Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot Asks: Whom Do You Want To Ask About 2012's U.S. Elections?
For the next year, it will be hard to escape the political season already in full swing in the U.S., as candidates aim for the American presidency (and many other elected positions). There will be plenty of soundbites and choreographed photo-ops to go around. Candidates will read speeches from TelePrompters, and staffers will mail out policy statements calculated to inspire political fealty to one candidate or another — finding unscripted answers from most of the candidates is going to be tough. Slashdot interviews, by contrast, give you the chance to do something that interviews in more conventional media usually don't: the chance to ask the questions you'd actually like to have answered, and to see the whole answer as provided. But there's a hitch: we need to know which candidates or other figures we should attempt to track down for a Slashdot interview. So please help narrow the field, by suggesting (with as much contact information as possible, as well as your reasoning) the people you'd like to hear from. It doesn't need to be one of the candidates, either: if you know of a pollster, a campaign technical advisor, an economist (or even a politicians's webmaster, say) who should be on our list, make the case in the comments below. And if you represent or are affiliated with a particular campaign, that's fine — but please say so. We'll do our best to find a number of your favorites in the year to come.
I hate to be cynical and say that it doesn't really matter, since no politician is ever going to give you an honest or useful answer anyway (any written response won't even written by them, just some staffer, you know). But I will suggest one of the VERY few politicians at the top who actually seems to give a modicum of a shit about freedom, the little guy, and all that jazz. From his well-known editorial on why he supports net neutrality to his fight against contractors and for regulation of the financial industry, Al Franken seems to be one of the few people in Washington interested in something more than just padding his pocket.
I would be particularly interested to hear more on the Net Neutrality issue, since he seems to be one of the only politicians, Republican or Democrat, actively supporting it.
Yes, he is a little batshit from time to time and prone to saying some crazy shit. But in his defense, they did a LOT of coke on SNL back in the day. He's lost a few brain cells. Poor Chevy Chase is MUCH worse.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
There will be plenty of soundbites and choreographed photo-ops to go around. Candidates will read speeches from TelePrompters, and staffers will mail out policy statements calculated to inspire political fealty to one candidate or another — finding unscripted answers from most of the candidates is going to be tough. Slashdot interviews, by contrast, give you the chance to do something that interviews in more conventional media usually don't: the chance to ask the questions you'd actually like to have answered, and to see the whole answer as provided.
Oh they won't have teleprompters for a Slashdot interview? So what? Every single candidate or person working for a candidate are going to do the following:
This isn't my first rodeo. Seriously, watch a candidate's speech in BFE one-horse-town North Texas one day and then their speech in yuppie concrete jungle Manhattan the next day. They will skirt issues and spew half truths that are almost (but not quite, it's an art) in direct conflict with their message at another locality. How do you maximize votes? Why settle for those localized maxima with the same speech in two different demographics when a massive overhaul will win you the campaign? Why do you think they have teams of speech writers? If you campaigned on one consistent platform through the country, you're dead in the water. The only way to win is to lie by omission or worse.
Oh and if you think that a webmaster of a politician is going to be allowed to answer questions in regard to that politician's campaign, you can forget it. A person with a STEM background interfacing in a Q&A for someone's campaign?! Are you daft? No no no no, nobody is going to allow that. The phrase "talking points" was made for a reason. Can you imagine that conversation? "Hey, I know I designed your website for your campaign, now I'm going on a news site to represent your campaign to potentially anybody -- I mean if I really fuck up this could be on Colbert or something. Wish me luck!"
My work here is dung.
I'd ask this of all/any candidates:
Why do you disagree with Ron Paul's approach of restricting government's role to what is proscribed by our legal framework (the Constitution), and why do you insist on violating the Constitution when a remedy exists in the form of constitutional amendments?
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Need to explain? ;)
Chris Hedges.
I don't think he given fair representation by either side of the media and is simply labeled as radical and crazy.
Yes... RMS.... just for 'shits-and-giggles'
I say don't drink and drive, you might spill your drink. Before you get behind the wheel just stop and think.
Slashdot has a time travel machine, as evidenced by the way some posts seem to come from the distant past to reappear in the present. So let's use that and ask the people in 2014 what the elected candidate did to determine if it's worth having them.
an economist
An economist you say?
How about Ben Jones
http://thehousingbubbleblog.com/
An how about Tyler Durden (A pseudonym, duh, but I think it would be hilarious to see the ZH response to our questions)
http://www.zerohedge.com/
Last but not least, George Ure, who is about 20% genius, 60% eh, and 20% nuts?
http://urbansurvival.com/week.htm
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Why do politicians always write in exemptions for themselves when it comes to legislation banning telemarketing? Do any of you twits realize how annoying incessant Robocalls are?
Since Mitt is the most likely candidate from the right I would love to hear from him (and I think he's great).
A web site like CMS matrix (use to be) where there is a table of *ALL* issues and responses that I can compare against each other and "my views"
Never trust a man wearing a coat and tie!
The man knows all and sees all and sh*t my Dad says ran too short.
Not only does Andrew Tanenbaum have a good handle on polls and vote-projection, but his nerd credentials are excellent.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Why was it written? Any (all) candidate(s).
