Obama Announces for President, Boosts Broadband 846
Arlen writes "As many as 17,000 people (according to police estimates) watched Senator Barack Obama officially announce his candidacy for President in Springfield, Illinois today. He mentioned several things that will interest readers of Slashdot. The Senator said he wanted to free America from 'the tyranny of oil' and went on to promote alternative energy sources such as ethanol — a popular stance in the Midwest where he announced, because of all the corn farmers. He also talked about using science and technology to help those with chronic diseases, which is likely to have been an allusion to his staunch support for stem cell research. Perhaps most of interest to readers here is the following statement halfway through Obama's speech: 'Let's invest in scientific research, and let's lay down broadband lines through the heart of inner cities and rural towns all across America. We can do that.' Like nearly everything in his speech, this was met with robust applause from the crowd. You can watch a video of the entire speech at Obama's website."
Wow (Score:1, Interesting)
Obama's Social Networking Site (Score:5, Interesting)
Dean ushered in Internet fundraising in 2004. Could Obama harness social networking?
A new feeling (Score:4, Interesting)
Midwest (Score:2, Interesting)
Honestly, I don't even see a negative side to ethanol (other than it's still a fossil fuel). It reduces our dependance on foregin oil, and would (presumably) lower our national trade deficit and keep more money within the borders (something that conservatives are sure to be happy about).
It will be interesting to see Obama's commitment levels on the issue as we progress toward Nov, 2008.
Re:I notice he didn't mention... (Score:1, Interesting)
so the question comes down to this; (Score:2, Interesting)
the vast majority of african-americans will vote for obama to see a black man elected president (likely even putting their political beliefs aside)
the vast majority of women will vote for hillary to see a woman elected president
(likely even putting their political beliefs aside)
then you have to consider the other side of this
how many non black people will vote for hillary to prevent a black man from taking office
(likely even putting their political beliefs aside)
verses
how many men will vote for obama to prevent a woman from taking office
(likely even putting their political beliefs aside)
african american females will have reason to be happy either way i suppose
undoubtably many people here will respond to this post as 'you idiot, those aren't the only two choices', but i disagree. america is so blatantly retarded these are in fact the only two choices, regardless of what is written on the ballot.
in 2002 at work i predicted that hillary would run in 2008, and even said 'i bet she will win, just because of the female vote' (i never would have imagined it would come down to this though, this puts a whole new spin on it) and i even made it clear i didnt want her to win. this one guy in the room got very very upset with me and heavily ostracized me for even mentioning it.
someone do some stat searching and find out how many women and how many african americans are in the usa.
Re:A new feeling (Score:1, Interesting)
It's going to be someone's voting record what that helps me decide for whom to vote. It's not what someone says that matters, but the actions they take, and voting can be seen as action.
Regardless of the fact he's running for President, what is he doing while still in office serving the public right now? He should have power to do the same things he wants to do as President, if not more so. The President sets the policy and signs in the laws, but the President doesn't create the law, that's Congress's job. Obama is still a part of Congress. What has he done lately?
Re:Midwest -- Inefficient Ethanol (Score:3, Interesting)
And how much does that make up for the inherent inefficiency (MPG) of ethanol (up to 33%) compared to regular gasoline? Or does the feel good quotient make up for that?
And ethanol does nothing significant for CO2 reduction, or is Global Warming not your concern?
Re:How? (Score:3, Interesting)
Who cares? The better question would be "to what degree can we defeat the damn corn lobby so that we can get the ethanol from a less ridiculously inefficient crop in the first place?!"
Re:Obama is far to the right of the American peopl (Score:2, Interesting)
I live in a precinct and county that consistently vote Republican. My congressional district is "represented" by Dennis Hastart, who was until recently the most powerful Republican in the House. My town is basically trying to kick non-whites out through a series of nationally reported racist ordinances. I do not live in Boston or LA, but smack in the middle of the Midwest. I won't comment on my personal habits, but I've only been around people who were using pot once in the past year or so. The American people don't support the left on the wedge issues of immigration, gay marriage, evolution, etc. However, when it comes to economics, they are vastly more left wing than the Democratic party. Most Americans want more regulation of corporations, higher taxes on the rich, lower taxes on the working, and single payer nationalized healthcare. Socialism really is in the best interests of working America and that's why the first openly socialist member of the senate was just elected [thenation.com].
