McCain Answers Science Policy Questionnaire 829
thebestsophist writes "A couple weeks ago, I reported that Barack Obama had answered a questionnaire by Scientists and Engineers for America. McCain has now answered that questionnaire as well. You can also compare their answers. Perhaps with help from the Slashdot community, we can get all the Congressional candidates as well?"
Innovation (Score:5, Informative)
"I am committed to streamlining burdensome regulations and effectively protecting American intellectual property in the United States and around the globe."
I'll leave it up to the rest of you to flame McCain for that! I believe that it is also worth mentioning that Obama didn't bring up "regulation" or "protecting intellectual property" at all, especially not in the first paragraph as McCain did.
Re:Innovation (Score:5, Informative)
Not surprised. McCain's made no secret of his desire to have Steve Ballmer in his cabinet [theinquirer.net]. Ballmer himself probably put those words right in McCain's mouth
Re:Innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
So, in mccain's view, Comcast has "control" of the pipe, and can do as they see fit. Don't forget that.
Re:Innovation (Score:4, Funny)
"When you control the *tubes* you should be able to get profit from your investment."
There, fixed that for you.
Re:Innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
This quote is probably the most important
Never listen to a candidate speak. All politicans are liars. Like the politician in the movie The Hunt for Red October (which ironically had one of the Republican Presidential candidates before McCain sewed it up, former actor Senator Fred Thompson), "Son, I'm a politician. When I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their candy". (Thompson played a boat captain, not the politician, the line I quote was a different actor)
Rather, look at how they've voted. unfortunately, Obama's a first term Senator and hasn't cast enough votes to get a good picture of where he really stands.
It looks to me like McCain will be the next President. If so, since he's a Republican following a two term President who completely ruined the economy (like I said in great detail in a slashdot journal, Hoover for President! [slashdot.org],
the next Herbert Hoover will also be a Republican.
The similarities I pointed out in that linked journal get scarier every day [yahoo.com].
The losers in this Presidential race (we have five viable candidates, I'm voting for Barr) will be the real winners.
I sincerely hope I'm wrong. I fear I'm right.
Yesterday in a bar, a black man called me a racist because I'm voting for the Libertarian candidate instead of Obama. To a black racist, any white person who votes against Obama is, ironically, a racist. I wonder what he'd have said if I'd said "McKinney" rather than "Barr"? Since neither McKinney nor Barr will win, maybe I should vote for that nutjob McKinney so I can say I voted for "the black woman".
As I pointed out to the racially-obsessed gentleman, Illinois' electors will be voting for Obama no matter who I vote for. And considering that I believe the next President will be the 21st century Hoover, if Obama wins it will set black people back a generation.
Neither Republicrat candidate, in my opinion, will be good for us nerds. We're fuX0red, unfortunately.
Re:Innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks for putting this near the top
It flagged up that I should be wary about the level of sophistication of the rest of your argument. All politicians are liars is a great sound-bite, and it might be a fashionable sentiment, but there's no evidence that the statement is true. I'm not a politician, and I belong to know political party, but many of the local politicians I've dealt with spend a lot of time dealing with hard, tedious local matters and are in the business of helping the local community. They are not *liars* except to the extent that we all are.
Re:Innovation (Score:5, Funny)
So how do I join this Know Party?
Re:Innovation (Score:5, Informative)
As a bit of explanation, he probably called you a racist because Barr is a notorious bigot. Likewise, many Libertarian Party members are white supremacists using their party line as an excuse for their politics (note how many of them are in favor of repealing the Civil Rights acts, as well as Ron Paul's opposition to the 14th Amendment). Maybe the problem isn't that you weren't voting for Obama, but that you're voting against that guy's human rights?
Re:Innovation (Score:4, Insightful)
Libertarians on the Civil Rights act have a unique position that is grounded in the philosophy of liberty. It is a complicated thing, but it is quickly described by the party principle statement. "I certify that I do not advocate the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals."
Understanding that, the Civil Rights Act is a use of force. It is force that was used to repeal another forceful law Segregation. In comes the government to the rescue for the problem it created with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but this law has unintended consequences as all laws do.
From Harry Browne's book "Why Government Doesn't Work". He is far smarter than I and describes it better than I ever could.
----------
The political process always manages to turn idealistic dreams inside out. For an excellent example, look no further than the civil rights laws passed in the last 40 years.
For almost a century before 1964, governments in many southern states forced segregation on the people. Government prohibited companies from providing racially integrated facilities for their employees or customers. Whites and blacks were forbidden by government to sit together in restaurants or to use the same restrooms and drinking fountains -- and in many cases were forbidden to shop together or work together.
Civil rights advocates fought to repeal these state Jim Crow laws, but they failed. So they appealed to the federal government, which responded with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
But this didn't simply repeal state laws compelling segregation. It prohibited racial segregation -- voluntary or otherwise. Overnight, what had been mandatory became forbidden. Neither before nor after the Civil Rights Act were people free to make their own decisions about whom they would associate with.
The civil rights movement wasn't opposed to using government to coerce people. It merely wanted the government to aim its force in a new direction.
Although the activists believed coercion served the noble objective of bringing the races closer together, it was coercion nonetheless.
And coercive laws never stand still. No matter what a law's backers say at the time of passage, the law always stretches in surprising directions. The expansion occurs on at least two fronts:
* The law almost always is enforced more broadly than intended;
* When government benefits one group, other groups are encouraged to seek similar benefits.
And this is what happened to the civil rights laws.
In the first regard, the bureaucrats and courts set out to enforce the laws zealously, seeking to root out any kind of discrimination -- even though ending segregation, not discrimination, was the motive behind the original law. Companies were ordered not to consider race in any way when making hiring decisions.
But usually the reasons for a business decision are hard to prove. Unless a businessman is a noisy bigot, who can say whether racial discrimination has affected his decision to hire someone?
