Obama Launches Change.gov 1486
mallumax writes "Obama has launched Change.gov. According to the site 'Change.gov provides resources to better understand the transition process and the decisions being made as part of it. It also offers an opportunity to be heard about the challenges our country faces and your ideas for tackling them. The Obama Administration will reflect an essential lesson from the success of the Obama campaign: that people united around a common purpose can achieve great things.' The site is extensive and contains Obama's agenda for economy and education among many others. They first define the problem and then lay out the plan. Everything is in simple English without a trace of Washington-speak. The site also has details about the transition. According to many sources, Obama's transition efforts started months ago. The copyright for the content is held by 'Obama-Biden Transition Project, a 501c(4) organization'."
Obama (Score:5, Funny)
First Obama
Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
i'm not a big fan of the bipartisan system--personally, i'm a Nader supporter--and i'm not too excited about having a former drug Czar as a VP. but how is this not news for nerds?
the president-elect has launched a website to lay out his plans for government reform (letting us know what we should expect in the coming term) in an accessible online format, and also to solicit thoughts and opinions about policy issues from ordinary citizens. AFAIK, this is the first time any U.S. president has embraced IT and the world wide web to such an extent as a means of engaging the citizenry in public discourse.
i honestly believe that the web is the key to realizing a true participatory democracy on a federal level in a country as big as the U.S., so this is certainly something to take notice of. this may be just the first small step, but at least it's a step in the right direction. along with the THOMAS [loc.gov] system, which gives the public easy access to bills, legislation, and congressional voting records, the web is gradually increasing the level of transparency in government. perhaps in the near future online referendums can be conducted, if not for deferring policy making to the public, then at least to poll public opinion on key issues.
this kind of interactive digital democracy eliminates any ambiguity as to what the general mood of the public is, how the public feels about key issues, and what the will of the people is. it's vital for an online dialog to be opened between political officials and their constituency, especially with the growing gap/disconnect between the political elite and the daily realities of the common man. at least then politicians and can't plead ignorance.
Re:Obama (Score:5, Informative)
The Official Blog of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - The President of the Islamic Republic of Iran
http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/ [ahmadinejad.ir]
Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not think that McCain would of had a website like this. Also, I do not give excuses to Clinton or Bush for not having this. Perhaps if Bush had cared what the people had thought then he wouldn't be so reviled.
Re:Why stop there? (Score:4, Interesting)
Whoa! (Score:4, Insightful)
you are saying ignorance about computers means you are low-income? Bush was hardly low-income, and ignorant as hell. And just what did the tubes guy make a year? You sir, are the elitist prick.
No (Score:5, Insightful)
You should always vote for the best person.
People with small minds vote based on race. So do your best to put them in the minority.
watched the news (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone watch the news and see all the stories of the happy people who say that they are are finally on equal ground? The people saying that now they can be anything they want to be. Why they sudden change of mind? People were not thinking that way before? Those people who were thinking that because they are of a certain race (or not a different one) they are limited to do this small list of jobs are only defeating themselves. Why couldn't they think like that before the election? It is sad, truly sad. Those people were keeping themselves down and not realizing it. All the kids saying that now that can be anything even president, they always had that choice. They, like everyone else, has to work for it. Not everyone is born into huge piles of money and has everything they want handed to them.
Re:watched the news (Score:5, Interesting)
I didn't vote this time (the first time in 20+ years) as I didn't like either the Facist (McCain) or the Socialist, and there were no other important elections locally. So who won is really no disappointment to me--at least, not more than I was expecting anyway. McCain would have engaged in blatant idiocy as well, it only would have been different idiocy.
One thing's for sure: there's not going to be the money for all the big, glamorous nanny-state programs that Obama has spoken so fondly of in the past. The markets are currently giving Bush Jr a supreme jackhammering, and they'll deal one to Obama's fairly-tale economics as well in due time. So when it comes to what Obama can really do, that leaves the free stuff (gun prohibition) and stuff that actually saves money.
The BIGGEST thing Obama could do to save money would be to bring troops back home, but it doesn't seem we'll be seeing that--as Obama looks to be a pawn of Israel just like Bush was, and many US presidents before them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/04/AR2008060403508.html [washingtonpost.com]
-
When Obama promised "change", somehow I didn't think reversing his campaign promises was what they had in mind.
Oh well,,, how's that old saying go?
"People know what kind of government they want, and they deserve to get it good and hard"
~
Re:watched the news (Score:5, Informative)
Why couldn't they think like that before the election? It is sad, truly sad.
Some years back, when I started to lose it on top, I shaved off my pony tail, and stayed a chrome-dome for a year or so.
A couple of months in, I was talking with pals over beers, and told them that the weirdest thing about it was that strangers treated me differently. Nervous looks in the grocery store line. Uncomfortable pauses when chatting with people on the bus. Crossing the street so they didn't have to pass me on the sidewalk. One of those friends, whose parents are African immigrants, and who is one of the most affable people I know, said, "Yeah, now you know how it is to be black."