Re:I notice he didn't mention... (Score:1, Interesting)
opposites attract? (Score:2, Interesting)
They just might go for the opposite.
Video interoperability (Score:3, Interesting)
Addressing the larger scheme of things, I'd just like to say it's sad how politics seems to eventually run into centrism, especially for the presidential elections, due to the "winner takes all" approach. I was really rooting for Dean during the last primaries, but it seems like the Dems preferred a more bland candidate. Oh well. Here's to hoping that people have wised up since '04.
Re:I notice he didn't mention... (Score:5, Interesting)
Did you miss the last 4 years. I am a canadian and we noticed in the last 4 years you've changed a lot. You went from a mostly harmless slightly loud giant with too much money to an antogonistic bully who doesn't have the sense not to spend himself into massive debt. I don't think you've been paying much attention.
Re:Wow (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes yes, flamebait I know. The curiour side of me wants to see a Clinton/Rice ticket...
The pragmatic side of me says we're all fscked no matter what.
If a good Libertarian or independent (Ross Perot anyone?) were to run in all 50 I bet they'd win. Our decrepit 2 party system won't let anyone else in, in enough states to matter.
I propose the following voting system:
Since we all generally consider our elected officials a compromise of whose less bad lets vote that way!
Vote for the one person you think is the absolute worst to have in office. Like golf, the one with the lowest score wins.
Simple and it would really spice up the mix of parties in office.
-nB
Re:Ethanol NOT Superior to Oil (Score:3, Interesting)
Instead of pretending that fuels like hydrogen are the way of the future, we should make an effort to switch to clean energy (wind, solar, nuclear) and use electric cars. This technology is available TODAY. No need to spend $4b for research.
David Pimentel, an agricultural scientist at Cornell University and one of the foremost critics of ethanol, has conducted numerous cost analyses on ethanol production. He's made a name for himself mostly by driving the ethanol industry raving mad. From its very beginnings, when hoe enters soil, ethanol production has not changed much since the nineteenth century. Pimentel found that one acre of U.S. corn field yields about 7,110 pounds of corn, which in turn produces 328 gallons of ethanol. Setting aside the environmental implications (which are substantial), the financial costs already begin to mount. To plant, grow, and harvest the corn takes about 140 gallons of fossil fuel and costs about $347 per acre. According to Pimentel's analysis, even before the corn is converted to ethanol, the feedstock alone costs $0.69 per gallon of ethanol.
More damning, however, is that converting corn to ethanol requires about 99,119 BTUs to make one gallon, which has 77,000 BTUs of available energy. So about 29 percent more energy is required to produce a gallon of ethanol than is stored in that gallon in the first place. "That helps explain why fossil fuels (not ethanol) are used to produce ethanol," Pimentel says. "The growers and processors can't afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. U.S. drivers couldn't afford it, either, if it weren't for government subsidies that artificially lower the price." All told, a gallon of ethanol costs $2.24 to produce, compared to $0.63 for a gallon of gasoline.
Re:Yeah. Right. (Score:4, Interesting)
His bills on Thomas are generally good, but as of yet, I've not seen him do much more than use "everyman" politics in order to get people to like him. When you think about it, elections are about getting the least informed people to like you better than the other guy. Until he starts putting actions behind his words, I could care less about him.
Re:I notice he didn't mention... (Score:5, Interesting)
As it's the wee hours of the morning, and I'm hoping to go to bed, I'll have to find a specific reference for you later (assuming I remember to do so, of course), however at one point the gun registry started a programme where they sent registration representatives all across the country, to rural, remote, and Native Canadian community areas to personally register people due to very low compliance levels.