To avoid having to read minds, the enforcers examined results to determine whether discrimination had occurred. If you didn't have a suitable racial mix in your workforce (or even among your customers), you were assumed to be discriminating -- and the burden of proof was on you to prove otherwise.
So an employer could avoid charges of discrimination only by, in fact, discriminating -- by using quotas to assure that he hired the right number of people of the right races -- even though the original sponsors of the law had sworn that quotas were no part of it. The law against segregation had been transformed into a law requiring discrimination.
The law also encouraged other groups to demand similar coverage. Once it was established that government should punish racial discrimination, the door was open to using government to punish anything similar. If it's wrong for an employer, landlord, or organization to discriminate according to race, it
Re:Innovation (Score:5, Interesting)
Hm. Nothing immediately comes to light.
However, his Wikipedia Article [wikipedia.org] makes it pretty clear that he's spent about half of his career leading crusades to repeal legislation that he drafted himself.
Even if I were a libertarian, I'd be apprehensive as hell about the guy.
And the GP is mostly correct. The Libertarian party has been increasingly used as a puppet party to mask the agendas of its members. Ron Paul's a huge states-rights advocate who runs with the Libertarians, because they share the common goal of reducing the size of the Federal government, even though his views on state government are borderline tyrannical.
Most of the "true" libertarians have already jumped ship, and are scrambling to form a new party (several have already been formed over the last few years). Their belief is generally that the government (at all levels) should only do things that individuals absolutely, positively cannot do for themselves. In many cases this actually does include civil rights and gun control to a certain extent.
Of course, I personally believe that humans are inherently social creatures, and that a libertarian government would be doomed to failure. Still, I don't like to see their core values distorted like this.
Re:Innovation (Score:5, Interesting)
What? You clearly do not understand.
The reason Libertarians are moving away from the LP (Libertarian Party) is because like you, nobody knows what that word means anymore. I mean who can blame people for being confused when you have people like Glenn Beck and Bob Barr calling themselves Libertarian. Much less people like you describing it.
Ron Paul's a huge states-rights advocate who runs with the Libertarians, because they share the common goal of reducing the size of the Federal government, even though his views on state government are borderline tyrannical.
Ron Paul not being an anarchist supports the Constitution. You have heard him call himself a Constitutionalist before right? I think you misunderstand the 10th amendment but clearly Paul has the correct understanding of it. States really do have the freedom to enact a varying degree of laws you or I might call tyrannical, that does not mean they will, and even if they did local government is much easier to change than federal government, AND EVEN if you couldn't there are 49 other states to go to that compete with each other for your tax money. Your comments makes it sound like Ron Paul is only a libertarian because he is a closet authoritarian wanting to use the powers of the states, and that is absolutely wrong. If you read Paul's writing you will see that he absolutely understands the danger that government proposes to people, he is on the ball with some of the best libertarian minds that there ever was.. in fact.. many of his campaign positions are out of whack with what could only logically be his philosophy.. It is my believe he takes those positions because he is pandering to the right wing base.
Their belief is generally that the government (at all levels) should only do things that individuals absolutely, positively cannot do for themselves. In many cases this actually does include civil rights and gun control to a certain extent.
So, what you are basically saying is that Some "so called" Libertarians believe that people can not have "civil rights" or gun control without government.
If you believe that then you CAN NOT logically have a sound understanding of the nature and concept of rights.
The term "civil rights" is pleonastic description of rights. You have "rights" and they are all the same. You do not need to separate your rights into individually divided groups, such as "civil rights", "existing rights", "breathing rights", etc. Also "civil rights" implies that these are rights awarded to citizens, or that only citizens have rights. It is a ridiculous concept and I will explain why.
To have a right is to have the supreme authority over something. If you have a right to something you do not need to ask anyone for permission to do something with what you have a right to. The reason you have rights is because you own your body, you own your life and you own your liberty. No other person can claim ownership over you, just as you can not claim ownership over other peoples lives. Rights are supreme authority over some piece of property and they can not be given or taken away, they can be infringed upon but are never lost.
The opposite of a right is a privilege. This is where someone with supreme authority over something allows or grants you an ability to use it. To make this simple lets say you buy a pizza from someone else. You have justly acquired your property and now you can do whatever it is you like with it, even stuff it in your mouth, and you do not need to ask anyone for permission to do so. You have a right to this pizza. However if someone else owns this pizza you must ask if you may have some, they own it, and grant you a permission, or a privilege to have some.
So the distinction between rights and privileges is important. Privileges mean you have to ask someone of higher authority, rights means asking a higher authority is not necessary because there is no higher authority. Privileges are granted bu the higher authority
Re:Innovation (Score:5, Interesting)
Rather, look at how they've voted. unfortunately, Obama's a first term Senator and hasn't cast enough votes to get a good picture of where he really stands.
Au contraire. I think we've been able to see exactly where he stands: in the same place as every other main party politician, when he went back on a very strong promise NOT to vote for any bill that included telco immunity.
And where is that? A little place I like to call "whateverwheneverwhereverwillgetmeelected."
Re:Innovation (Score:4, Insightful)
What did he *write*?
Who cares what legislation he wrote? If he becomes President, that task will no longer be in his job description.
Who cares what legislation he wrote!?!?
Seriously?
What legislation a congressperson writes is one of the best indicators of his/her stance on issues. Speeches, soundbites, and campaign promises mean very little from any politician. It's a way to not only verify that said person walks the walk, but also a good indicator of possible future positions on similar issues.
That he won't be voting as a congressperson isn't the point. Otherwise, why care at all what positions a candidate for President takes? The President can create executive initiatives, use the veto power, etc. to influence legislation and national/foreign policy.
Cheers!
Strat
Re:Innovation (Score:5, Interesting)
Does it also bother you that Europeans are supporting Obama almost unanimously?
Re:Innovation (Score:5, Funny)
I dunno. When I play pocket pool, It's a zero sum game between inflation and deflation.