I didn't, of course, not really. How could I? But I could see that if you spent your whole life with people treating you as different, lesser, or scary on a daily basis, it would tend to color your outlook. And what I'm sure of is that most white people have absolutely zero understanding of what it's like to not have the instant boost in regard that they get just from being white.
It's not *their* racism. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not so much racism among black voters, as the racism of the Republican party. Hell, the Republicans would, if not for the racism thing, be a good pick for at least a portion of that voting bloc, as they frequently lean socially-conservative on plenty of issues. (Take Prop 8 in California, for instance.) But in attempting to appeal to their own racists--the white kind--who make up the party's base, they alienate everyone else.
Consider this: the election was heavily influenced by Latino voters, who were previously a very Republican constituency, especially in Florida. But due to the influence of Tom Tancredo, of Lou Dobbs, of Michelle Malkin, of the Minutemen and all their ilk, Latinos are now considerably more Democratic.
So, no, black people didn't vote for Obama because he was black. They voted for Obama because the other part is the party of white racists. I'm not saying that all or even most Republicans are racists, but there's one party that's made its bones by courting them, and there's one party that hasn't; it's not hard to tell which is which.
Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community (Score:4, Insightful)
Blacks voted 88% for Kerry, it's not -that- big of a shift, and a lot of it has to do with new voter registrations, as well - new voters were pretty consistently pro-Obama.
Re:African Americans are overwhelmingly homophobic (Score:5, Insightful)
I think of ancient Greece, which can hardly be considered a culture that discriminated against homosexuality, yet I know of no movement for gay marriage in ancient Greece. "Marriage" is a word that has meaning in our culture for a long time, having "gay marriage" is not giving equal rights, it is a radical redefining something that is considered one of the basic building blocks of society.
Everyone who opposes anything like this is labelled "homophobic" though. It's an attempt to eliminate discussion. "Islamaphobic" works the same way. Perhaps you would disagree with my position on adoption or gay marriage (neither of which I have given here because it isn't my point), but do you think it is possible that gay lobby groups could have a bad idea and that opposition to that idea could potentially be "sensible" rather than "homophobic".
Re:African Americans are overwhelmingly homophobic (Score:4, Insightful)
"Homophobic" is newspeak. Does it ever occur to you that people who oppose adoption by gays, for example, may do so on the basis of principles they hold and not irrational fear?
Does it ever occur to you that some people's principles are what cause/create irrational fear? Or that people's irrational fears morph their principles?
Re:African Americans are overwhelmingly homophobic (Score:5, Insightful)
Allowing gays to marry does not "get rid" of marriage.
Furthermore, it was not until the revolutionary period that Marriage was predominantly about love. Prior to then it was purely political. To say that marriage hasn't changed for all of human civilization is flat out wrong.
Or do you still believe it should be illegal for blacks and whites to intermarry? Or for anyone to become divorced and remarry?
Re:African Americans are overwhelmingly homophobic (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not seeing how expanding the practice == "throwing it out".
I'm unaware of any procreative requirement for marriage. Those people don't generally have a problem with people getting married who are infertile due to age or illness, or who simply don't want children. I also fail to see how allowing homosexual couples to marry interferes with heterosexual couples carrying on as they always have.
Since there's no rational argument to support those positions, it kind of does mean that. Some of them reacting to a "yuck" factor. They think that homosexual behavior is gross, and they think that they will somehow prevent it by stigmatizing it. Others believe that their chosen religion forbids it and that they should act to stop others from doing it, regardless of whether the homosexuals in question are part of their religious group or not. The weird part is, nobody is expecting them, the gay-marriage opponents, to actually engage in this behavior, they're fixating on something other people do that they don't ever have to take part in themselves.
I strongly disagree. I've yet to hear any valid reasons to be against gay marriage. If you don't want to marry someone of the same sex, don't. But why stick your nose into someone else's personal life where you're not welcome or wanted?
Further, a nearly %50 divorce rate does not suggest that marriage works "extremely well". Really, a 50-50 success rate? You may as well say flipping a coin works "extremely well" as a method of predicting the future.
Re:African Americans are overwhelmingly homophobic (Score:4, Insightful)
I horribly disagree with everything you said, up to your last point. Why the fuck does the government give marriage licenses in the first place? Everyone who wants to marry should be given a civil union, and then do whatever ceremony they want for their marriage. If the Catholic Church doesn't allow gay marriages, well you're fucked if you are a gay Catholic because it is their right under religious freedom.
The whole concept of government marriage licenses is bad.
Re:African Americans are overwhelmingly homophobic (Score:5, Funny)
When marriage is made illegal, only outlaws will have inlaws.
Re:African Americans are overwhelmingly homophobic (Score:4, Insightful)
> "Homophobic" is newspeak. Does it ever occur to you that people who oppose adoption by gays, for example, may do so on the basis of principles they hold and not irrational fear?