Don't know why this is down voted. I know we're not supposed to carp on grammar but this is a valid point.
(%i1) factor(777353);
(%o1) 777353
Given Slashdot's predilections, it is certain that the ones Slashdot likes the most will be the least likely to get elected.
So, come join us on Slashdot to see who WON'T be the next president!
Let us whine together about how awful and broken the system is!
Let us propose reforms to the election system that will never be implemented!
Let us ask obscure technical questions of candidates to the highest office in the land!
Yes, I have been here during elections before.
In b4 Ron Paul
Andrew Tanenbaum, of minix fame and the "votemaster" of electoral-vote.com poll tracking and political meta-commentary (or is it meta-political commentary).
Ask GE what is the ROI for a member of congress?
We are eternal, all this pain is an illusion.
Ron Paul... duh... and I'm pretty sure he'll do it to. I think his answers to slashdot questions would be very interesting indeed. I doubt any other candidate would come near this site with a 1000ft pole.
Why not ask Rebecca Mercuri? She is a voting expert, and if indications are correct, the last couple of voting exercises were not exactly as clean as they were supposed to have been.
You can ask politicians whatever you want, I would suggest you become more interested in assuring that your vote actually goes where it is supposed to go.
Insert
Get a journalist from a major network and ask them why the fuck they let politicians off the hook when they give non-answers to direct questions in interviews and debates.
http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
It's not downvoted. AC posts start at 0.
The debates, an hour or two in total length, are the only time the citizenry get to question the candidates directly Yet the time alloted to people to ask questions is so short, no intelligent question can be asked. further, the audience is discouraged from reacting, and the questioner cannot interrupt when the candidates don't answer the question I would like to see one 3-4 hour debate per week, where it is almost open mike - people get three minutes to talk, and they can harangue the candidates, interrupt them, ask serious questions etc would need tape delay to remove the ***k words, and editing to take out the tedium, but we might get something worth watching
Obama's rhetoric on civil liberties during the 2008 campaign was spot on. Given how horrible his actual civil liberties track record has been - "Obama has proved a disaster not just for specific civil liberties but the civil liberties cause in the United States" is how Jonathan Turley described him in a recent LA Times opo-ed - I'd like to hear him or one of his spokespeople try to defend his record on this matter.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Elections are where free people can choose who they want in public office.
In America, the government, corporations, institutions, organizations, and political parties choose what rich stupid b*stard gets to be put in front of you to get "voted" into office.
You do not have a choice. Whatever party you vote in, you will still get scr*wed by a lying, cheating, bribed b*stard. You get the same sh*t. Just different public "statements, promises, and claims"
If we were electing someone to represent our interests in government, they would be representing our interests. Instead, they are representing the interests of lobbyists, PACs, special interest groups, corporations, institutions, and the rich and famous in general.
Is it in our interest to have Obama spend 200,000,000+ on a flight vacation to Hawaii while joblessness is above 9%? I do not think so. How many jobs has Obama created? 1, for Michelle's brother, the basketball coach in Oregon.
Tell me again how anyone, Democrat or republican, got anything they voted for.
Liar.
wake up and hold your nose
No. Whom is correct.
Whom do you want to ask about 2012 elections?
The subject is you.
The verb is want to ask
The object is whom
about 2012 elections is a supporting prepositional phrase
Who is always a subject, Whom is always an object (except here, when you're talking about the word itself)
With almost all politicians (except the ones YOU like, of course) the "message" is the message. Asking questions is useless unless you're gathering material for The Daily Show or Colbert.
No matter how uninformed a candidate is, the fans will still be fans.
It isn't about picking the best candidate based upon your criteria.
It's about using your flexible criteria to justify the politician / party that you've already emotionally decided upon.
You don't like that classic rock band The Whom?
Trolling is a art,
we ask all of them, when they will put America first instead of their pocket book? And that needs to be asked of all of them, including O.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Exactly. And you're suggesting we should further that. See a problem there?
How about we keep this a site with news for nerds instead of getting swept up into pointless politics and bickering?
Does this mean an iPad will be elected president?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I do believe 'whom' is correct in this usage. Rephrase it as You Do Want to Ask Whom, and you can see it is the direct object, so use the objective form: whom.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Retired politicians/pundits/... with no stakes in the game anymore are by far the most entertaining and interesting. Plus they want to get rid of stuff they've had on their chest for a while, ie all the lies and stupidities they've ha to spout to please their electoral bases.
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
has geek/pol cred.
He once inserted random mutations into his code, just so he could have the experience of debugging.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define:whom
In software development we have a concept of refactoring: "a disciplined technique for restructuring an existing body of code, altering its internal structure without changing its external behavior".
How do the candidates feel about refactoring all of our laws, rules, and regulations for simplicity?
Mitch Bainwol and Chris Dodd.
Everyone holds bias, but someone who isn't dependent on votes in the near future would be less bound by his/her desire to maintain public image while still possessing the insider experience to give us an insightful appraisal.
Perhaps former officials of the US Cabinet.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
What are you talking about??? Obama's 2008 campaign never ended!
Eradicate the ruling class. The "two party" system is a joke. Democracy in the US is dead and has been for some time.
Ron Paul is nuts. Every time I want to like him, he goes and says something untrue, inane, or just plain insane.
