Slashdot Mirror
Obama Launches Change.gov
mallumax writes "Obama has launched Change.gov. According to the site 'Change.gov provides resources to better understand the transition process and the decisions being made as part of it. It also offers an opportunity to be heard about the challenges our country faces and your ideas for tackling them. The Obama Administration will reflect an essential lesson from the success of the Obama campaign: that people united around a common purpose can achieve great things.' The site is extensive and contains Obama's agenda for economy and education among many others. They first define the problem and then lay out the plan. Everything is in simple English without a trace of Washington-speak. The site also has details about the transition. According to many sources, Obama's transition efforts started months ago. The copyright for the content is held by 'Obama-Biden Transition Project, a 501c(4) organization'."
There is no "Office of the President Elect"
This information is already available at the Barack Obama campaign web-site and this updated version should just go there.
Having a .gov domain means it's a tax payer funded government web-site.
Apparently Obama's first order of business, before even being president, is changing the definition of the .gov tld, creating fake government offices and giving himself another venue to spew propaganda.
Work Safe Porn
What are you talking about? "Nerd" hasn't been redefined as "someone who ONLY cares about a small subset of trivial things that are not politics" has it?
Yikes -- That's a lot of spending on that site. He claims he's going to pay for everything with corresponding cuts and revenue increases (i.e., taxes), but I'd sure like to see as much detail put into where money was going to be saved as there is how money is going to be spent.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Amendment 13 to the constitution:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Does Obama want to revoke that? I won't discuss the irony of the situation.
Mod me troll. I fear you not. (About the anonymous coward thing, i've just been too lazy to make an account.)
How did the Obama transition team get a .gov domain name? I never heard before of a transition team having any government status. Of course they're free to meet, discuss and plan agendas, strategies and appointments, but I don't see how they have any power or official government standing until January 20, 2009 (in the afternoon).
Even the traditional briefings of the president-elect, the White House tours of the "First Lady -elect", and other inclusions in the outgoing government's operations are, AFAIK, courtesies extended by the current government to the incoming government. Extended in the interest of continuity of government, the national interest, and avoiding being thought a first-class "jerk" for dissing the incoming people. But I don't see Bush/Cheney extending that courtesy to allowing someone without government standing to register a .gov domain under the US Federal government.
But maybe that's what happened. If so, maybe getting back on track and solving our problems will be a lot faster and smoother than we expect. I hope so.
On the other hand, there does seem to be some legislation creating a "Presidential Transition Team office with official standing. But the statute cited doesn't seem to create this change.gov site, or standing to get one. Government is complicated.
--
make install -not war
Should we regress to that era as well?
Pay Inequity Continues: For every $1.00 earned by a man, the average woman receives only 77 cents, while African American women only get 67 cents and Latinas receive only 57 cents.
Tell me at a single company that a fresh out of college $minority engineer is making less than a white male engineer. They're NOT! That is complete BS. You can say that there aren't as many $minority engineers or as many $minority doctors as there are white males on average...fine! That becomes a question of education. You can't educate people that don't want it. I live in Florida. Here, if you get a 3.0 average in high school (which is a freaking joke) you get a 75% scolorship to a Florida university. If you get a 3.5 average you get %100. If you ask me, anything less than a 3.0 you're either borderline retarded, illiterate, or don't care and just wanna sell drugs, or be a rapper, or be on welfare. So don't tell me the opportunities aren't out there for education. Don't tell me that "on average" $minority people make less...its their choice.
Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars -- cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon -- on the road by 2015...
You wanna say 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars, fine. Don't say 150 miles per gallon. That means nothing on a plug-in. Tell me how many miles per gallon it gets on gas alone and tell me how many miles per kilowatt on the battery side. You can't combine these things. I could buy a Chevy Volt, plug it in, drive 20 miles without the engine ever kicking in. So, if my calculations are correct... 20 / 0 = INFINITE MILES PER GALLON!!!
, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America.
Here is some more BS. We live in a global economy. If anything has hurt the American auto industry it is the retarded Joe Sixpacks our there that buy GM or Ford because its American. It let our auto makers get complacent and comfortable and look what happened. Foreign car makers are ahead of us in almost every area. People need to buy what is better. When GM or Ford's sales go down, they will need to react. They can't react if you have rednecks buying American just to say they bought American and they can't react when we have an idiot president(-elect) talking about "making sure" these cars are built here. That sounds like a bailout of the auto industry.
"Barack is not so much against the idea as he is the implementation."
Well, -against- is -against-, at least in the short term (and in the timeline of nuclear power development, eight years is the short term).
What is preventing any significant new energy development in America is the ability of opposition groups to tie up projects in the courts, nearly effectively forever. This is going to stymie the greens' beloved wind, solar, and water power (whaddya think the chances would be of getting a new major hydro dam built today?) every bit as much as it will stymie those eeeeeeevil fossil fuels and atoms.
I figure my only hope, after the new nukes die in court, the drilling fields are ruled out of bounds and the coal burning plants capped, is to ask President Obama to come to my house and fart into my backyard windmill so I'll have enough wattage to log onto Slashdot.