No, I don't think fear is the biggest factor here. Your post makes it perfectly clear that you people are striving to deny equal rights to members of society that are different, out of principle. You define yourself by conjuring up an in-group that is on a perpetual mission to prevent the emergence of other social structures, acting as though the mere existence of alternative lifestyles is a threat to your way of life. And I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume this is all religiously motivated.
It's not fear, it's a combination of hate and the desire to impose authoritarian values on others in an effort to hide your own deficiencies. Maybe there is also the thought that, by making the lives of others more miserabe, you won't feel so bad about your own anymore.
> I think of ancient Greece, which can hardly be considered a culture that discriminated against homosexuality, yet I know of no movement for gay marriage in ancient Greece.
We are not ancient Greece, and that's a good thing. While ancient greek culture was certainly a milestone that represented the best knowledge about how to build a free society at the time, I'm very glad that we have evolved much further from those days. Being in a civil union with a life partner is not merely a commercially driven endeavor to procreate anymore, it is a concept based on the modern notion that two people are bound together by love.
My opinion? Maybe it's not the government's place to define or grant the status of "marriage" at all. Maybe legally, there should instead be just one concept of "civil unions", defined to be any partnership of two people who want to spend their lives together. Let the churches have that word, "marriage" and do whatever they want with it.
On a personal note, I have many homosexual friends, but even if I did not, it would still make me deeply ashamed to see that people still refuse to stand up for the rights of others. Many seem to think not having a personal stake in something makes it OK to look the other way when human beings are treated with contempt and their rights are called into question. But we need to recognize that we have to keep fighting, not only for our own personal freedoms but also for the freedoms of every single person who is treated wrongly. And that includes not letting people like you get away with pseudo-reasonable arguments of intolerance and inequality.
I recognize the right of my friends to express their lifestyle by entering into a recognized union, and I know it should make no damn difference what gender they happen to have.
Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the interesting things about political correctness is that even racists do not want to appear racist.
Instead, they are amateur sociologists who only care about the aspects of sociology that justify racial disparity.
They are also amateur historians who only care about Nazi and Confederate history.
There are also the amateur biologists who love to discuss genetic inferiority, and how that observant the 16th century slavers must have been to have cracked the genome 500 years ago...
And now, we have amateur political scientists who specialize in the unfairness of black people getting elected.
<sarcasm>It's amazing that so many of these people are self-taught. </sarcasm>
Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community (Score:4, Interesting)
From my Canadian POV, I see 3 main reasons why Mccain lost:
1. Palin.
2. The continuous attack ads made him seem like a jerk.
3. His "de-mavericking" over the past few years, leading people to ask "WTF does this guy actually stand for?".
Great! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Great! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Great! (Score:5, Insightful)
I had a long hard thought about this.
We have tons of fanatics anyway. So it's better they fanatically follow a reasonable man, that some religious loony.
And then we still have many reasonable people left. It's not as if there were only fanatics.
So in the end, while not perfect, it's at least a very good deal. Better than the old shit by far... :)
Re:Great! (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama's going to take care of my Mortgage AND Gas! [youtube.com]
These people actually voted and voted in large numbers. A black friend (no he wasn't African American. He was Jamaican) asked me what I thought about the first black president during the time they were showing all the celebrations. All I said is that anyone who voted for him (or against him) simply because of his skin color needs to be deported.
Vote for his policies, senate voting record, anything but race.
Then again I do hope that Obama gets up and gives a speech like Bill Cosby gave to the NAACP [americanrhetoric.com] and this time people actually listen.
But then again I'm racist for thinking any of this, right?
Re:Great! (Score:5, Funny)
I agree. People should be able to post their comments to a publicly viewable forum so that an open discussion and debate can occur.
Stresstest (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Stresstest (Score:5, Interesting)
"Begin Intellectual Property Reform: rather than just the usual extension of copyright terms, Obama's staff recognizes the "need to update and reform our copyright and patent systems to promote civic discourse, innovation and investment while ensuring that intellectual property owners are fairly treated." That includes "opening up the patent process to citizen review [to] reduce the uncertainty and wasteful litigation that is currently a significant drag on innovation."
"Obama's running mate has been criticized for supporting current policy on copyright, but an exposure of government policy to sources of light outside of the lobbyists currently illuminating the dark caves of Washington is likely to change things dramatically."
What an Obama Presidency Means for Technology [roughlydrafted.com]
Re:Stresstest (Score:4, Insightful)
I see a slightly different version of that paragraph on Obama's site (quoted above) That does not bode at all well. Looks like Obama is firmly on the side of the xxAAs.
"Propaganda" (Score:5, Insightful)
I know this is probably gonna get me marked down from some of Obama's more, ehm, "faithful"--and I'm not excusing anything past politicians have done, in either party, oh no--but this seems too much like propaganda. "Ministry of Change", heh.
It also seems like he's unveiling things he didn't talk about that much:
The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nationâ(TM)s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.