I would much rather hear from Rand Paul, who has been somewhat in the shadows through all this. Some have suggested that he'll be his fathers successor. Me, I don't know. I really haven't heard enough from him. Thus, it would be great to interview him here. Maybe, just maybe, he'll wind up being the "Paul" I can like.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
To whom will I direct my comments? I'd like to ask someone who has a grasp of the English language.
ask my signature and watch the response right there.
You can't handle the truth.
Nate Silver, the man behind fivethirtyeight.com He does analysis on multiple topics and has been pretty accurate historically. The questions that he can answer can probably be a lot more geeky than those that could be asked of others, and are also the types of questions that are less likely to get bullshit responses. I also think he's the type of person who would probably be willing to answer Slashdot questions so there's that to be said as well.
My questions:
1. Can the Education Department produce and maintain a BS-free "Open Course Content" (Open eBooks, Open teaching materials, randomized test content ...) curriculum for grades K...12 that are comparable to any extremely highly ranked private school? No don't force the states to use the curriculum, eventually state education budget cuts will require the Open and Free curriculum to reduce education cost. Yes, education infrastructure will still be failing nationally, but some bills the states should pay. Yes, keep gods out of the "Public" classrooms, appropriately the gods must be kept at home and at private places of worship to protect The USA Constitutional right of all citizens.
2. Why has the Presidential Medal of Freedom never been awarded to great North American Citizens like RHStallman (GNU...OSS), PZimmermann (PGP), NNegroponte (OLPC) ...?
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
If anyone is interested, I can get someone on the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) or the Libertarian National Campaign Committee (LNCC) to answer questions. The Libertarian Party is the largest third and fastest growing party in the US (as confirmed by Wikipedia!) and I know that many ./ers tend to lean small-L libertarian.
Disclaimer: I am the Region 2 alternate member of the LNC, and Chair of the Massachusetts Libertarian Party.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
That's not a bad idea, actually. If we can impress upon Jon some of the things that matter to us, it could shape his future interviews with candidates (or choosing guests, for that matter). He can't make them answer, but he has a talent of making them face the issue.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
"Proscribe" means "to condemn or forbid as harmful or unlawful : prohibit". Ron Paul doesn't want to restrict government's role to what is forbidden by the constitution. That's the other guys.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proscribe
Noam Chomsky.
Our culture celebrates assholes, just as it celebrates talking heads. We've replaced real news and fact, opinions and jag-off talking heads. Listening to our opinion producers causes you to know less, not more.
Instead, I'll tell you who I don't want to ask: Any politician. Anyone who is regularly on television. Anyone who can't footnote their answers.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
Since he has a BS in Math, and a Masters in Computer Science, I think he would be the best person to interview for a site like Slashdot. You know, News for Nerds.
21st Century Renaissance Man
Counterexample: Barack Obama.
Remember 2008 when hope and change went viral? Yes, it was here too, though nowadays it's painfully embarrassing to recall.
Sixty-two year old babe running for Senate from Massachusetts. Straight shooter, smarter than me and probably you, too. Also tough as nails. If you like Senator Franken, you will like future Senator Warren.
Given that Republicans don't have clear front runner, chances that Obama will continue as a president is highly probable.. By inviting Sarah Palin we can at least get some LOLs.. (and may be some material for SNL skits)
He's been writing about the corruption involved in getting elected for some time now. I'd love to hear from him on the subject.
Who among us recognizes that "whom" is an object, not a subject? Are you all the same people who say "to he and I" when you mean "to him and me"?
I would say that predicting 2008 housing crash many years in advance would be a pretty good validation of his "theories" that allowing unlimited money creation guided by political reasons leads to rather unpleasant unintended consequences...
But your version of the reality must be different from mine. Does it also happen in your part of multiverse that Obama fulfilled any of his campaign promises, withdrew from Iraq and Afghanistan (which, as Commander in Chief, is about the only thing the President can do on his own, and I am sure RP would do it), and did not start a couple of (undeclared!) wars (err, conflicts) of his own?
Maybe you should research his "theories" a bit better.
Proud supported since 2007,
Paul B.
And I am sure his positions have not changed since then...
http://interviews.slashdot.org/story/08/02/05/1511225/ron-paul-campaign-answers-slashdot-reader-questions
Paul B.
He did such a good job of analyzing the 2008 election, I would like a good Slashdot interview of him to discuss his methodologies and what challenges he has when performing political analysis... as well as how the NY Times buy-out of his blog has affected what he publishes.
No, more likely it'll be President Tux.
Free Martian Whores!
He has a degree in economics, is a former governor and congressman, is a successful businessman, and is actively contending for the Republican nomination on platformof "Free to Lead". He has embraced many of Lawrence Lessig's ideas about how corruption is the root of our problems, and the solution is to reform campaign finance and relationship with lobbiests.
"Why did it take a constitutional amendment to ban, then un-ban alcohol in the US....yet marijuana and other intoxicants since then, have been banned/regulated on the whim of the US legislature or executive order? Why is a constitutional amendment no longer needed for banning an intoxicant?"
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
This convoluted explanation is not necessary. If can reply to a question wih him, it means that in the question you need to have whom:
- Whom do you want to ask?
- Him.
I'd vote... at least it'd do less damage than what's been done for the past decade.
As the years go by, people still stubbornly, willfully ignore the fact that candidates' "positions" on the "issues" (two laughable notions) are not in any demonstrable way predictive of future performance. That is a fancier and somewhat more precise way of repeating the obvious: it's all bullshit. There is no way around that. The system is fully owned by mobsters wielding money-soaked lobbyists. What candidates or their handlers say or do during an election has no importance whatsoever. In case that last part wasn't clear, these interviews are not necessary. They have zero importance. They will yield no new or useful information. Worse, they are a distracting nuisance because so many people actually think some sort of useful information really will come out of them. This is false. No useful information of any kind will come out of them. On the plus side, Slashdot can take any approach it likes, even random generation of character sequences for "interview questions," and it will make no difference one way or the other.
Far more interesting is the question: Given that the electoral process in the US is entirely, completely, and hopelessly corrupted, now what?
Let's have a Slashdot roundtable. Get together Richard Posner, Paul Krugman, Greg Mankiw, Tyler Cowen, Lawrence Lessig, and some smart econ/political geeks, and let's talk turkey about economic policy, politics, and how technology interacts with these forces. (I'd really love to get a luminary on education in there, but I'm not sure who the good choices would be.)
Rick Perry said it best. "You get to ask the questions, and I get to answer how I want to." Who are we kidding? The candidates WILL NOT ANSWER your questions. Yeah, maybe you can get the webmaster to talk, but how much value is this really?
Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright. These former Secretary of States two have a better perception of world affairs and how the US political landscape affects world affairs than any two other individuals in the world. Further, they often hold contrary views allowing the discriminating reader a greater understanding of American politics.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
More useful than asking what they will do is to ask what they will undo: Repeal the Repeal of Glass-Steagall
anyone can complain...what is your solution? For me, all politics are local. We pay way too much attention to the national election and very little attention to local elections. These national people don't come from nowhere. Most start locally. If we all take more time to pay attention where it matters most, our backyard, perhaps less of these clowns will make it to the national stage. I'm tired of voting for the "least awful"...
Also, people vote. Not organizations, etc. Are people only educated by TV commercials? Money itself isn't the problem it's the fuel to the ignorance fire that most voters flock to - advertisements as information. We're well on our way to "Idiocracy".
Lawrence Lessig is a Harvard law professor. He is bright, articulate, technically savvy and an excellent speaker/presenter.
For those unfamiliar with him, he spent a decade focused on Law and Technology, especially related to copyright. More recently, he has shifted his focus to Institutional and Political Corruption.
He has taken a break from his blogging site, but its still a good read and his books are listed here:
http://www.lessig.org/blog/
His contact information is:
http://republic.lessig.org/contact.php/
More useful than asking what they will do is to ask what they will undo: Repeal the Repeal of Glass-Steagall
Regardless of outcome, a fucking grief counselor.
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
join the 99% movement.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Easy. He's the only one who's been explicit about how he will cut $1,000,000,000,000 of debt immediately. Everyone else is pretty vague, except Cain's 999 extra value meal, I mean plan.
derp
(%i1) factor(777353);
(%o1) 777353
Has the Afghan war been worth the shattered lives and the bankruptcy of the economy?
If the New York Yankees were looking for a new general manager, Ron Paul would be like the guy advocating that the Yankees cut their payroll by more than half, use "Moneyball"-style statistical techniques to find prospects, and build most of the major league club year after year through the farm system.
That might be a defensible approach for Team X, but it would be disastrous for the New York Yankees. The Yankees are in the unique position of having vastly more financial resources than anyone else, and also having higher expectations than anyone else (every season in which they don't reach the World Series is considered a failure by the team, media, and fans).
That's like the US when it comes to foreign policy. The US has to be big and active overseas, and that requires a humongous amount of spending.
... on /. ? /. is about tech, geek, and nerds.
Not politics. Much less US politics.
Mod me -1 as you like, but I'm kinda tired that, despite most tech developments are made outside US, /. is still US-centric. And this actually is the way it is, because you wanted it to be this way.
Even most doctorates in US either are not US citizens, or were born abroad.
Alvie.
I am not sure how you interpret "enumerated powers and all laws that are necessary to implement said powers" as allowing much more than... enumerated powers.
He could actually understand our questions.
Too bad the smear machine has already gone into gear against him and he'll be toppled from his front runner status.
"No, more likely it'll be President Tux."
And we'll have a penguin army. So the bear cavalry will be totally screwed.
That way maybe I can get longshot odds in Vegas and retire early.
Which states pushed for three-fifth compromise?
That degrading (and, as others rightfully put it, since amended properly) provision was there at the insistence of the North, not South (who actually wanted to keep their slaves counted as "whole" humans for the purposes of having more representation in Congress).
Paul B.
I have listened to Rand Paul on youtube several times and I was not ever impressed.
When he tries to tell me that low-flow toilets don't work, for example, I have to say "Really, Rand? How many have you installed? I've installed quite a few, and although they sure as hell didn't work the first two years after they were introduced, they work great now."
I can get a dirt cheap 1.6 gallon per flush toilet today that will flush more live lobsters at once than the five gallon flush it replaces. I can even get a 1.3 gallon per flush model that works for anyone who isn't morbidly obese or suffering from truly horrible bowel problems.