Re:Innovation (Steve Ballmer?) (Score:4, Funny)
McCain at Google [youtube.com]
Re:Innovation (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Innovation (Score:5, Informative)
That should tell you right away how much commitment there is to protecting intellectual property.
Yes, it should -- 100% complete commitment.
In all three of the cases you mention, an appropriate ASCAP performance license was obtained by the campaign.
There is no other legal requirement to perform a song, and there is no form of veto by the recording artist. The bluster in your links is just blowhard preening, there is no legal foundation for it whatsoever.
Re:Innovation (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Innovation (Score:4, Informative)
It was also democrats who proposed and extended copyright terms and signed the DMCA into law.
There's no party that is inculpable here.
Re:Innovation (Score:4, Informative)
Erm. The DMCA came to being under a Republican Senate and Republican House, and introduced by Republican Rep. Howard Coble. The only major part the Dems played was Clinton signing it into law, and his State Dep't helping to negotiate the treaties it's related to.
Re:Innovation (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, and that's what he said. The "and" connects two separate clauses here.
It was also [D]emocrats who proposed and extended copyright terms
and
signed the DMCA into law.
His point remains correct.
Re:Innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
It'll make a lot more sense when you realize that we only have one party, and both wings of the Commercial party are pretty much the same when it comes to issues like NAFTA and DMCA and copyright.
I don't believe Obama is "in", so I'm fairly sure he'll be neutralized. It will either be strange voting machine results or something worse...
Re:Innovation (Score:4, Insightful)
All the more reason to get out and vote for Obama. Let's see how far the GOP is willing to go to retain power.
Voter caging and outright fraud might win them a state or two, but I really don't think they'll be able to turn back a landslide.
If what you say is true, that "we only have one party" (and I don't believe that), then we're fighting for which direction that party is going to take. And one thing I think everyone here can agree with, is that we definitely need to go in a different direction than we've been going in the last seven years. If you don't believe that, I suggest you go take a look at your last few statements from your 401k.
The Republican Party wants to privatize Social Security (along with every other function of government). There may still be some of you who think that the FDA, the FCC, the FDIC, the military, national security, FEMA, etc are better off with profit-driven entities in charge, and that destroying the ability of workers to bargain collectively will help our standard of living, but I think a picture is starting to emerge of where this "free market rules" thinking is taking us. And it's an ugly place.
Goddamit, we've got private contractors protecting our generals in war-zones. There are more contractors in Iraq right now than there are US military personnel. There is a private army in this country that's more than a half-million strong. If there should ever be an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, this private army is going to come home. How do you think they're going to feel about going to work as shopping mall security guards?
One of the two political parties in this country is absolutely hell-bent on the destruction of our government (by their own admission). This weekend we saw what happens when there is little or no regulation of the financial industry. We've seen what de-regulation has done to the airlines, banking, media ownership, etc.
We cannot let a man who has been so cozy with the corporate lobbyists become president again. We cannot let someone who says that he can't use a computer because of alleged physical handicaps become President (maybe he never heard of Stephen Hawking). We cannot let a man who has sold his soul to religious fanatics become President (he once said these same fanatics were "agents of intolerance", but I guess that's changed).
Most of all, I'm just tired of having to apologize to all my friends from overseas for having a dumb fuck in the White House. Being a top Constitutional scholar may not automatically make you Abraham Lincoln or Franklin Roosevelt, but it's a damn site better than what his opponents offer in the way of qualification.
Re:Innovation (Score:4, Insightful)
"top Constitutional scholar "
A what?
He is NO MORE a Constitutional scholar the W. Bush is. Obama is the man who voted for the new FISA Bill! That alone finished off our 4th amendment rights. And that BONEHEAD didn't know it? He supports the patriot act that was the first nail in the coffin of our 4th amendment rights. I know more about the constitution that he does! I WAS an Obama supporter until he decided it was ok to throw out our constituional rights - of which he SUPPOSEDLY knows so much about. He showed he DOESN'T!
Re:Innovation (Score:4, Informative)
All the more reason to get out and vote for Obama. Let's see how far the GOP is willing to go to retain power.
Voter caging and outright fraud might win them a state or two, but I really don't think they'll be able to turn back a landslide.
What "landslide" is this you speak of? The one that's currently in negative territory, making it an antilandslide?
http://www.electoral-vote.com/ [electoral-vote.com]
I'm not really seeing where fraud is needed when the opinion polls have the results 270-268 in McCain's favour...
Re:Innovation (Score:4, Interesting)
Except that those polls don't account for new voters, which are overwhelmingly Democrat. They also don't call cellphones, only landlines.
Could be, could be.
But if that position had any connection to reality, you'd logically expect to see its consequences in the primaries, yes?
The RCP average of polls in New Hampshire had Obama leading by 8.3 percent; he lost by 2.6 percent. In Nevada, the RCP average was 4 percent; Clinton won by 5.5 percent. In Pennsylvania, the RCP average was Clinton by 6.1 percent; she won by 9.2 percent. The final RCP average in Ohio had Clinton by 7.1 percent, but she won by 10.1 percent. In Texas, the RCP average had Clinton ahead by 1.7 percent, but she won by 3.5 percent.
Now ... how exactly is it that you reconcile the demonstrated actual facts of substantial UNDERperformance from polling numbers with your blithe prediction of overperformance from methodologically identical current polling numbers? I'm not really coming up with any good reasons on my own, here...
Re:Innovation (Score:4, Funny)
So that would be.... the giant douche?
Re:Innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
Erm. The DMCA came to being under a Republican Senate and Republican House, and introduced by Republican Rep. Howard Coble. The only major part the Dems played was Clinton signing it into law, and his State Dep't helping to negotiate the treaties it's related to.
Which is what the OP said: "It was also democrats who proposed and extended copyright terms and signed the DMCA into law. There's no party that is inculpable here."
Copyright was EXTENDED in 1978(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law#Duration_of_copyright) when Jimmy Carter was President and Congress was controlled by Democrats. The DMCA was SIGNED into law by Bill Clinton.