Mandatory community service? Great, let's send a bunch of unmotivated kids to do stupid work. Hell, that kind of shit would have been a nightmare for me at that age when I had massive social anxiety and was extremely uncomfortable in such situations.
Of course, people will come out of the woodwork to say how because it's something that people "should" do (because helping people IS nice, after all...) that Obama should MAKE you do it. Please, someone explain to me how you justify that leap.
Re:"Propaganda" (Score:5, Informative)
They did talk about it, actually. [barackobama.com] There was also a YouTube video, one of the "Blueprint for Change" series. [youtube.com]
Whether or not it's a good thing... I don't know. It seems perhaps a bit much to force students to help out... but then, it could do some serious good as well.
Re:"Propaganda" (Score:4, Informative)
The $4000 tax credit for college students that do 100 hours of service didn't seem all that unreasonable to me.
Re:"Propaganda" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Propaganda" (Score:4, Insightful)
$4000 for 100 hours? $40 an hour? Really? Seems a bit high to me, but maybe that is the only way they can get people to participate.
Yes, you caught it. If you really want to teach young people that they should be paid for their volunteer work---no one seems to catch the contradiction there---then you do need to pay them a high enough rate.
Seriously, I am surrounded by conscientious people (mostly immigrants) who do solid work for a third of that rate, and have to feed their families.
do you have a better alternative? (Score:5, Insightful)
no, what you really have is the desire that you don't have to help the poor at all
why should you care, right?
well, poverty is the breeding ground for ideologies which are antagonistic to freedom. they also breed unorganized threats to your freedom, such as petty crime like theft and robbery
the poor who live near you, tax you, no matter what. in direct and financial ways, or in indirect, existential ways. you can choose the nature of how they tax you (government programs with explicit policies that you have control over as a citizen of a democracy), or choose to have the poor tax you with random criminal acts and ideological movements hostile to the notion of freedom
you are taxed by the poor in your world no matter what. you do not get to choose not to be taxed, because taxes on your freedom will play out in one way or another by the poor. you simply have a choice about the nature in which the poor tax you. government programs that benefit the poor and lift them out of poverty is the best form of taxation, the CHEAPEST form of taxation (financial or otherwise) before you
choose wisely
most of us understand the value of altruism, how it actually helps us out in the end, instinctively. others, like you, have to be dragged kicking and screaming to common sense
Re:"Propaganda" (Score:5, Interesting)
We have mandatory community service in Ontario, to complete their highschool education, I for one was glad I was far out of reach of such policies. I'm not a fan of forcing people to go out and do things such as 'voluntary-mandatory community service'. With any luck, if he does decide to pull this bullshit through the air, people will run across fellows who remember this and happily do one thing(should it be a requirement for say graduation/etc), pay them for it; like many do here now.
Community service should remain that, a choice. Do it, great, nice job on you. Don't do it...well, it doesn't look as good and you might get passed over, but it doesn't matter in the end. It's the choices that make you what you are, not what the government is telling you what you should do.
Re:"Propaganda" (Score:5, Interesting)
Still not quite getting it. Community service is supposed to be a choice, that's it. Good moral standing character, doing good for the community, looks good on applications, looks good on whatever else. Telling everyone to do it, not only removes that, but it also add in resentment for various things.
Ontario requires 40, I had to see if I could find the original pamphlet "Students are to volunteer for compulsory community service." I always loved that sentence. So yes, bullshit. Don't try to sugar coat, forced labor to me.
I should say I graduated probably 7 odd years after they brought it in or more.
Re:"Propaganda" (Score:4, Interesting)
If a school system thinks some time spent on community service is an important part of educating students, they make it a graduation requirement.
Forced labor? You want to try coordinating high school students doing a few hours of work at a time and see if you can wind up getting more done than if you sent them home and did it yourself? I'm thinking the motivation isn't the chance to exploit the fabulous labor pool provided by a few hours from untrained 16 year olds.
Re:"Propaganda" (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, we need more unpaid child-labour in this country!
Re:"Propaganda" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mandatory community service?
Sounds a bit like slavery to me.
Re:"Propaganda" (Score:5, Interesting)
For instance, instead of cramming all the troublemakers into the cafeteria for Saturday school, they could me made to do various community service. The community would benefit and it would be more fun for the troublemaker than the alternative. Many would rather paint over graffitti or pick up trash as long as they could socialize with their fellows.
The GP laments about how that would've been torturous to his introverted psyche, but what he dosen't realize is that it may have been very beneficial to interact with others who have a common gripe(having to serve out their "sentence") as a team-building exercise.
Additionally, there are many high school organizations which do community service and offer some kind of carrot(say, a trip to a theme park), as a reward. Working with the mentally challenged is a very eye-opening experience...those little funny-looking bastards are much smarter than we think they are.
Re:"Propaganda" (Score:5, Funny)
Re:"Propaganda" (Score:5, Insightful)
Slavery?? like math class? or being forced to read books as homework for English class? Requiring a couple days of community service over the course of 4 years of high-school does as much good for the student as it does for the community (small but potentially significant). At least in this case, the student can pick whatever he wants to do.