Hiring, training, and flying hundreds of people around the country to help people fill out forms doesn't come cheap. Now I won't disagree that the overall start-up cost wasn't outrageous, and that there wasn't any waste -- but the same can be said of pretty much anything run by humans. The Government of the day, however, bent over backwards to make sure they weren't making criminals out of gun-owning Canadians. Registration deadlines were pushed back, people were hired to fill in forms for people who should have just picked them up from their local post office or community centre and mailed them in, and all sorts of allowances were made to try to prevent creating criminals out of tens of thousands of citizens. And let's not forget the advertising budget -- the Government didn't sneak this legislation in and then send the cops to peoples doors -- to try to encourage registration complience, they had several major advertising campaigns, including to-the-door pamphlet mailings, 1-800 numbers for asking questions about the registry, etc.
People seem to think that such services come for free. They don't. The Government could have taken a hard-line stance, and as soon as the original registration deadline came and went start sending the police to peoples homes, but instead they extended deadlines, had further advertising and educational campaigns, and sent staff to peoples homes to fill in the forms for them. Such services weren't budgeted for, as the Government of the day failed to anticipate how much of a backlash they would see from instituting the registry.
(FWIW, I know a number of gun owners, my father included, who were 100% FOR the registry, and who registered early and on-time).
As for long guns and crime, it happens way more often than you might think. That police woman killed in Montreal two or three years ago was killed by a long gun. The gunman who went on the rampage at Dawson College in Montreal last September was using a long gun. The gunman who killed 14 women at Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal used a long gun. The Taber, Alberta school shooting was committed with a long gun. These were all very, very high-profile crimes here in Canada, and each and every one of them was committed with a long gun. Long guns play a very significant role in crime. Methinks that all too many long gun owners here in Canada have a very short memory when it comes to the crimes committed here using them.
Yaz.
Yaz.
This is why we need a non-candidate vote: (Score:4, Interesting)
I've always voted for third parties, since I refuse to buy into the belief that a vote on principles is a wasted vote, but I think we need a new option on ballots:
"Throw the bastards out."
If this wins the majority, the candidates for the parties are legally prohibited from ever running for office again, and we start over with new primaries.
It'd be nice if we could go so far that if this option wins, the candidates and all their cronies get exiled to some godforsaken rock in the Pacific.
Yeah, it'll never happen. Let me dream please.
Re:Midwest (Score:5, Interesting)
Ethanol is supposed to be a more efficient way of using oil. The oil is used to produce corn and refine the corn into ethanol, which produces slightly more energy than just burning the oil directly. The corn captured some energy from the sun that ends up in the ethanol. You can think of ethanol as hybrid oil+solar energy. In the case of corn, it's 90% oil and 10% solar, if that. Sugar cane is much better, but needs to be grown closer to the equator where there is more sunlight. Only Hawaii and the southern parts of Florida, Louisiana and Texas can grow sugar cane in the US.
Re:Yeah. Right. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Because Obama is Jesus Christ 2.0 (Score:4, Interesting)
One issue I feel very deeply about is the 2nd amendment, our national failsafe. When, in researching this candidate (I was interested in him because he seems well spoken and pro-technology) I discovered that he has a long standing dislike for private gun ownership, it disqualified him as a candidate in my eyes. I posted the reference to the vote in 2003 because I like to provide some sort of background for my statements if possible, instead of appearing like a every day gun nut.
Don't get me wrong, I AM a gun nut, but a president who wants to illegalize private gun ownership seems like a pretty damn polarizing issue.
I do NOT want to vote republican this election; I want to vote for someone sane who will restore our personal freedoms, get us out of foreign adventures, and leave my guns & rights to them alone and undisturbed. That someone is NOT Obama.
Re:I notice he didn't mention... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm trying to find that survey now. I'll post again if I find the link. I read it years ago. It was very eye-opening.
