the entertainment industry is about as ridiculous as saying that Republicans are not tied to the oil business. Let me break it down for you:
Democrats : Entertainment, Legal Services, Accounting, Education, Financial - Investment Banking, Software
Republicans : Manufacturing, Farming, Mining, Drilling, Financial - old Banking, Hardware
Just look at how the economy does when either party gets in. Clinton - farms, oil, commodities all crash, services takes off. Bush - services take a beating, but farms, oil, commodities in general take off, and manufacturing gets a boost.
Each party has its own commercial interests allied to it.
This is my sig.
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
While it is a common belief that voting third party is "throwing your vote away", it really isn't in the long term. The two big parties look closely at the candidates who received votes in every major election and then try to determine how to convince voters to vote for their candidates next time around, typically by modifying their platforms and including items that appear to be gathering steam with the populance. You can help steer the process a bit by voting for exactly for who you want to fill the position your voting on. Just because your guy didn't win doesn't mean your votes didn't matter.
Shop smart, Shop S-Mart.
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."
(emphasis added)
The GP is asking for grade school, not graduate school. It's not a very high standard.
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
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.
In the interests of giving McCain props where I think he should get them (even though I don't agree with him on most subjects):
Kudos to McCain for correctly identifying the glaring hole in the pro-life argument against embryonic stem cell research. The pro-life crowd will often argue that the embryos that stem cells are harvested from are humans and thus deserve a better fate than being used for research. They ignore the reality of the situation, however. Those frozen embryos are most likely going to be discarded/incinerated if they aren't used for stem cell research.
Which is a more dignified fate for the embryo? To be incinerated/tossed out like trashed? Or to be used in an attempt to save lives?
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
and what cabinet position would Steve Ballmer have? Secretary of Checking the President's Email?
McCain at Google
No, I do not hate our children. Just yours :)
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
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.
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).
Free Martian Whores!
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
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.
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.
Carly Fiorina severly damaged Hewlett-Packard as its CEO, and has been campaigning for McCain ever since HP fired her.
With that kind of endorsement, America's tech industry should fear McCain as Fiorina's choice for president.
--
make install -not war
I think you are implying that the DMCA "extended copyright terms." That is not correct, at least not in the way that poster intended. The term of a copyright was extended at an earlier time (I want to say the most recent time was in the 1980s), when Democrats were in control of Congress. Then, when the DMCA was passed by (a Republican) Congress, a Democrat president (Clinton) signed it into law.
So both statements WERE true.
I wish I had mod points, I'd mod you back up. In an era where the public can so easily exchange ideas, coalescing into like-minded groups that bear no relation to geography, it makes sense that those groups should each have some sort of representation in government. As much as I despise the French and/or Israeli systems, I think we need to move toward some form of proportional representation -- at least for half of our bicameral legislature.
But of course that can NEVER happen. The two-party system is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why would either major party (even when it's in the minority) really want to give up the possibility of being in complete control after the next election cycle?
Not to mention the fact that this would require a change to our Constitution. Right now most of the people in our country are so incredibly polarized into these major divisions that I can't imagine getting the types of supermajorities needed for ANY constitutional amendment, let alone something as fundamental as reformulating the allocation of legislators.
So we're stuck with our decaying government. As I've heard many people say before, this experiment in democratic representation had a good run. Maybe next time we'll get it right.
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.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
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.