Re:"Propaganda" (Score:4, Insightful)
It gives you great insight into the workings of someone's mind when they think requiring this amount of community service is akin to slavery, both in their inability to understand the role of school in society as well as of the significance of real slavery.
The school system isn't making kids stamp license plates or cut down trees or fill reactor rods here, this is community service chosen by the youth in school. They may decide to help out at a boys & girls club of some form, or do some reading to seniors at a hospital, or whatever tickles their fancy.
I think a lot of previous generations would be better off if they had more exposure to being engaged in this way.
Re:"Propaganda" (Score:5, Insightful)
This man is dangerous, this is just more proof that there is truth coming out of his mouth, how can we possibly survive when politicians don't lie every time they open their mouths?
Re:"Propaganda" (Score:5, Funny)
Don't worry; he's lied several times about his relationships, religion, and childhood.
Yes. He is a muslim, which is why he goes to the crazy christian church. His had sex with William Ayers, and, he spent his childhood as a giant radioactive spider.
Thank you for letting us know about all the crazy lies you saw on the internet.
Re:"Propaganda" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Propaganda" (Score:5, Insightful)
So already, refusing to participate in the Obama's Grand Plan is equivilent to cheating on your taxes.
I think I'll reserve my spot at the re-education camp early.
>There is no necessity that such a freedom should exist in a free society
To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary - Che Guevara
I think you two would get along.
this country (Score:5, Interesting)
as well as many others, have fought important wars with drafted soldiers
"Mandatory community service? Great, let's send a bunch of unmotivated kids to do stupid work. Hell, that kind of shit would have been a nightmare for me at that age when I had massive social anxiety and was extremely uncomfortable in such situations."
so you have a problem with the fighting forces of world war i and world war ii? where we gave 18 year olds guns and made them serve on the front lines of mayhem and death? i'm just saying, you'd better have a problem with the idea of a military draft, for the sake of intellectual honesty
although, i've heard stories of many countries with mandatory military service as nothing more than a chance to learn smoking and peel potatoes. so mandatory civil service might prove stupid... or really good, can't tell
but i do like the idea of paying off part of your student loans this way. because it serves as a carrot and a stick. if your civil service effort is poor, you would be punished by having to still pay your loans in full, for example. this at least provides motivation
Re:this country (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I do have a problem with it. One of the key force multipliers that the brass has identified is that a voluntary fighting force is many times more effective than a drafted force. One of the key issues in WWI and WWII is that our men were dying without ever firing their weapon.
It's not that they never had an opportunity, but rather that they were not professional soldiers. Being pressed into service with the fairly limited weapons training of the time did not train them to respond on instinct. They thought too much before pulling the trigger, and it got a lot of good men killed.
However, the draft was a necessity for WWI & II. It wasn't until Vietnam that the true horrors of a draft became apparent. How many good men died in a war where we never lost a battle but lost the war? How many vets came back to be spat on, beat up, and otherwise disowned by the American people? How many vets lost limbs or were crippled only to come back and find hatred rather than care?
The draft is an evil thing. Sometimes a necessary evil, but evil none the less. I can only hope that the US will never have to issue a draft again.
America, land of the ....? (Score:5, Interesting)
land of the free. where freemen understand that freedom is protected by banding together, and fighting off threats to freedom. threats that exist abroad, in battle with evil ideologies that are antagonistic to freedom, or domestically, in poor areas of the country where freedom is threatened by economic misery
you are not free if you are poor. the battle for maintaining freedom is a domestic and a foreign battle. if you think it is only a foreign battle, you do not truly understand the nature of freedom
Dear Sir (Score:5, Informative)
The government is paying a good chunk of your tuition in exchange for 100 hours of community service. Sounds like a fair exchange for me.
Do you know what this program is? The government lets you to earn college credit while you are in high school. Many of my classmates were able to graduate with a bachelor degree a year before us chumps who didn't take uncle sam up on the offer.
How do you know this? Maybe it would have got you over it sooner. In fact, I wager most of the people in head start did it to get away from their high school foes and sit around people who respected smarts.
If you dont want to do it, pay full freight on your college tuition instead! Nobody is pointing a gun at your head saying "cash this government check!!"
Re:Dear Sir (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly which part of the constitution are we deliberately misinterpreting to give the federal government the authority to do this?
Re:The constitution also allowed slavery (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dear Sir (Score:5, Informative)
It's this part: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
In the same way that the drinking age isn't "mandatory"?
Re:Dear Sir (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything not expressly allowed for our government to do in the constitution is forbidden. That's how it works, not the backwards interpretation people usually try to claim.
The fact is, that's not how it works, nor how it has ever worked in our government, nor the interpretation the courts have ruled. This has nothing to do with college tuition; it's just the excuse libertarian wackaloons use to claim that everything the government does is illegal. Well, good luck with that. But constitutional law disagrees with you.