Re:Innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
Technically true, but disingenuous.
Re:Innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
How is it technically true at all to claim, among other things, that Obama sponsored legislation meant to teach kindergarten students about sex-ed, when really it was mandating that children be informed about sexual predators and what to do if caught in a bad situation? Oh, wait, it's not, it is an outright lie. If I were to start a self-defense class that also happens to focus on what to do in a rape scenario, are you seriously going to argue that I'm teaching sex-ed?
I blame both major parties equally (Score:4, Informative)
The DMCA was SIGNED into law by Bill Clinton.
Both houses of the U.S. Congress passed the DMCA and the Bono Act by voice vote. Article I of the U.S. Constitution, which gives the procedure for a bill to become a law, requires 81 percent support to make a voice vote[1] but only 67 percent to override a presidential veto.[2] So had President Clinton vetoed either bill, the Congress would have easily overridden the veto. So I blame both major parties equally.
[1] From section 5: "the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal."
[2] From section 7: "if [the President does not approve] he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uhm, with all due respect, what [broadcastingcable.com] planet [cnet.com] are [bbc.co.uk] you [hollywood-newsroom.com] f-ing [swamppolitics.com] from [foxnews.com]?!
Both the recently deceased Jack Valenti [latimes.com] and the current MPAA chairman Dan Glickman [wikipedia.org] are loyal Democrats.
This is the point, where an honest man in your shoes either commits suicide or promises to vote for a Republican as a penance...
Re:Innovation (Score:5, Funny)
Now, now, two wrongs don't make a right.
Re:Innovation (Score:4, Funny)
"...two wrongs don't make a right."
Yeah, but two Wrights made an airplane!
Re:Innovation (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah.. and so is Rupert Murdoch!!
It's all a vast left-wing conspiracy!!
Re:Innovation (Score:5, Funny)
John McCain is a puppet of the Jew.
Sure, but which Jew? I bet it's Woody Allen, since they have so much in common: They both used to be entertaining and relevant, but now they're just churning out derivative crap.
On the other hand, it could be Joe Lieberman. Lieberman's clearly got his head up McCain's ass, he might have his hand up there too.
Come on man, you can't leave us hanging like this: which Jew is controlling McCain?
Re:Innovation (Score:5, Funny)
Come on man, you can't leave us hanging like this: which Jew is controlling McCain?
Jesus. Oh wait, that's Palin.
Re:Innovation (Score:5, Funny)
...who lived with Mom until he was thirty.
Hmm... You'd think that Jesus would get more respect here on slashdot just for that very reason. Changing water into wine, making scads of fish and loaves of bread, getting up after he was dead?!? Fuck - Jesus was a hacker.
Re:Innovation (Score:4, Funny)
No, no, no. The Christian Right are the ones controlling McCain. We Jews control Barack... Oops. I don't think I was supposed to tell anyone that.
Re:Innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
This is Slashdot where almost everyone wants one of those nice R&D jobs. But yet they are against the ways of funding them. If you are going to spend 10 years of R&D and millions of dollars, more to fund the R&D that doesn't work, or product a commercial use. Then have competition use that Idea and make a competing product the next month, and able to product it cheaper because they didn't spend the millions for R&D themselves.
So what will the smart business man do. There isn't any money in R&D and more in blatant copying. So those nice R&D Jobs get reduced or killed. Leaving you to either take a boring job, or going back to the Education Sector and have 3/4 of your job begging for money, and 1/4 actually do real R&D.
When analyzing these laws you need to remember rule #1, IT IS AN IMPERFECT WORLD AND THERE WILL NEVER BE A PERFECT WORLD. IP Law yes protects those big heartless corporations, but without them you may not have a job. A heartless companies are not in it for the good of man kind, but to make money, if you can do both great if they conflict then the good of man kind will get shafted. IP Protection helps isolate the risks of R&D costs, and makes it possible for Greed and Humanity to work together for a common output.
Re:Innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
It always feels like the issue here is that everyone wants to take sides and polarize the issue to the point that arguing about it is absurd.
How about looking at some of the gray levels here, because there are plenty of them.
IP was originally useful when data transferral was significantly slower, when the industries involved did not evolve beyond recognition in 5 years, and when the people granting patents and the like were somewhat knowledgeable of their field.
The usual statement is that IP law is to protect the people who paid for the research to allow them to recover what went into it. This is STILL APPLICABLE. I completely agree with the parent in this regard. The problem people have with patent law is that it no longer seems applicable. A patent lasts for too long for the amount of innovation involved in the tech industry.
Three words:
One Click Patent
Because the balance is off in the tech sector, the benefits are being trumped. Patent law should exist. It needs to adapt to changing times. It isn't, so people who don't reap the benefits of it want to see it go away.
Thoughts?
Re:Innovation (Score:5, Informative)
Oil drilling and extraction and production. Pharma research (take out profit motive for THAT and watch more garbage happen). Defense R&D (to a point). Growing food. Making stuff.
Oil drilling, extraction, and production, growng food, and making stuff aren't R&D.
Pharma research takes anything promising from publicly funded basic research and runs the last mile to a commericial product. (I'm not saying that last mile is 'cheap', but its not more expensive than the basic research they are building on.)
And defense R&D by corporations is almost directly funded by the public.
My point was that the public is on top. The public "can afford" research that even corporations can't. Its true that corporations can afford research that small businesses and individual can't.
Re:Innovation (Score:4, Interesting)
How about: "providing an alternative to trade secret protection so that industries don't gridlock because everything is confidential?"
- David Stein
Re:Innovation (Score:5, Informative)
This rationale was proposed, and discredited, over 150 years ago. Trade secrets are notoriously hard to keep, as the poster JesseMcDonald points out.
More ironically: any secret that could be kept, would never be patented in the first place. There would be no point. So patents do not promote disclosure of trade secret. They reward the documentation of ideas that could never be kept secret at all.
