Presidential Candidates' Science and Tech Policies 413
gracey1103 writes "Popular Mechanics has put together an easy-to-follow matrix of where the '08 presidential candidates stand on different science, tech and environment issues. Everything is cited and links back directly to each candidate's published policy pages so you can get more info."
Not every candidate (Score:4, Insightful)
One of these things is not like the others (Score:5, Insightful)
o Digital/Tech
o Climate/Energy
o Environment
o Gun control
o Infrastructure
o Science/Education
o Space
WTF??
Disappointment (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know how willingness to spend confiscated funds on research became a qualification for office, but I am completely convinced that this point of view is part of the problem, not the solution.
-Peter
Re:Not every candidate (Score:3, Insightful)
not easy to follow at all (Score:5, Insightful)
"Easy to follow matrix"? Not exactly. At first, I thought the matrix indicated endorsements, but it doesn't -- checkmarks simply indicate that they were able to find out where a candidate stands. If you actually want to know what that stance is, you sometimes have to click through many screens to get to it.
Great idea, mediocre execution. (And why is gun control on a list of science and technology issues, but not stem cell research?)
Affirmatives only? (Score:3, Insightful)
So the chart is a mildly intersting way of presenting a limited amount of information on candidates stances, but not particularly useful for comparing them. A better approach (although still imperfect) would have been to attempt to determine sides of an issue and divide the candidates that way.
For example: Should federal government increase spending on internet infrastructure projects? *
Biden: No
Clinton: Yes
Edwards: No
Obama: Yes
Richardson: No
* (answers randomly assigned)
Meaningless drivel (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not every candidate (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:One of these things is not like the others (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom of Speech,
habeas corpus and
Civil rights
Also needed is Immigration all of these up together.
Re:Geeks for Fred Thompson (Score:4, Insightful)
Auto
Wow, there's a well-thought-out plan!
Digital/Tech
Nothing to disagree with there!
Energy/Climate
Wow, that's a great idea! I wonder why no other candidates say stuff like that?
Science/Education
Joke elided for fear of sounding like a broken record.
You read this stuff and it reaffirmed your faith in this guy? I knew absolutely nothing about his platform or views before. Now, I know he doesn't have any actual ideas or plans. I checked his website just to make sure I wasn't missing anything profound, and there's really *nothing* there other than vague hand-waiving. Given his "platform", I don't see why he's even bothering to run.
Re:Not every candidate (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not every candidate (Score:5, Insightful)
A pie chart would have been just as usefull (Score:2, Insightful)
Or am I not geek enough to just scan over the chart and go: "Aha! Now it all makes sense." Typical dumbed down politics. Everything is so black and white at this point that a fucking check-mark is all you need to see in order to make up your own simplistic black or white opinion on any subject.
Free abortions for all!!!...err...No abortions for anybody!.....er..... Abortions for some and bestbuy vouchers for others.
Re:One of these things is not like the others (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not every candidate (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not every candidate (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only is Kucinich being conveniently ignored (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Not every candidate (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:not easy to follow at all (Score:3, Insightful)
You know who else was consistent? (Score:2, Insightful)
RMS on the candidates and Dr Ron Paul (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't live in the US, but I have an interest in the US politics in the sense that US is in fact the only superpower and in our globalised (and Americanised) world, everything that happens in the US quickly spreads elsewhere as well because of the global interconnectedness and the special position of the US in the world. Of course there is a personal reason for my interest in the US politics as well, as it is a place I would enjoy living if it were run by a sane president (such as Dr Ron Paul [ronpaul2008.com]).
Of much more relevance to geeks and nerds is to see who well-known free software and open source activists support. RMS, for instance, supports Kucinich [dennis4president.com] (who is off the magazine's matrix, why? and by the way he is a candidate that I do not support, but I think that even those who I disagree with have a right to have their views heard) and the Green Party [gp.org] (on which I have a slightly positive opinion, but I haven't researched it much). However, he also partially supports the one and only candidate that I also support*, Dr Ron Paul [ronpaul2008.com] , and he explains his reasoning here [stallman.org]: "The only Democratic or Republican candidate, aside from Kucinich, that clearly stands for human rights, democracy, and an end to torture, secret prisons and the occupation of Iraq is Ron Paul. I urge Republicans to support him for that party's nomination".