Re:"Propaganda" (Score:5, Informative)
Mandatory community service? Great, let's send a bunch of unmotivated kids to do stupid work. Hell, that kind of shit would have been a nightmare for me at that age when I had massive social anxiety and was extremely uncomfortable in such situations.
Maybe it would have made you a more well-rounded person. /shrug
Re:"Propaganda" (Score:5, Interesting)
Did You Read It?
Expand Service-Learning in Our Nation's Schools: Obama and Biden will set a goal that all middle and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year.
seems reasonable to me, i remeber doing a lot more than that in school, I imagine most schools aready do that... think canning drives, fund raisers etc...
Require 100 Hours of Service in College: Obama and Biden will establish a new American Opportunity Tax Credit that is worth $4,000 a year in exchange for 100 hours of public service a year.
again seems reasonable to me. You want money, do some work for it. Where else you gonna make $40 bucks an hour in college?
Re:"Propaganda" (Score:5, Informative)
Tax credit, remember? There are two kinds of tax credits available in the US system. Refundable, and non-refundable. Most tax credits are the latter type, which means they can be used to reduce your income tax burden to zero, but no further. Only refundable tax credits are worth the full value if your tax burden is less than face value of the credit.
Assuming the credit is non-refundable (as almost all of them are. The EIC (which is meant to make up for the regressive SS and Medicare taxes) is the only one I can think of off the top of my head that is refundable right now), the benefit will be less than that.
In other words, since few college students actually owe $4000 per year of income taxes, very few will end up getting the equivalent of $40 per hour.
Note that as of 2008, you have to clear ~$29,000 per year after the usual deductions before you owe $4000. Realistically, we're talking about $40,000 per year to get the nominal benefit.
Re:"Propaganda" (Score:5, Informative)
It's a refundable credit:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/ [barackobama.com]
Near the bottom:
"This universal and fully refundable credit will ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is completely free for most Americans, and will cover two-thirds the cost of tuition at the average public college or university and make community college tuition completely free for most students. Recipients of the credit will be required to conduct 100 hours of community service."
Re:"Propaganda" (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:"Propaganda" (Score:4, Insightful)
Required service is no different from an income tax - in either case they are taking your time and life and efforts to benefit the government (or, less cynically, society at large).
Which is more beneficial to society - having college students work part time to pay for their bills or work in community service for free? I know at my internship pay in college I could have hired three people at minimum wage to do a service job for me instead, and I did of course pay income tax on that money.
Forced community service generally just means that government is paying people to do things that there's no money in doing. In case they didn't notice, 90% of the scholarships out there strongly encourage community service - don't see why it needs to be made mandatory.
Re:"Propaganda" (Score:5, Informative)
Read the actual page the GP was quoting (here [change.gov]). That was a real quote, not made-up text: "Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year."
.gov? (Score:3, Insightful)
How the hell did they get a .gov domain considering that they aren't even in power yet? And even if they were, is this the kind of stuff .gov was created for?
Re:.gov? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, how dare he inform the public of what is actually happening in one of the most important transitions that can happen in government!
Whether or not it should be .gov is really a technicality IMHO. He is the president-elect, after all.
Re:.gov? (Score:5, Informative)
This is not an uncommon use of a .gov domain. Just look at the Dem [dems.gov] and GOP [gop.gov] House Caucus sites. The GOP caucus has a nice set of articles on "THE COST OF THE DEMOCRAT CONGRESS" and the Dem site, while not containing any hit pieces, has a lot of advocacy.
Not saying it's appropriate, just there's a precedent for it and it's not beyond any pale of anything.
Re:.gov? (Score:4, Insightful)
The government can not copyright material. All material produced by government is owned by the people collectively. But I'm not entirely sure what you're specifically referring to.
Wow a President that plans ahead!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Yes We Can - Draft you! (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.change.gov/americaserves [change.gov]
Classic double-think
"When you choose to serve -- whether it's your nation, your community or simply your neighborhood....
Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.
Obama's chief of staff choice favors compulsory universal service [examiner.com]
Obama and Hillary Call for a Draft Live on MTV [barackswar.com]
Text of H.R. 393: Universal National Service Act of 2007 [govtrack.us]
Obama Calls For National Civilian Stasi [prisonplanet.com]
Constitution, what Constitution?
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Re:Yes We Can - Draft you! (Score:5, Insightful)
And if the draft had been in place, I think this nonsense of a war in Iraq would have never started, and if it did, it would not have lasted this long. The only reason it has lasted this long is that most of the poor stiffs dying for you and me in the sands of Iraq have no career options back home (I am not talking about genuine volunteers, just the poor kids who use military service as a way to get out of the hell hole their otherwise gang and poverty infested lives are.).
In that sense, given how much we are going to need the military (Bush has after all started so many wildfires around the globe), it might not be a very bad idea to re-institute the draft - it will give us the manpower we need, and will keep future chicken hawk oil-thirsty traitors like Cheney from driving this country into wars it does not need to be involved in. It will make participation in our government also that much more personal as a matter. And boost voting percentages even more, making the government even more representative of the people than simply a few shrill interest groups (if you have done any stats, you know what I am talking about).