Do you have any idea how pathetic you look right now? It's not even worth bringing up that the lies on those fronts haven't been his; you know that perfectly well, but are still playing this sad game of misinformation and bullshit. You lost. Get over it.
Oh how cute! You made up some numbers to justify your own racism!
Sorry the taste of bitter grapes is still in your mouth, but racism did not get Obama elected.
"But this one goes to 11!"
Which poverty?? You mean the lazy, selfish daughter of my ex-girlfriend who couldn't understand what 'on time' means so she was always getting fired?? Or the lady down the street who wouldn't get married so she could keep getting here welfare benefits even though her boyfriend lived with her??
Or do you mean my wife who many years before we got married figured out how to raise two kids on next to nothing by living according to her means and getting help from her friends and family. Who entertained her children with finger puppets and living room plays instead of dumping them at the mall. And refusing all food stamp and welfare benefits that she was eligible for because she felt others could use it more than she could. Funny thing, some 'well meaning' friends signed her up at a food pantry, to which she replied 'thanks' and never went. Found out a few months later that those same 'well meaning' friends thought it was a waste she wasn't using it, so decided they would use it themselves and not tell her.
I help those I know personally. Family and friends and their family and friends that need help. I don't need the government telling me who or what is acceptable community service.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
They did talk about it, actually. There was also a YouTube video, one of the "Blueprint for Change" series.
Whether or not it's a good thing... I don't know. It seems perhaps a bit much to force students to help out... but then, it could do some serious good as well.
If this becomes mandatory, it will be bad. It reminds me of Animal Farm where the puppies got taken away. Here is some more information on it:
Barack Obama was a founding member of the board of Public Allies in 1992, resigning before his wife became executive director of the Chicago chapter of Public Allies in 1993. Obama plans to use the nonprofit group, which he features on his campaign Web site, as the model for a national service corps. He calls his Orwellian program, "Universal Voluntary Public Service."
Big Brother had nothing on the Obamas. They plan to herd American youth into government-funded reeducation camps where they'll be brainwashed into thinking America is a racist, oppressive place in need of "social change."
The pitch Public Allies makes on its Web site doesn't seem all that radical. It promises to place young adults (18-30) in paid one-year "community leadership" positions with nonprofit or government agencies. They'll also be required to attend weekly training workshops and three retreats.
In exchange, they'll get a monthly stipend of up to $1,800, plus paid health and child care. They also get a post-service education award of $4,725 that can be used to pay off past student loans or fund future education.
But its real mission is to radicalize American youth and use them to bring about "social change" through threats, pressure, tension and confrontation â" the tactics used by the father of community organizing, Saul "The Red" Alinsky.
...
Not all the recruits appreciate the PC indoctrination. "It was too touchy-feely," said Nelly Nieblas, 29, of the 2005 Los Angeles class. "It's a lot of talk about race, a lot of talk about sexism, a lot of talk about homophobia, talk about -isms and phobias."
One of those -isms is "heterosexism," which a Public Allies training seminar in Chicago describes as a negative byproduct of "capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and male-dominated privilege."
The government now funds about half of Public Allies' expenses through Clinton's AmeriCorps. Obama wants to fully fund it and expand it into a national program that some see costing $500 billion. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the military, he said.
The gall of it: The Obamas want to create a boot camp for radicals who hate the military â" and stick American taxpayers with the bill.
Read the whole thing HERE
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Not to mention that mandatory community service is often used as a punishment for crimes (to "pay back" the community for wrongdoings). Yeah, it's a great idea to treat our schoolkids like criminals on probation.
Which would seem to exclude liberals, I know. Especially since once in power their politicians do just about everything to remove any liberties people have.
Now "liberals" are even defending the most oppresive governments and religion in the world. And still those people claim the title of the smartest.
Then again, half of the under-thirty americans can't point out the USA on the map, yet over 90% believes to be "smart". They can't all restrict their browsing to facebook, now can they ?
The poster you're responded it to worded it poorly, but the basic point stands: people are against gay marriage not because they "hate gays" but for real reasons that have nothing to do with blind hatred.
Some people just don't want to throw out something that has evolved over 10,000 years of human society. Others think that the purpose of marriage is to create a family and don't think that throwing that away is in the best interest of society.
Are there some people against gay marriage due to blind hatred? Of course.
That doesn't mean that people against gay marriage are homophobic, any more than it makes people who voted for Obama misogynists and ageists.
There are valid reasons to be against gay marriage. Marriage has worked, and worked extremely well, for all of human civilization. Why do we want to get rid of it?
Hilarious. What conceivable situation would a 9mm, a shotgun, a long gun (rifle) and any of the other less "crazy" weapons not defend you against? Why on earth should it be a right for civilians to own ak-47s, flamethrowers and miniguns?
Very bad? Name ONE WAY in which it is even measurably bad. Some people have pointed out that it infringes on their "freedom" (to own assault rifles I would imagine). Well you also dont have the "freedom" to form a private army (sleeper cell) or manufacture and detonate nuclear and biological weapons. What kind of crazy entitlement brings you to the conclusion that assault weaponry is a right?
As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy