Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Which Candidates For Geek Issues?
Okian Warrior writes "An oft-repeated sentiment on Slashdot is that we should change the situation by voting in better officials. An opinion that appears in nearly every political thread is: 'we're to blame because we elected these people.' On the eve of the first primary (in New Hampshire), I have to wonder: how can we tell the candidates apart? Ron Paul is an obvious exception, and I am not discounting him, but otherwise it seems that no candidate has made a stand on any issue. Consider the candidates (all of them, of any party) as a set. What issue can I use to divide them into two groups, such that one group is 'for' something and the other is 'against'?"
I'm much more inclined to look at a candidate that uses or has used technology versus those who just like to talk about it.
In that sense, Obama came into his position while using a Blackberry to keep connected. Presumably this allowed him to use the business features of the device to make his work more efficient. As a user, he would be affected by changes to the law that might restrict what he could do if companies now stop things that they've been doing in practice.
A candidate who talks about technology without actually putting it into practice is not necessarily a good candidate, in that their understanding doesn't come to a practical level and the could think they understand issues that they don't, and since they don't even use the tech, making a bad decision wouldn't even impact them.
Run away from candidates who are proud of their provincial, luddite behavior. That's perfectly fine in any random person, but is unacceptable in someone who will be expected to make decisions that affect millions of people but can't be bothered to get informed.
"Those Internets" -George W. Bush
"The Internet is a great way to get on the Net" -Bob Dole
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
You can see John Huntsman tip toe around certain questions about the envrionment by saying that he believes that a leader should listen to the experts in the field on the issues.
The two party system has to go. It only fosters a "you're with us or against us" mentality that doesn't get anything done. Get rid of political parties, make lobbying illegal, and one more thing. Make all politicians write summary documents about any bills they vote for. If they can't summarize it like any child does in reading class, they should NOT be able to vote on it. It also provides an audit trail into their dumb thoughts at the time.
today is spelling optional day.
That's one way to look at it....I see things a slightly different:
*Republicans believe that nothing should hold back an individual or group from achieving success and happiness provided that it is done in a way that is not that harmful to society or others - also, that ideally all individuals and families should be positive role models. Furthermore, republicans generally believe that each section of society has a proper role and size where the family is responsible for giving kids a good start in life and being the primary resource for handling emergencies and major events, that the individual is responsible for what he achieves and his health, that religion and churches should look after the moral health of society and also be the venue through which most general welfare and charitable activities be handled, that government be limited to providing basic infrastructure and a neutral safe ground for everyone to interact, and lastly that when decisions in government be made that it be at the level closest to those impacted (e.g. local control of schools rather than state/federal).
*Democrats believe the republican "traditional approach" has failed or otherwise lets too many people out in the cold. Their arguments are more from the emotional side (e.g. everyone has a right to good health, it is better that we all have the same standard of living than that some do too much better than others, that too many people are not capable of governing their own life and we should use government to ensure they are both cared for and that their actions be for the general good).
Both approaches have their pluses and minuses.....I see the sensible middle ground being that for society to succeed long term it must blend both, enough of the republican approach to have wealth, and enough of the democrat approach for everyone to feel they've had a fair chance at life and not rebel.
Politics is more intense now simply because the USA is at the start or middle of an economic decline and there are two approaches being discussed. Republicans want to do everything possible to recover growth and wealth (no matter how painful it will be). Democrats are more fatalistic and believe that we should be directing our attention towards managing the decline in such a way that no one group gets hurt too bad, and that if any group must be hurt -- it should be at the higher end. Unfortunately, these two approaches are somewhat the opposite of each other...
I have never had any objection to people being wealthy, even ridiculously wealthy, and most Democrats that I've talked to on this matter do not have a problem with this either. The problem is in shirking responsibilities. No legal document founding this country makes any guarantee of being wealthy, or any respect for it.
If you want to talk about what wealth disparity does, look at the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. ALL had large elements of a super-rich, corrupt elite who wouldn't return to society some of the fruits of their success that they benefitted from society. When income and resource inequality gets too far out of whack, revolution happens.
I am not going to get into a debate about affirmative action right now, the issues of generations of racial discrimination and the ramifications of it are far too far reaching to get in to depth on in this forum. On the other hand, I don't see anyone forcing a social conservative to have a gay marriage. I don't see anyone forcing a social conservative to participate in a blow job, or in birth control, or in sex for pleasure, or in sex in anything other than the missionary position (I'm pointing directly at Santorum here), nor is anyone forcing them to have premarital sex or extramarital affairs. The point in this is that Democrats generally want to not prohibit activities between consenting adults. I do, however, see Republicans arguing that their social restrictions on who can have sex with who when everyone involved are consenting adults, and I find that more disgusting than any of the sexual practices that they seek to render illegal between those consenting adults.
I was referring to the elected officials, not to the public. Terri Schiavo comes to mind. In my opinion, Democrats should have removed the filibuster from the Senate's rules of order and rammed single-payer-with-optout (ie, if you opt out, no one is required to care for you if you can't pay), end of DADT, appointment of judges, cabinet post and agency director positions, and a whole host of other legislation down Republicans' throats just as the Republicans did when they managed to gain majorities in both chambers.
I know, you're libertarian, so you don't like many of my ideas, but if you want roads, clean air, clean water, postal delivery, the ability to purchase things that require loans, someone to deal with the results of your rights being violated, someone to put out fires, and much, much more, you'll need some form of organizing body, and that is called Government.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Other than John Huntsman, the GOP candidates have serious issue with basic science.
As in, they all claim to believe at least part of this list:
- Creationism is a valid theory. (Nevermind fossils or the definition of scientific "theory".)
- Global warming is a hoax or not something that should be addressed. (Nevermind the data and the >98% concurrence among climatologists.)
- Vaccines cause retardation (Nevermind... facts)
- Abstinence education is effective. (Nevermind the data that show how high pregnancy rates are when it's all that's available.)
- Abortion is pretty much never a medical necessity. (That's from the ACTUAL PHYSICIAN candidate, too.)
- Being gay is a mental disease/lifestyle choice/bad decision/horrible influence on children (Nevermind that the AMA and American Psychiatric association recognize it as normal variation, and studies show gay parents are fine.)
- Sex is only for man-woman-marriage-baby-making. (Nevermind reality. And Newt Gingrich.)
It's quite evocative of that famous Asimov quote: Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'
So yeah, I'd say Huntsman at least doesn't try to play "who is the most sincere anti-intellectual for their Deity" by denying science. As a geek, that's something I like in a candidate.
I wish sanity were something that was a little easier to parlay into support, but the Primaries are the Crazy Olympics, and it's all about who can out-God and out-blue-collar the next.
I want to like a party that espouses fiscal and personal responsibility. I want to embrace the idea of less intrusive government. I just don't think it should come at the cost of science.