There are many rationales for patents, and they are without exception bogus, except the rationale of an incentive to deliver nicely written patent documents which promote the collection of knowledge. Given that Wikipedia does this today, and that the granting of monopoly over the recorded ideas is insane in any high technology sector... high tech patents have lose their only plausible economic basis, and now exist purely on the basis of belief, inertia, and the power of special interests exercised via slave courts.
Yay! McCain's position on patents basically shows him as a protectionist 1800-era politician who won't bat an eyelid while raising barriers to trade, tariffs, and taxes.
Re:Innovation (Score:4, Insightful)
The point of my post was, if you read it, that anything which could be kept secret would not be patented. If Coke had patented their recipe, they'd have lost their monopoly after 20 years.
"Notoriously hard" does not mean "impossible". It's notoriously hard to put a man on the moon. That does not mean the moon landings were faked.
Who really wrote the answers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Come on, are we to believe that the candidates actually wrote their own replies to these questions? I wonder how many people came up with the answers.
Re:Who really wrote the answers? (Score:4, Insightful)
Who cares? Do you really think that the President sits at a desk thinking about the best way forward on DRM? Or that he's singlehandedly an expert on our relations with every country from Egypt to Russia to Bangladesh?
The President has advisers, who are supposed to be experts in the fields. The President's job is to pick the advisers and get them to work together.
We're not electing a demigod with supernatural wisdom. The President will be smart, but he's just a guy (or woman, some day). I'd much rather have the collective brain power of his staff working on the solution than getting whatever knowledge he's managed to acquire personally in the short lifespan of a human being.
Re:Who really wrote the answers? (Score:4, Insightful)
We don't have TIME to be 'informed citizens' - at least if we plan on making an income at the same time.
Old Skool Science Mavericks (Score:5, Insightful)
Palin is a Creationist [google.com]. McCain is a fossil.
Of course they'll talk a good science game (after farming that questionnaire out to one of the lobbyist lawfirms that make up their campaign) when the geeks ask during a campaign. Then these "Compassionate Conservatives" will just show they were lying once they're past the Election Day "accountability moment", and get the power to drag us all back to the Stone Age.
Re:Old Skool Science Mavericks (Score:5, Funny)
But Palin is a hot Creationist. It's like an equation. After hot, you can drop everything else.
Re:Old Skool Science Mavericks (Score:5, Insightful)
She's not that hot, except compared to McCain and the rest of the politicians we usually see. She's no hotter than my next door neighbor (who's not that hot). Neither of them are qualified to be VP (or president, which is the only mandatory qualification for a VP).
And Palin's voice actually grates my nerves like the "blackboard fingernails" that everyone says Hillary Clinton has (Clinton's not hot, either).
Re:Old Skool Science Mavericks (Score:5, Insightful)
So you're saying that Palin has more experience than McCain to be president. Why not reverse the ticket (other than basic sanity, because she is indeed even worse than McCain).
Palin's "executive experience", like McCain's non-executive experience, is bad experience. George Bush has loads more executive experience - and I expect that you, Anonymous Republican Coward, would prefer more Bush.
Oh, as for the rest of your zombie Republican talking points: When Obama said that deciding the moment when a collection of 46 chromosomes becomes legally a "human life" is "above his pay grade", he was referring to god. I thought you faithy Republicans went nuts for that kind of thing, not against it. And you've got a lot of nerve to whine about "voting present" when #1: Bush hasn't even been present for most of his catastrophic reign (though Cheney has no plans to leave the Cheney Bunker from which he's run the country the past 8 years). And #2: McCain has not even been present in the Senate for most of the past two years, even though Obama, Clinton, Biden, Dodd and the rest managed to do their jobs while campaigning.
And finally, thanks for admitting that you think that Barack Obama is a "secret Muslim". Though of course his Christian pastor hates America, too.
Being a Republican means never having to make any sense at all. Just stay scared and cowering at anything Karl Rove cooks up, and everyone will be OK. Except that after 8 years of Bush, ruling at the end of 12 years of the Republican Congress, every national institution is in a shambles. You personally are worse off than you were 4 years ago. Unless that is really you, Karl Rove, fat from your reign of terror, and sucking up yet more paychecks for yet another Republican campaign "gone wild".
You sick bastard.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah. Pretty much.
Of course, that's what happens when you let a bunch of people ideologically dedicated to the proposition that government can't do anything right have control over the government.
Palin's Experience (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Old Skool Science Mavericks (Score:5, Insightful)
It's kind of like Palin's daughter's situation. If it had been Obama or Biden had a teenage daughter who had gotten knocked up and chose to keep the baby, the religious right would have lambasted them for letting their daughter have sex, blasted her for being a slut, and then railed on all of them for referring to keeping the baby as a "choice."
With Palin's daughter, they praised Palin for being so principled and praised her daughter for doing the right thing, all the while tripping over themselves in an attempt to ignore the "sex outside of marriage" issue. It's actually quite entertaining in a way.
Of course, no matter whose daughter should be pregnant by whom, I don't think that it deserves to be an issue to decide the Presidential race on unless one of the candidates is the father.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Old Skool Science Mavericks (Score:4, Insightful)
The first rule of picking up girls: No matter how hot she is, wait for her to speak. If you don't want to hear that at breakfast, toss her to the curb.
Me? I'm certain I don't want to hear Sarah Palin over breakfast... unless she is congratulating someone else on winning the election instead of her. No matter who is qualified and who is not, the very unfortunate state of the matter is that McSame/Pallid and Obama/whatshisname are the two main contenders. For me, I think they would all ruin a good meal if allowed to talk.
The problem at hand in this post is the response to technical questions. The only technical question Palin will get right perhaps is what type of gun is best for hunting wolves from a plane.
I've been reading the comparison at http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=42 [sciencedebate2008.com] and to be very honest, I'd like to send them a bunch more questions aimed at taking the "and how would you accomplish that in view of xyz" out of their answers. Both sets of answers sound nice but I cannot help but think that since their public appearances do not seem to hold this type of concise informed speech, these answers are typed up by lobbyists and mean absolutely nothing. One thing left out is how they get such actions passed through both houses to make good on their claims? At best, this is political gerrymandering, and at worst it complete bullshit. In either case I have no confidence that either party will pull these rabbits out of the hat.
HOT? I think NOT. (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously the standard of "hotness" is phenomenally low in US politics. We are talking here about someone who came 2nd in Miss Alaska (population 600,000) in a state where less than 50% of the people are female and isn't exactly known as the place where attractive people flock to. Hell this makes her less attractive than the 2nd most attractive person in DETROIT (population over 800k).
Never before has a media image of what you should think been so quickly accepted by people. Palin isn't hot, she isn't an ugly bird but she isn't a stunner. Lets concentrate on her madly insane political views (abstinence teaching working for you kids Mrs Palin?) and not listen to the media's view of attractive. Put it this way, do you think that Fox News would have her as an anchor? Of course not, a we know that hot is their only real criteria.
Hot in Alaska? Let put politics first.
On the other hand look at FRENCH politics if you want seriously hot politicians with incredibly well educated views.
Re:HOT? I think NOT. (Score:5, Insightful)
And OUR standards are distorted?
I consider about 1 woman in 3 to be hot... and I wouldn't want to adopt your standards. I would hate to go months between seeing hot women.
Re:Old Skool Science Mavericks (Score:5, Insightful)
Please vote sensibly. Hint: Obama [bbc.co.uk] (In a world poll, "Democrat Mr Obama was favoured by a four-to-one margin across the 22,500 people polled in 22 countries."). Obama, at least, whatever his other faults/shortcomings doesn't seem like such a warmongering, oil-crazed, stuff-the-rest-of-the-world-we're-alright-Jack sort.
Yeah, yeah, mod me down - the truth no-doubt hurts.
Re:Old Skool Science Mavericks (Score:5, Funny)
Does that mean that Palin believes that McCain was carefully buried by God to confuse the evil Darwinists?
Re:Old Skool Science Mavericks (Score:5, Insightful)
Palin is a Creationist [google.com]. McCain is a fossil.
Of course they'll talk a good science game (after farming that questionnaire out to one of the lobbyist lawfirms that make up their campaign)...
I think you're painting with too broad of a brush. There are a lot of different forms of Creationism, and they're not all as anti-scientific as you're probably thinking. You're probably against strict creationism, which flat-out rejects evolution. But I think many other Creationists also think strict-creationism is nuts, given the evidence in favor of evolution.
I think a lot of Creationists are old earth creationists [wikipedia.org]. They basically hold a world view that seeks to make sense of both the fossil record and other beliefs they carry.
Also, is it possible that some of your anger is a carry-over from Bush's administration's anti-scientific policies? I haven't met a thinking Christian who's down with what Bush has done to science policy in the U.S. But I suspect Bush's policies have nothing to do with Creationist views, and a lot more to do with his utter failure of leadership, morals, ethics, intelligence, and integrity. But that's just my 2 cents as an agnostic.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Google cache link (Score:5, Informative)
Since site appears to be slashdotted, here's a Google Cache link:
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:MqO2cs2K3EUJ:sharp.sefora.org/people/presidential-candidates/john-mccain-presidential-candidate/+http://sharp.sefora.org/people/presidential-candidates/john-mccain-presidential-candidate/&hl=ru&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ua&client=firefox-a [64.233.183.104]
In Soviet Russia... (Score:3, Funny)
I just *know* there's a good reason you linked to the hl=ru cache, but for the life of me, I can only think of /. memes.
Hmm. Something's amiss. (Score:4, Funny)
I think he errs when he tries to establish a database connection.
I think it's a pretty common problem for older guys though.
I hate these; they are SOOO rigged (Score:5, Insightful)
What it comes down to, is these ppl already have their behavior in place. Just look at how they acted over the last 5 years and it will give you a better idea of what to expect.
Re:I hate these; they are SOOO rigged (Score:5, Informative)
All of these kind of things are answered to encourage whatever somebody wants to believe. (BIG SNIP) (reagan ran up monster deficit in CA, and then got out of trouble because JFK started NASA).
JFK started NASA? Really? I find that somewhat surprising given the dates involved. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who did you say was answering the questionnaire? (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way something like this makes sense is if a candidate has to respond on the record in real time. Otherwise, they just farm it out to an underling, who will provide a nice, safe, reasonably accurate series of answers.
I want to know if the candidate himself could pass a grade school science exam before he gets to make calls on science policy. Even somebody who gets spoon-fed their information has to have enough basic awareness of the subject to know when he's hearing a line of crap from his advisers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I want to know if the candidate himself could pass a grade school science exam before he gets to make calls on science policy.
It would be nice if our leaders were superhuman and were experts on every facet of policy, but the reality is that no one can be an expert on everything. The point of politicians is *not* for them to personally write laws. You want them be to able to surround themselves with the right experts who will do the dirty work of creating policy.
So, particularly in this case, having an und
First question (Score:5, Funny)
The site (Score:5, Insightful)
How the heck??? (Score:5, Funny)
McCain must have had some help with this, we all know he doesn't use computers, doesn't know how to use e-mail and admittedly depends upon his wife for that. Talk about out of touch with the 21st Century. How is he ever supposed to become a Cybernetic Overlord? I mean really!
Vote Cthulhu 08
Why vote for a lesser evil when you can vote for a greater one!
The null hypothesis of politics (Score:5, Insightful)
No one believes politicians. Why should anyone believe them? From the city councillor to the President of the Benighted States, there is no punishment for incompetence or lying. If you bribe the right people, there's no punishment for crime, either. A pretty good game to play if you have cash and connections. Make billions for your circle, even if you kill millions of people in a far-away land where they don't even play baseball.