* Saying "support" however must be understood as "support among the available and reasonable options", and I also generally believe that politicians in general are not the most ethical people of the planet, and I know that most of them change their ways after they get elected and don't carry out their programmes, but some are better than others, and I think Ron Paul is the best among all the candidates (albeit I have some disagreements over his positions on the UN), and I actually should also say that I like him as a person, at least based on his writings. Unfortunately I can't vote for him, as I am in EU and not an American, although if he wins and makes the US a reasonable country to live in and removes all stupid laws introduced by Bush et al, I would certainly consider instant relocation, as I regard US among the best places to run a business (especially compared to here in EU where entrepreneurship is many times seen with suspicion)... in fact the presence of Bush was one of the primary objections to me even visiting the US for travel or business, let alone living there. I have a special interest in the 2008 elections because these are the elections that will determine whether the fascist reforms introduced by the Bush administration are going to be repealed as a historical paranoid mistake or kept as the new gospel. Apart from Kucinich and Dr Ron Paul, the other candidates who are well-known and have a chance of winning are most likely going to keep a few or most of Bush policies. Kucinich and Dr Ron Paul are the two only candidates who are most likely to reverse the trends that currently destroy the American culture and civics, and I think the most sane choice among those available is Dr Ron Paul. By the way Dr Ron Paul supports homeschooling, which is the best way to educate gifted future geeks and nerds.
Re:Geeks for Fred Thompson (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not true. He does have plans; you're just not reading into it cynically or deeply enough to see them:
"I intend to pay lip-service to environmentalism while doing as little as possible to actually improve things, because if I really cared I'd have more to say about the issue."
"I support filtering by ISPs and libraries. OMG, think of the children! Oh, and by "child pornography" I really mean 'music, movies, and subversive speech' too. Anonymity is bad, mmkay?"
"I support 'securing our energy' by subjugating the Iraqis, and I support 'increasing domestic supply' by drilling in protected wilderness areas."
"Just like the environment, I don't give a shit about this issue either."
By the way: I don't have anything against this Thompson fellow; in fact, I know nothing about him except these excerpts. Any candidate that says the same kinds of things should be suspected of having the same real positions.
despite NASA's charter... (Score:5, Insightful)
One of their major problems was obtaining components for avionics and for handling cryogenic liquids. These were made mainly by the companies who contracted to NASA for various parts of the (very lucrative) shuttle program.
One of their contacts told them that a NASA administrator had let them know that if they supplied any parts to a private rocket company they wouldn't be supplying any more for the shuttle.
The company thus had to make do without components that had been developed with tax money, and (on their shoestring budget) develop their own from scratch or convert stuff intended for other purposes - none of them space-rated.
They did some amazing stuff on that shoestring. But it was the failure of one of those re-purposed parts that ended up trashing their effort and running them out of money.
Now NASA was SUPPOSED to be ENCOURAGING the private development of space capability, as they had air flight. But the government space programs had put them in a position where doing so would undercut the funding for their own programs. So it was in their interest to keep the suppliers on a short leash and kill off any company trying to assemble and operate their own craft.
Pulling the plug on NASA as the government-run space transportation company (and boondoggle) would, IMHO, not just open up the field to private companies, but is a necessary step in getting to affordable private space travel in what remains of my lifetime.
Which is not necessarily to say kill it off completely. But putting it out of the transportation business and back to R&D, with private enterprise actually running the spacelines, seems to me to be a necessary minimum for turning space exploration from a government-funded boondoggle (ala Columbus) to an ongoing enterprise (ala private cargo and passenger ships crossing the Atlantic and Pacific ocean).
Re:Ron Paul and NASA (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with some of Ron Paul's platform and disagree with other parts of it. I think he ignores the important benefits socialist programs have brought around the world as well as the correlation between some of these programs and quality of life (of he knows but opposes it on principal anyway). That said, it is a bit of a stretch to say he would make the government small, as if the president had the power to do that. Out system places a lot of power in many different hands and the office of the president is just one of them. If anything, I think an extremist like Ron Paul might help balance out the extremist position of ever bigger, expanding bureaucracy we have today. I wouldn't want Ron Paul as the only decision maker in Washington, but he might make a very good president, despite th fact that I think he is very wrong in principal on some topics.
Re:Not every candidate (Score:4, Insightful)
Welcome to the wonderful world of modern US politics. If you aren't in the pockets of the multiple corporate overlords then the corporate owned media will spin you into oblivion...if they mention you at all. I'm not sure what the solution is.
Re:Ron Paul and NASA (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's safe to vote for him because there's no way he'd actually accomplish all that, but he would manage to prevent the Federal government from bloating further.
Re:Not every candidate (Score:5, Insightful)
I support Paul and Obama at the same time. It goes something like this:
"I'd like the government to curl up and die [Paul], but if I can't have that I'd rather it be in competent hands with interesting ideas [Obama] than incompetent or malevolent ones [most other Democrats, all other Republicans]."
Re:Not every candidate (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, Paul is the exception to his statement. With his policies, he's so likely to run the the country into the ground that no amount of military budget reduction can offset it (unless he completely eliminates the military altogether, allowing the people to revolt against the quagmire government he'll create).