Re:This is not 100% true. (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not sure what's involved in the conversion though as I don't know anyone personally who's done it. I don't even know of a place that sells ethanol or E85 in my area. Husky sells gas with 10% ethanol, but that's not enough to need a conversion and it runs fine in every car I've ever filled up with it.
Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)
Amazing how the people you vote for become "them" when the policies you voted for blow up in your face...
Re:i'd like you to meet someone (Score:0, Interesting)
Re:I notice he didn't mention... (Score:2, Interesting)
The gun control debate is so polarized, there's no room for anyone to get a full picture.
(As for me? 2nd amendment all the way!)
Listen to the Facts, Not The Words (Score:4, Interesting)
* "Boost broadband? - This is a meaningless statement. How do you "boost broadband?" Did broadband access increase overnight? Did he actually propose a way to increase broadband access?
* " Like nearly everything in his speech, this was met with robust applause from the crowd" - Exactly, because they aren't listening to the what he is saying, they are just listening to the words and audience cues built into his speech through pauses and wordplay. I suspect that actual neurological activity in the average crowd member would be around that of watching television - they are just being entertained. Also, the shill is trying to use social proofing to make you think, hey, everyone else was cheering this, I should to. Unfortunately, it invalidates the salience of the boost broadband comment used as the lead to capture the interest of Slashdot readers because, if they were cheering for everything, then their cheering for broadband is meaningless.
Re:Wow (Score:3, Interesting)
So, you can be any skin color, but you have to be a god-fearing american.
Obama is a Media Creation (Score:3, Interesting)
I sometimes wonder if a bunch of CNN reporters were sitting around having coffee one day, joking about how powerful they are. Then one guy was like, "I bet we could take a junior senator and turn him into a presidential candidate". Wager donuts for breakfast. OK! You're on. Loser has to sit next to cologne-soaked Carl on the next flight out to a location shot.
Oh, and it's fine to take surplus grain that's no longer fit for human consumption and use it as a reserve fuel; but it will never get us off oil. Reduce sprawl and improve battery life for electrics. Switching fuels is easier at the power plant than it is at the pump. With electicity as the fuel-neutral choice, we can shift from oil/coal/nuclear/natgas/bio/wind at will, based on the relative cost and availablity of any particular fuel. Oil spiking while natgas priced reasonably? Shut down generator 2 that burns oil, and fire up generator 4 that runs natgas. With electricity as the mediator, cars will always be fueled by the most affordable technology, and if any new tech comes online it will be incorporated with no fuss at the consumer level.
Re:i'd like you to meet someone (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe not. There's an argument to be made that the US needs a black man to become president at this moment in history. The black men I know who've managed to overcome the smallmindedness you often find in the US to become successful, have developed a real skill for seeing through BS, don't suffer fools and aren't easily played. I've still got a fair amount of faith in my fellow US citizens and although it sometimes takes them a while, they do learn. And the last six years have been a real hard lesson.
Anyway, I could walk down to skid row and pick up anyone stumbling out of a liquor store and he'd almost certainly do a better job than the current occupant of the White House. In fact, now that I think about his CV, that may be something like the way he got the job.
Re:Wow (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, so long as they're not THAT woman.
I'm a hardcore Democrat, and I'd actually like to see a woman president someday, but Hillary Clinton just rubs me the wrong way. She's another unexciting DLC Democrat whose stances blow with the wind, and the only stances she seems consistent on are ones that I disagree with (e.g. her stance on video games, her general anti-consumer voting record, etc.). Right now, the absolute last thing the Democratic party needs is to put another poll-driven, passionless candidate to win the primary.
Obama gets my vote. He's got solid values, and he's yet to do anything that shows he doesn't mean what he says. I've been watching him since 2004 and hoping for this day.
Vote for the one person you think is the absolute worst to have in office. Like golf, the one with the lowest score wins.
Horrible idea. Most obscure candidate wins. All you've got to do is get on the ballot in enough states, stay out of the limelight, and you win. The idea wouldn't work without the ability to select multiple candidates, and then it becomes the same as being able to standard approval voting.