Political parties are organisms that thrive on cajolery and deception. They pick "leaders" but these leaders are really just pushed to the fore to take the spotlight away from the cunning monkeys behind the curtains writing the speeches and glad-handing the lobbyists. These leaders aren't really meant to change anything profound.
Civil servants also do their best to survive. Sometimes politicians and civil servants cooperate. Most of the time, it's a null hypothesis. Sometimes, you get a highly-motivated evil cretin in power and other evil cretins join in the convulsions. Then you have efficiency at the expense of freedom, justice, and maybe even life itself.
Listen to people everywhere speaking today. This is the age of Peter Pan. Everyone's a child, wanting other people to do the work and make the sacrifices and unwilling to grow up. Give me my ear-pod and home theatre with a screen full of high-definition retardation and don't ask me to learn about the world. Then I can spend all my time talking with my idiotic friends about about which plastic Hollywood dolls we would fuck if we had the opportunity... when we win the lottery.
And when we tire of that desperate chain of infantile hope and outright stupidity, we post on Slashdot. (o:
Re:The null hypothesis of politics (Score:4, Interesting)
Translation:
Horizon (Score:3, Informative)
Pointed Hypocrasy (Score:5, Insightful)
Sex Education In a 2007 interview, Senator McCain said that sex education in the United States should follow President Bush's policy of abstinence-only education. HIV/AIDS McCain participated in ONE campaign's On The Record project. See Youtube (below). In a statement released by his campaign on Global Aids Day (December 1, 2007), McCain supported maintaining the United States commitment to fighting AIDS, writing: "It's critical that we face this crisis head-on, which is why I have consistently supported the most aggressive global AIDS program in the history of this pandemic, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Afflicted nations with whom we partner to fight this disease must also know that we expect a level of governance, transparency and effectiveness from them in order to make the fullest use of AIDS assistance so we can make the greatest impact on people's lives. Our commitment must be sustained, and our nation must always be faithful to those at home and abroad as they cope with the ravages of HIV/AIDS."[3]
Wouldn't fighting AIDS be easier if people where at least aware that Condoms can be used to prevent the spread of STDs like AIDS? Isn't prevention much less expensive than treatment? Wouldn't any real effort to fight AIDS include more than "abstinence only" education? This is absurd. How could anyone take such a candidate seriously?
Re:Pointed Hypocrasy (Score:4, Insightful)
Those that like to make-believe that kids don't have sex, or that somehow hellfire-and-damnation sermons and that being taught "don't put your hoo-hoo in her woo-woo" will convince them otherwise.
It's little wonder that the Bible Belt is also the teen pregnancy belt, or that the arch-conservative VP candidate for the Republicans now has a pregnant teenager in her own ranks. Of course, in classic hypocritical Fundie form, that's a blessing from God. If Palin's kid was a some inner city teenager, then it would be about how immoral she is.
Religious conservatives are pathetic hypocrites, and abstinence-only education is the immoral outgrowth of their inability to deal with reality.
Stem Cell Research (Score:5, Interesting)
In the interests of giving McCain props where I think he should get them (even though I don't agree with him on most subjects):
Kudos to McCain for correctly identifying the glaring hole in the pro-life argument against embryonic stem cell research. The pro-life crowd will often argue that the embryos that stem cells are harvested from are humans and thus deserve a better fate than being used for research. They ignore the reality of the situation, however. Those frozen embryos are most likely going to be discarded/incinerated if they aren't used for stem cell research.
Which is a more dignified fate for the embryo? To be incinerated/tossed out like trashed? Or to be used in an attempt to save lives?
Serious differences in world view (Score:5, Insightful)
Two examples:
(1) Obama wants to improve science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education by broadening its scope beyond just science and engineering majors:
All American citizens need high quality STEM education that inspires them to know more about the world around them, engages them in exploring challenging questions, and involves them in high quality intellectual work. STEM education is no longer only for those pursuing STEM careers; it should enable all citizens to solve problems, collaborate, weigh evidence, and communicate ideas.
whereas McCain sees science as being for geeks only. He wants more geeks, so the rest of the country don't have to bother their pretty heads while getting law and business degrees:
The diminishing number of science, technology, engineering and math graduates at the college level poses a fundamental and immediate threat to American competitiveness. We must fill the pipeline to our colleges and universities with students prepared for the rigors of advanced engineering, math, science and technology degrees.
(2) Obama sees technology leadership as being essential to national security:
It's essential to create a coherent new defense technology strategy to meet the kinds of threats we may faceâ"asymmetric conflicts, urban operations, peacekeeping missions, and cyber, bio, and proliferation threats, as well as new kinds of symmetric threats.
whereas McCain sees national security as essentially just military superiority:
As President, I will strengthen the military, shore up our alliances, and ensure that the nation is capable of protecting the homeland, deterring potential military challenges, responding to any crisis that endangers American security, and prevailing in any conflict we are forced to fight.
For more contrasts, see my blog post [blogspot.com]
Why Does McCain Hate HP? (Score:4, Interesting)
Carly Fiorina severly damaged Hewlett-Packard [wikipedia.org] as its CEO, and has been campaigning for McCain ever since HP fired her.
With that kind of endorsement, America's tech industry should fear McCain as Fiorina's choice for president.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
| is a one line answer: "Get the Federal
| government out of all science research,
| funding, grants and accreditation of
| science schools."
Ya. Because the private sector is so amazing
at funding science research, fostering
collaboration and sharing. They are especailly
good in pure research, where the time-line to
payoff is 10, 20, or 100 years!
Re:The best answer to the science questionnaire (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is that the "public sector" is amazing, first and foremost, in funding research ... with specific outcomes. Confirming politician's views of things. There are actual Chinese papers, peer reviewed and everything, "proving" Tibet is not a country separate from China.
If you let public funding fund science, then you might as well kill the research in social studies, psychology, languages, ethnicities, and (soon to come) evolution, history ... it will merely parrot the popular talkpoints of the day instead of science.