And you're against this...why? A government should be "weak" enough that it cannot survive a determined effort from its citizens to change its form. I sincerely doubt that Paul's policies will "run the government into the ground", but even if they managed to I can't see myself getting very worked up about it. Government has been running people into the ground for so long, it might do for a teensy change...
Liberal versus Conservative (Score:1, Insightful)
I was pleasantly surprised... (Score:3, Insightful)
How counter-intuitive is that? The tick implies approval (not to mention it implies that the candidate made the right choice).
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not every candidate (Score:3, Insightful)
Competent and interesting ideas like more taxation, more spending, and bombing an ally?
Taxation: yeah, I'm not crazy about it either, but since all candidates but Paul are likely to bring the practical tax burden higher overall, I'd rather someone who had some ideas of what to do with the money rather than just dump more and more into military contracts.
Spending: coming off of the taxation line, yeah. He has ideas like using money to make government transparent (online documentation, minutes of dept. meetings, legislation in progress online, etc.) and make programs more efficient (online form filing and reports, dragging Medicare into the 21st century, etc.). One of the programs he was involved in back in Illinois was pushing for oversight in police interrogations by requiring them to be videotaped (to rule out coercion and abuse), which he was successful on, which tells me that: a. he is effective at getting his agenda passed, and b. he is not full of shit about caring about transparency issues.
Bombing allies: yeah, wasn't too crazy about the whole bomb Pakistan thing, either, but on the other hand, he in the same breath went out on a limb by saying that earnest diplomatic engagement *even with adversaries* would be a priority, which set him apart from many of his opponents. It's like a Teddy Roosevelt approach to foreign policy...not so bad as a person who is either unwilling to speak with others or unwilling to use force when necessary.
There are a few things I am not crazy about in his voting record (front and center would be his vote for dubious "bankruptcy reform"), but overall he is head and shoulders above the pack. In the squishier "sense of the person" points, he is very much not a typical politician; I found his musings on faith in politics in particular to be insightful and his willingness to talk about past errors and changes (former atheism, drug use, etc.) was refreshing.
He's not perfect, to be sure...not even close. But no human being ever is. I'm primarily a libertarian, but if I can't have a smaller government that doesn't tax me into oblivion and doesn't poke into every corner of my life and choices, I'd take an earnest person who has some decent ideas on how to spend my money over "more of the same" from either the left or the right...no, make that *especially* the right.
Re:Not every candidate (Score:4, Insightful)
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html [blogspot.com]
That's what he's been up to in congress.
Ammending the constitution to define a zygote as a peson is not in any a consistent with a libertarian position on liberty.
If you read the above link you'll see he's opposed to federal funds for all family planning efforts, not just abortion. He's also opposed to gay equality.
There's a reason he's a republican. Libertarians consider the right to be left alone and unmolested sacred. They wouldn't let him get away with using elected office to impose his religious views on the country.
Re:Not every candidate (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not every candidate (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not every candidate (Score:4, Insightful)
I find this topic very interesting--it seems to me that more and more people (primarily on the left, but certainly on the right as well) are so used to a huge and all encompassing federal government, that many people DO, like you, get confused that cutting federal funding is the same as making something illegal. We saw the same thing with stem cell research. Even on slashdot, a place full of generally well informed geeks and science wonks, you see statements like "bush made stem cell research illegal." That's not remotely close to the truth, and quite frankly, FUD--just as your post is.
I'm mixed on the zygote issue. I do think that abortion is killing a life and that it's a horrible thing to have to do... but... sometimes it's gotta happen, and for utilitarian reasons, probably better that it does. That doesn't make someone that thinks life starts at conception a cook. If libertarians / objectivists view an individual life as of great importance, is it any wonder that new lives are considered as important as old lives? You're viewing the issue of an abortion solely through the lens of "it's a woman's freedom to control her body." He's looking at the issue through the lens of "there's a new life with a right to live." I really hate this kind of "you're either with us, or you're against us" politics...
Not so conventional. (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if you parse some particular meanings of (1) and (2) -- that he's likely to be considerably more thoughtful and effective than the current president, and he doesn't have a 16 years of culture war political baggage which Clinton has -- this doesn't seem like an apt summary to me.
Once you get past those admittedly great points in his favor, all you have left is an utterly conventional politician.
If nothing else, one reason people are already attracted to him is that his politicking is already notably different:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama [theatlantic.com]
But there are some indications his positions, say, on a number of technical issues are hardly Washington DC business as usual:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/26/qa-with-senator-barack-obama-on-key-technology-issues/ [techcrunch.com]