And yes, I could also be drafted.
Re:Wow a President that plans ahead!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
No it hasn't. Bush & Co. spent years planning their assault on the constitution.
It Begins (Score:4, Insightful)
Excellent... (Score:3, Insightful)
...now we'll see if we can get him to change his policy on Nuclear Power (a necessity for cleaner power), pay more attention to what the AMA has to say on insurance [voicefortheuninsured.org], convince him not to raise taxes in the middle of an economic crisis*, and plead with him to leave Griffin as head of NASA and keep him properly funded. Anything I'm missing?
While I'm being a little bit snarky, I think it's great that Obama has this outlet to let our voices be heard. I look forward to seeing if he listens. :-)
* The $250,000 bit doesn't matter. What's more concerning is when Bush's existing tax breaks expire. When Hoover raised taxes in 1932, it caused a complete economic collapse of an already precarious situation.
We'll build more nuclear power plants (Score:4, Insightful)
Unlike claims by McCain, I've never heard Obama say he was against nuclear power. At some point, he might have said he was against some specific form of power plant design or something, but never against the concept. McCain must have lept on that statement and blew it up to make it sound like Obama was against all forms of nuclear power.
In fact, I think the "no more nukes" people have become such a small base that it would be politically safe to revisit nuclear power. Do you know anybody who is really against it? Most people I know are really concerned more about how to dispose of the waste, not really concerned about the power plant itself.
But that all said, if you could develop power sources that are cheaper per megawatt then nuclear power, why bother? From what I understand, wind power is going down in price per megawatt that it is almost competitive with coal!
Re:Excellent... (Score:5, Informative)
The Obama tax plan reaffirms the Bush tax cuts on all but the highest brackets past 2010; the salient change is that the $250k bracket simply returns to where it was when Bush took office: see here [barackobama.com]. In the end, the total tax rate of the country is still below where it was during the Reagan administration. It's astonishing to think we went through the first decade of expansion this century without collecting any money to pay down our debt; through the 50s, the highest brakcet had a marginal tax rate of over 90% [truthandpolitics.org], in order to pay down our war debt, and that was a tax code submitted by a Republican congress and signed by Eisenhower. At the time thus amounted to a huge wealth redistribution since the paper on the war debt was in war bonds, which were universally subscribed, not to mention the costs of the GI Bill and Marshall plan, which educated millions and could also be considered a form of debt repayment or infrastructure invetment.
It didn't help that he wasn't spending much; if we trim up taxation while spending gobs on infrastructure like in 1933. Of course back then, they didn't have $10 trillion in debt.
Re:Excellent... (Score:5, Insightful)
As brother posters on this thread have pointed out, the real disaster of Hoover was his austerity; the Federal deficit simply isn't as important as getting the economy operating again.
Yes the US $10 trillion, but over the last few months something like $30 trillion in assets has disappeared. The primary issue that must be adressed now is people's faith in investment, that the property they hold in the form of stock and the real estate is as secure in its value as any other appreciating/depreciating asset, and not subject to the vissitudes of manipulators and profiteers.
On what basis do you make that statement? Democrats have been consistent defict hawks for a decade, and have particular credibility since Clinton was able to bring the government into surplus, even given the anemic taxation levels of the 1990s.
That said, it would be a disatser if they made defict reduction a priority before the economy was growing again. So yeah, it'll disappear for a few years, in the way they peopl don't talk about their flu when they've just had their arm cut off.
Why only one "blog"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Shouldn't there be blogs and forums so users can actually communicate with each other and make their opinions known to each other? That would be a powerful force, as they could band together to keep Obama in line if he strays too far from his promises. The way it is set up currently, it simply is a bullhorn for Obama, while his users can "share their vision" with a recycle bin. I don't see much (yet) to get excited about. It reminds me of CNN's "talkback", which is heavily censored and filtered.
Re:Why only one "blog"? (Score:4, Insightful)
I've been a proponent for blogs for our elected offices for a while now. I don't think forums would work this term, though. Given how racist and irrational a large percentage of our population is, it will take about 2 seconds for such a forum for Obama to devolve into uselessness, even with heavy moderation. (And then, once you throw moderation into things, you have to deal with charges that you're biasing the comments.)
I dont know if it is possible (Score:4, Insightful)
A forum that citizens "talk back" to a presidential blog would be the largest community website on the planet. Could you imagine how many comments a single blog post would get? I bet a single blog post, especially if it was even slightly controversial, could easily generate thousands of comments. How would you design the UI to navigate 5,000 comments? How would you moderate it? How would you even design it? Nobody would interact on such a forum either, it would be one blog post and 5,000 direct replies. No threads, nobody talking to each other, nothing. Just 5,000 comments that all sound the same.
You can already see how this works by visiting the comments pages of any major national newspaper. Nobody reads other comments, and everybody replies directly to the article. You basically get pages of comments all talking to nobody.