I'd say let's do what lots of other groups do and have the campaign give on the record official answers to a series of policy question of interest to slashdot readers. We could get into more detailed discussion of patent reform or international copyright enforcement or...
... republicans in the Congress to overrule his veto?
Or did he go to great extents to sign its extension (via that fancy robotic arm).
I second the notion, I would love to see Obama defend his flip-flopping on, hey, almost anything. I would prefer him to debate my preferred guy (obvious from my signature) on live TV, would be great! ;-)
Paul B.
Kucinich and Paul because they have principles that transcend party loyalty and they are not for sale.
Dean because he was the first Internet-savvy candidate, and has been the man behind the Democratic curtain for a long time now.
Al Franken because although his spoken delivery is awful, in written media the man is both funny and insightful.
...give me a way to exclude stories tagged politics from my Slashdot page.
Advice: on VPS providers
Someone with mod points, please mod up!
Paul B.
Anybody who lives in the reality of the USA knows the political system is completely broken.Representatives do NOT represent "the people", they represent whomever is cutting them the biggest check. It's the best politics money can buy.
You can ask anyone from Obama on down to the lowliest D.C. Paige anything you like, but there won't be any action unless you're handing over a suitcase of cash.
So, really Slashdot, what's the point? Our politicians are bought and paid-for whores, and unless you're waving money, they won't lift a finger. That's the reality. Representative government has failed via corruption.
The Supreme Court has even ruled that Corporations are people, so therefore, those with the money get to write their own laws, and the rest of us chattel have to live by them.
So, I guess my question is: Is there anyone left in government that actually represents the interests of the people? And before they answer, make sure you know EXACTLY how much they've accepted from lobbyists, because that will tell you up-front how much they are lying.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
This is the most powerful UNELECTED man in Federal Government. Because a large number of the GOP have signed his pledge to NEVER raise taxes, the GOP has scuttled or stalled every proposal to get this nation back on it's feet.
So my question is for Grover. And my question is this: "What gives you the fucking right? Nobody in America cast even one vote for your sorry ass, and yet you are dictating policy more than any elected official, even the goddam president. Do you really think you represent everyone in America? Do you even realize how much damage you are causing to our poilitcal system? Do you realize that YOU created the gridlock that ultimately lowered America's credit rating? And that further gridlock will ultimately cause this nation's downfall?"
Douche.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
I knew it looked suspicious too, but then, I've learned from him a lot about actually connecting the dots. Why housing bubble started to inflate right after .com crash, and why .com started to inflate almost right after *previous* Savings and Loans housing bubble in 80s, etc.
And, he actually saw it coming back when gold window was closed in 70s, what made him go into politics in the first place.
But you already know this, most probably, and the person I was replying to likely did not (or preferred not to!).
Paul B.
WTF?
"Women. Can't live with 'em. Pass the beer nuts." -Norm
join the 99% movement.
Why should I? If "we ... are ... the 99%", surely the election results will please us greatly, no? (Now, I'm getting ready to pelt the tin-hat brigade with green jello!)
More specifically, I would love to see Kucinich mount a primary challenge against Obama from within his own party, or Sanders accept the draft petition and run as an Independent in the general election.
http://www.sandersforpresident.org/
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
He should be able to give us a fair assessment of how much it will cost to buy off each of the candidates. After all, that's the only metric that matters.
http://Still2012.com
Stop the looting - start the prosecuting!
The senior males of the titled families write the checks that by-and-large determine what policies the likes of Grover Norquist, Newt Gingrich, and most of the senior elected GOP (and a few of the Democrats) put actual effort into, rather than just talk about. I suggest we cut out the middle man, and at least try to ask the opinions of one of these gentlemen.
I contend that - regardless of what their mouthpieces have to say - they don't really care about free markets or 'conservatism'. They care about guiding us to a predetermined result, where the 1% (or more to the point, the 1% of the 1%) corner the market on both liquid wealth and political influence.
It is possible that they have a different, or at least more nuanced, point of view. If so, I invite them to state it.
If someone wants to suggest George Soros or Warren Buffet, feel free. But, I'll tell you now and believe me later, Soros is an outlier within his class, and Buffet considered to have gone a bit off the reservation.
Luke, help me take this mask off
What other types of toilets are you familiar with? In Germany they have toilets with a momentary button to lift the valve, a small amount of water in the basin and a VERY large reservoir. You only need hold the button long enough to flush through whatever your flushing. If it's urine, usually just a second or two is all that's needed. Probably only 2-3 pints. But then, when you've got more serious stuff, you can do 1.7 gallons when needed, which adds up to being much more efficient than the guaranteed 1.6 gpf. I imagine the U.S. water utilities love those 1.6 gpf toilets.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
And why should they care? Their jobs are up for review only every few years. No one is there to take them to task for attendance or participation. It is unlikely that we will remember their transgressions in the next election season, even if enough people cared to turn out to begin with. These people are your employees. Are you happy with the job your employees are doing? Are they working on your behalf?