I'd like to agree with you, because you're right, private sector money is scarce and hard to come by, especially for pure research (then again, public money is not doing anywhere near enough to fund the only really pure science there is ... mathematics), but really, public money is only useful in sciences were people are not involved at all. Stuff like particle physics (since no particles go on any type of jihad for any type of religion or poverty), astronomy or maths. Heck even chemistry is getting infected with politics (are drugs bad for you ? Do they badly affect others around drugged people ? have become politically incorrect questions, merely because the answer is yes).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or anything that might have political ramifications as well. Does anyone in your research organization use stem cells that aren't from the the "right" source? No funds for you. Did your weather satellite see increased temperatures? Don't mention it in an
Re:The best answer to the science questionnaire (Score:4, Insightful)
publicly-funded science is politicized science.
and research funded by companies is little better.
Would you trust a study funded by the tobacco industry which showed cigarettes to be harmless? Or a study funded by microsoft which showed FOSS to be full of bugs, viruses and child porn.
Re:The best answer to the science questionnaire (Score:5, Insightful)
That would NOT be a good idea. The reason is simple, businesses almost NEVER do pure research. Its hard to turn the results directly into money, and (rightfully) that is all a business is there for. Taxpayer funded programs do the pure research, then businesses take the result and do the research needed to turn that into a product. Take the Fed out of research and a lot of innovation will come to a grinding halt.
Re:The best answer to the science questionnaire (Score:5, Insightful)
We The People need to take responsibility for getting things done, instead of deferring every concern to government.
"Private sector" does not necessarily have to be a synonym for "profit-oriented business." Imagine if the same portion of your paycheck's federal withholding that is being spent by the feds on science, were instead voluntarily contributed, by you, to a foundation of your choosing. Imagine choosing foundations based on the directors' expertise in science and grant proposal selection, instead of choosing senators and reps and presidents based on a such huge array of factors.
There is no reason we should have to use the same small group to make every decision. When you put politicians in charge of this stuff, you get situations where, say, a certain party's position on global warming, embryonic stems cells, etc. matters. Their opinions on these things shouldn't matter. We send them to Washington to set policies based on the topics mentioned in Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution, not to vote on whether or not to believe scientists. Think about how absurd it is for them to voting on science.
We could be voting with our wallets instead. We don't need a republic for this. The possible tyrannies of democracy aren't a threat here; one person's decision to fund research doesn't take anything away from you, in the way that passing laws or pointing guns can.
Re:The best answer to the science questionnaire (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey. Just a little heads up. I know you've probably been slurping down the palin talking points when she says things like "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" just cost the people too much to remain viable. Unfortunately both of you are completely wrong. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are Government Sponsorded Enterprises (GSE). This means that they were incorporated by an act of congress, but are PRIVATELY OWNED. That's right privately owned. THEY WERE NOT RUN BY THE GOVERNMENT. The deregulation (by republicans) of these two organizations allowed them to be run into the ground. Now the taxpayers are HAVING to pay for a bailout to slow the plummeting republican shitstorm that is our current economy.
I don't know where you get this whole federal money competes with and beats out private funding idea. Do you really think that federally funded research somehow precludes private research investment at universities? You obviously don't work in an academic setting. Both federal and private projects coincide together with no problem.
Great 25 charities fund $1.2 billion in private research. I think science (and subsequently business who can make money off freely published results) would appreciate and benefit from an additional $1.2 billion or so from the government. That $1.2bil can come from a slice of the money we are wasting in the optional war in Iraq that's distracting us from the real front on terror (Afghanistan) and real domestic issues.
--David
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah... because we never got any benefit out of wasteful government programs like the search for a polio vaccine, or the integrated circuit for NASA, or the Internet.
Re:The best answer to the science questionnaire (Score:4, Insightful)
is a one line answer: "Get the Federal government out of all science research, funding, grants and accreditation of science schools."
No, WAY!!! Where would we be without a pen that can write upside down and underwater??
Seriously though, do you really want the only scientific research to be going on sponsored by whatever makes profit? The government is clearly not the most efficient (that's why the astronauts didn't use a pencil, right? Don't answer that.) but at least it adds a counterbalance and alternative source of funding for research. Who else would support social science research? [wikipedia.org]
Re:The best answer to the science questionnaire (Score:5, Informative)
They didn't use pencil because broken leads would be a big problem in zero G.
Re:McCain's response... (Score:4, Funny)
Error establishing a database connection
Isn't there a pill he can take for that?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Bob Dole says yes!
Re:Database Connection Error (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, don't be silly. We all know McCain's/Palin's "science policy" is a huge load.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> And honestly, did you actually agree with every single thing Ron Paul advocated?
Forgive me, but that's childish. Are you suggesting that only a leader who agrees with you 100% of the time will be effective?
Like many here, I have a day job. I read a bit here and there, watch a little TV, and come to some conclusions. But in the end, I know that my judgement is easily flawed because I don't have the time or staff to properly evaluate the available information. So even if my core principals are someho
Re:Choices, choices (Score:5, Interesting)
While it is a common belief that voting third party is "throwing your vote away", it really isn't in the long term. The two big parties look closely at the candidates who received votes in every major election and then try to determine how to convince voters to vote for their candidates next time around, typically by modifying their platforms and including items that appear to be gathering steam with the populance. You can help steer the process a bit by voting for exactly for who you want to fill the position your voting on. Just because your guy didn't win doesn't mean your votes didn't matter.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't it great that we have so many choices for leadership? If we don't like the opinions of one person, we have one other person to choose from. Certainly each one of us can find one of these two people who will agree with and advocate for all that we believe in. Right?
In a sense, politics is a one-dimensional game at that level: at the extremes, either you believe that individual rights and responsibilities should be completely subservient to some "greater good" society, or you believe that individual rights and responsibilities are the dominant factor and any concept of society exists only to support them. A great many of the big decisions do flow naturally from this simple distinction: a preference for big vs. small government in general, and many more specific issues
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)