So, American People, are you going to continue to put up with this behavior? Are you going to sit idly by on election day and let your chance to make your voice heard? I propose to you that in 2012, we, The American People, tell the current political parties in no uncertain terms that their behavior will no longer be tolerated. I propose we do this by un-electing every single office that comes up for re-election, and that we vote for third parties whenever possible in those elections. And I propose that we continue to do this until we have some people in there who want to put the welfare of the American People in front of the corporations who want to suck us dry. It is, after all, the American People who hire and fire politicians, not corporate interest groups, not the Koch Brothers, not the think tanks in Washington. Us.
So, what do you say, American People? Political blood bath on election day? Or are you happy with Business as Usual?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
You know what I don't like about German toilets? The fact that your feces drops onto a porcelain plateau and not into water. Now granted you don't get the occasional "splash back" from the American style, but you do get a much more "fragrant" experience and guaranteed skid marks. Too graphic?
We show geeks how to get their dream girl at EyesOfOdessa.com
Seriously: in that sentence, who does "we" refer to? When you realize it refers to the federal government, not the country, and that those are two totally different (and often adversarial) things, you'll "get" the idea of constitutional limits.
We need to not be assholes on the internet, but we don't want the government to regulate what you're allowed to say on the internet. We need religion to go away and die, but we don't want government to outlaw (or establish) religion. We want speed limits on some roads, but recognize that the federal government is no better informed about what roads need what limits, then our state and local governments made up of people who actually live here and have maybe seen the roads. We want certain building codes, but recognize that buildings in Alaska and Louisiana exist within totally different environments.
Wanting feds to butt out of an issue, is usually not the same as taking any particular side on that issue.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Yeah, the runway is a bit odd. The only purpose I could figure was that it allows for convenient inspection, aside from just conserving water by reducing the basin size.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
Rand Paul seems to throw in a little bit of Palin-esque stupidity on purpose to minimize GOP fear of him, and to not ostracize the part of the electorate that is scared of the fact that his father is often talking to them like intelligent adults.
Until recently, I thought /. was relatively libertarian, certainly much more than most sites. It's only in the past few years that I've seen stereotypically liberal comments become common. I suspect that males born after 1990 match the bias you suggest, but they're still not a majority here.
... but too many people do not, and in my rather short time living in this country (and actually studying its history on the side), I have seen the whole 3/5th thing attributed to too many "racist Southerners"/"Republicans" once too many times (never mind that the real racists were what was then called Democrats, and MLK was a Republican), so I have a bit of an issue when that is raised as an argument in serious discussion about what needs to be done *now*.
I am originally from the "Soviet Russia" (actually, Soviet Union), and I might have an issue about choosing "the lessER of two evils", from what I've heard, "Articles of Confederation" were not that bad either! ;) And no, I do not care about living in a big "country" (and was supporting the notion of Soviet Union collapse back in the day, when all different peoples were just willing out of it, for all different reasons); I would prefer to live in a Republic with a clear set of laws limiting the Government, while having my ability to choose the particular set I want to adhere to/limit myself by simply moving across the state lines!
Paul B.
Bernie Sanders has a standing "interview" on the Thom Hartman radio show every Friday morning. When I happen to listen in, I've always been impressed with his ideas.
I'd like to ask him if he sees any hope for, and a specific way to obtain, meaningful campaign finance regulation. (Making it easier for third parties to run in primaries and generals, removing or scaling back the power that money has in elections, etc... ).
Gingrich is definitely the most pro-science, and I'd speculate the most intelligent, of any major candidate.
Where he says that Earth is definitely 6000 years old, and Bible is to be taken literally?
He is definitely religious (and, by the way, I am personally not, though I have used "Taoist" on government forms to indicate my religious affiliation, just for the fun of it, and can argue that we live in a simulation or agree with Borges that for omnipotent Got if would mean nothing to embed a couple of fitting-together bones in the Earth to fool naive humans, on certain days! ;) ) -- but, he definitely does not wear it on his sleeve, and would rather have matters like this to be left to individual human beings.
Besides, if you are an atheist, which of current/past/future US candidates could you sincere support? Not Obama, right? ;-)
Paul B.
Guess Who was on second. The Band was on third.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
... and have to admit, that they are lots of fun, especially when you are young! ;-)
When you are a bit older, as in, having to plan for more than one month ahead, they are less fun, but still can be educational to some people.
(Me? trying to be young in heart, honestly!)
Paul B.
Scott Rasmussen, the political pollster.
I would simply like to know when they're going to convene a panel of talented and gifted high school kids to put together a voting system that can be used across the country. They should be done by noon. It's just tabulating votes people. Diebold's system isn't rocket science,
Anonymous
He runs electoral-vote.com and also wrote a textbook on operating systems that many of us read as undergrads.
Ron Paul is the only decent choice. All other candidates are controlled by their donations *cough*bribes*cough* and don't care about the average person.
This actually works surprisingly well - electoral-headhunter.com - and no need to listen to any boring viewpoints. Hail science!
then every politician but Ron Paul would be considered radical and crazy. Since unlimited government is the norm in today's world, obviously he would be the one to be singled out.
Although you wouldn't know it from the debates, Buddy Roemer (@BuddyRoemer on Twitter) is a GOP candidate. He hasn't been invited to the debates because the GOP keeps changing the rules. He's a former Governor of Louisiana who was elected as a Democrat, then changed parties mid-term in 1991. He's been very vocal about getting money out of the political process (#GetMoneyOut) and only allows a maximum donation of $100 per person or entity. I'd like to just know more about him in general.
a) examples?
b) try looking for it. Start at http://mises.org/ which is dedicated to offering solutions to getting out of this crisis.
The last time the US federal government mandated water efficiency improvements in toilets was, oh, the early 90s I think.
Prior to that, most toilets in the USA were 3.5 gallon per flush, and had been of the same design for around a hundred years. Many were even less efficient - I lived in a house with a five-gallon flush (which I replaced with a 1.6 gallon model) and I've heard of seven-gallon models.
Because private innovation had completely ceased in toilet design, and because of the United States' extremely forseeable water problems in the arid southwest (which involve not only US citizens but also Mexico; water is a political and national security issue in Central America) a coalition of legislators forced toilet installers and vendors to innovate by public law.
The toilet makers, despite having had literally years of warning that this would happen, did not invest in new designs until after the law passed. They then attempted to sell toilets that were designed for high flush volume refitted with low volume tanks. These toilets were horrible - they had to be flushed repeatedly in normal use, they clogged constantly, they were just awful.
Because the market rewards innovation that improves customer satisfaction, and nobody was buying replacement toilets because the new ones were known to be awful, innovation... happened. The 1.6 gallon per flush toilets are, today, cheap and effective.
I know this because I've been installing toilets for decades at my house, my parents' house, and at several of my friends houses. I also have a close friend who does plumbing professionally; he has installed dozens if not hundreds of toilets.
But Rand Paul is using the perception that toilets are no good due to federal law (a partial truth at one time, but now completely untrue) as a political meme. He is, esentially, using a lie to drive his anti-regulatory agenda, which is particularly egregious since the regulations in question have actually worked to remedy a free market failure in a way that is beneficial to the USA as a nation. This sort of calculating misrepresentation is not something I have ever seen his father do. Furthermore, in the past Ron Paul has admitted it when he has made misjudgements - look at the evolution of his views on church, state, and sexuality, for a good example - and I've never seen Rand Paul do that.
Sorry about the long post, but since you're in Germany I figured you'd need the details to understand the context in which I was criticizing Rand Paul.
Granted it would be an independent run for a state house seat. I live in a rural part of the state and plan to run as a pure independent. I've begun laying the groundwork for my campaign including web design and planning ways of fundraising and how to get my name out there. I plan on leveraging technology to help me compete in the race, allowing me to be in touch with each and every member of district. I say plan to run throughout my post as I have to collect the necessary signatures for my petition to get on the ballot, and they can only be collected within a short period next year.
Hmmm, interesting idea. He'd probably gather more than he'd lose with that strategy, since the Tea Party crowd is effectively leaderless. And he wouldn't be the first politician to play dumb on purpose.
I think I'll reserve judgment on this for now, but I'll certainly keep your comment in mind when I look at Rand Paul's activities in the future. Thanks!
Alcohol was banned in many places prior to prohibition. The constitutional amendment was to ban it everywhere, and make it hard to undo. The War on Drugs should be questioned, but not like this.
tomorrow who's gonna fuss
I'd like to see Bill Still. He has a somewhat better grasp than Ron Paul and not nearly as crazy.
I am unsure of ./ readership in New Mexico, but have announced my candidacy for State Representative for my District.
I am registered as a Democrat, but, my website (thomasbrungard.com) will reveal no hardcore political ideological bindings.
Being I have never held office, or been involved in politics in any way, running against a 12-Term Representative; I have zero professional help. Anything and everything that I have out, and that I answer, is my own opinions and thoughts - nothing boiled down to soundbites.
This is an amazing opportunity, and I thank ./ for posting it. I have tried for two months to get people to talk to me about what issues they feel are important, and how they would like them addressed. I have my own opinions, but realize that I am running to represent the voice of the People; and, logically, I cannot have considered every situation and circumstance and so would like to hear rational arguments against my ideas. I am willing to change my stance based on what the People want, provided I hear a persuasive case (not simply due to polls changing).
I have put out my e-mail (listen@thomasbrungard.com) as well as phone number (505.410.3134) - so see no reason why I cannot share them publicly here.
Thank you for anyone who reads this for your time.
He's interviewed a lot of candidates, he has some great insight. Could give some good advice, And will be entertaining(if he agrees).
Lawrence Lessig(rootstrikers,creativecommons,eldrid v ashcroft, etc)
Bruce Schneier(security related concerns, as well as electronic voting)
Nate Silver(fivethirtyeight.com)(several people have already mentioned Tannenbaum(my favorite))
Jon Stewart(alway entertaining usually insightful)
Pete Ashdown(ran against Sen. Orrin Hatch, may be doing so again(Will annouce on the Nov. 11th, also founded an ISP in 1992 and runs a non profit dedicated to repurposing computers(I have been involved in this campaign in the past and sit on the board of the non profit with him)) pashdown@pashdown.org
Rick BoucherForced out in last election but always a big supporter of copyright/patent reform.
I wish I could share all of polling stuff I know(just left a job for a major pollster after six years), but about all I can share is this.
Message testing is not push polling. It is message testing. Yes, it can be hard to tell the difference, but if they are asking for statistical information, it's probably an actual poll, not a push poll or voter identification.
Actually, I do live in the U.S. I worked in Germany for 4 months in 2004. Now my occupation is somewhat different, and if I could, I would import the German toilets (you know the Germans always make good stuff) to independent retailers, and I doubt I would be the only one. It's likely the market would grow as many people are conservation minded, and demonstrating that the toilets use less water than the 1.6 gpf would be very easy to do.
What concerns me most about these issues is that they violate the Constitution. The Constitution grants Congress very specific and limited powers. Mandating the gpf of toilets is not one of the enumerated powers, and I think this was Rand Paul's larger point.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
I disagree with that interpretation of the Constitution - the power to encourage progress in the useful arts and sciences through regulation is clearly included by the United States Constitution, Article One, Section 8, Clause 8 as well as in the preamble. Furthermore, water conservation is a military and political issue because of the situation with Mexico, and thus it falls under the federal government's mandate to provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure liberty. It doesn't mention gpf, sure, or toilets - but it also doesn't mention bullets, soldiers' hats, or grenades, even though those are equally clearly covered by the defense mandate. You can't expect the constitution to talk specifically by name about things that weren't conceived of at the time it was written.
However, I do see your point, and I admit the government could have achieved the same end (promoting innovation in waste and sanitation tech) by reforming intellectual property law and reforming the rigging of the economic system that prevents home-garage entrepreneurs from being able to compete with entrenched corporations. Right now, if you don't have a million bucks in venture capital, Kohler and their buddies will crush you with toilets mass produced in China; this situation prevents progress (in the absence of regulation, that is).
All that being said, I don't see Ron/Rand Paul's "business friendly" approach changing that problem any time soon. I respect their wish for less restriction of individual persons' rights, but until they strongly oppose corporate personhood their agenda is putting the cart before the horse. Corporations already have too many rights without corresponding responsibilities or accountability. Strip them of personhood first, then give people stronger rights - people have responsibilities (like jury duty, for one example) that corporations should not, and likewise corporations should not have any human rights.
And finally I still say Rand Paul doesn't know crap about toilets, and is grandstanding using false claims that play to ignorance, and it makes me respect him far less than his father. Ron Paul is more intellectually honest.
Because I can.
Some time ago I determined that the Constitution could not be an ambiguous document to be interpreted any way any reader likes. I have been involved in relatively high-level contract negotiations in the private sector and my experience is that ambiguous anything in legal documents just doesn't happen, and the same would have been true for the Constitution. There was a considerable amount of national attention on this legal document, and I just can't see anyone agreeing to a document that doesn't provide crystal-clear meanings and rock-solid guarantees.
It is with this that I have endeavored to find what the original ratifiers of the Constitution intended it to mean. Ratifiers are more important than framers because the Constitution is a grant of powers by the ratifiers; meaning that they are the ones with the final say-so on what the Constitution means, and on most things they left a very clear paper trail describing what they want to accomplish with the Constitution. The best book I have found with this line of thinking is The Original Constitution by Robert G. Natelson.
With regards to Article One, Section 8, the Constitution states "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." Natelson states that this is something legally known as a 'special limitation':
There is no "mandate to provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure liberty." The General Welfare Clause states: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." This is also a special limitation, as it can be read that having the power to lay and collect taxes is only used so long as it is for the common defense and general welfare. This is a limitation, not a grant of powers. If we were to read the General Welfare clause as meaning that Congress can do whatever it wishes as long as it deems these things to be for general welfare or common defense, then why follow such a statement with a list of enumerated powers? During the ratification, the people were most concerned with an out of control centralized government. To say that they would have given such a government unlimited powers is to completely misunderstand their single biggest goal.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
I can't agree that adding words to a contract or other legal document is a legitimate way to increase one's understanding of it. I'm not going to be able to take seriously any argument based on that idea.
It seems to me that the clear intent of the framers and of the document is that the federal government's ability regulate should be restricted to regulations that can be equally applied across all individual states. Mandates for efficiency, which are a subset of mandates for minimum product quality (which the framers quite clearly supported) cannot be imposed only on a particular class, they must be uniform. It does not limit them in any other way unless you add something to the text - "general welfare" is pretty obviously intended to be a broad brush.
Today, of course, we have the pork-barrel-of-the-week legislation designed to benefit one particular corporation, community or industry at the expense of all others; clearly not what was intended by "uniform" and "general".
Michael Palin
There. Fixed it for you.
I'll agree that the new 1.6 gallon toilets are much, much better today than when first mandated they are not superior to the older 3 gallon models. I concede the necessity for water conservation and I can live with the 1.6 model I have now but it's not a better toilet. Not by any means. I've never ever used a 1.6 that was quite as good as the 3 gallon except for the ones with the jet tank using pressure. Those work very well. I plan to buy one soon.
If you buy a jet tank, keep in mind that children often find the noise frightening, and sometimes littler kids will be too scared to use them.
The 1.6 gpf toilets I've installed recently were as good as (but not better than) the old, high-volume toilets they replaced. Supposedly the 1.3 gpf ones are getting better, too, but I haven't installed any of those in my house.