Personally, I dont think it is possible to allow comments on a presidential blog. I dont even know if it would be productive. It would just be a mess.
In other news... (Score:5, Interesting)
Joe the Plumber has launched:
http://www.secureourdream.com/ [secureourdream.com]
Yes, sadly now that his dreams of owning a plumbing business have crashed to the ground, he decided to become a political watchdog and "take it to the streets."
Who knows what we'll be saying about him 4 years from now? A 1 year "Freedom membership" costs a mear $14.95 .
Freedom, who among us is against that?
From an Obama supporter (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the 'submit your own idea' functionality, I think it's a great move. Even if they ignore most/all of the suggestions, isn't that the same results as not asking for them in the first place? At worst this is a waste of time and at best it's a huge step forward in citizen understanding of and participation in government.
here comes the partisan hacks (Score:5, Insightful)
story summary: obama and team put up website communicating their efforts
take home message, pro obama: all the good i feel about an obama administration is taking effect
take home message, anti obama: all the bad i feel about an obama administration is taking effect
its just a communication tool folks. last i checked, communicating what you actually intend to do is never a bad thing
for those of you who don't like obama, think of it as your enemy telegraphing his punches, allowing you to prepare your rebutal, or providing a convenient record for you to accuse him of not doing what he promised to do. see? its good all around
Dear President Elect Obama (Score:5, Funny)
I know you are new to politics so I thought I would let you know. Now that you have won, you can stop campaigning for about 3 years.
South park (Score:5, Funny)
Prepare to defend your 2nd ammendment rights (Score:5, Insightful)
As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.
Repeal the Tiahrt Amendment- This would be a very bad idea go read up on why the Tiahrt Amendment exists that information should remain unavailable to the public for privacy reasons if nothing else. Also the reasons given there are incorrect at best.
Making guns in this country childproof- Safe storage is a good idea, but I have yet to see a good safe storage law.
Making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent- This is very bad.
I prefer this guy because he is better than the alternative, but I knew this was coming and it concerns me.
*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
i grew up rural, and i live urban now. i shot shotguns in the swamp behind the house with my granddaddy, a mile from our nearest neighbor, at gamebird and targets. i understand the need for your own form of protection when the police are half an hour away
now, living in an urban environment, i see the other side of guns. guns are not only tools of virtue. they are frequently tools of mayhem. guns are not always in the hands of those who intend good, nor is there some magic wand which can tell who should or should not have a gun. such that in an urban environment, it makes sense to let the police be armed, and everyone else to have suppressed gun ownership, amongst common people. it simply cuts down on needless death
and, as a side issue: no, arming only the police is not a formula for fascism. in fact, it is those who appeal to visceral force, who appeal to the gun, who are more likely fodder for embryonic fascist movements, not the police. really, read your history. random guys in the country is not a protection from fascism, it is the soil in which fascism grows
back to the larger point: gon control is the approach to guns as it exists in europe. europe is mostly urban. meanwhile, the usa has mostly been rural throughout its history, but is shifting to majority urban in recent years. therefore, it is natural that attitudes towards guns will shift from a rural attitude to an urban attitude, and experience a watershed moment in the coming years against gun ownership
and its simply a rural versus urban dynamic. currently, there are people dying in urban centers for the sake of a rural legal approach to gun ownership. in the future, there will be people dying in rural areas for the sake of an urban approach to gun ownership. its the majority deciding the legal approach. and either rural, or urban folk, suffer for the benefit of the other. for those of you want to keep your guns, urban blood is on your hands. for those of you who wish to curtail guns, rural blood will be on your hands. simple as that really
personally it would be ideal if you could own a gun in the country, but not in the city. but this is nearly impossible to enforce
and finally, the second amendment referred to posses in the countryside against native americans and british and french colonial forces. its completely taken out of historical context in reference to modern gun ownership needs, really folks. i don't know why the second amendment is so depended upon as a some sort of supporter of your right to have guns. are you the minutemen? the second amendment does not support the concept you think it does
Re:*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
such that in an urban environment, it makes sense to let the police be armed, and everyone else to have suppressed gun ownership, amongst common people. it simply cuts down on needless death
Of course, there are no numbers which support your opinion. Here are a few facts about CCW permit holders [wikipedia.org]: "Permit holders are a remarkably law-abiding subclass of the population. Florida, which has issued over 1,346,000 permits in twenty years, has revoked only 165 for a "crime after licensure involving a firearm," and fewer than 4,200 permits for any reason."
for those of you want to keep your guns, urban blood is on your hands. for those of you who wish to curtail guns, rural blood will be on your hands. simple as that really
What a load of crap. The "urban blood" is caused 90%+ of the time by drug-related violence. It is the "war on drugs" and accompanying gang-related activity that is the root of the issue. If you took away guns, they'd just be stabbing each other instead. If you really want to cut down on the crime, legalize drugs and do something about the 75%+ illegitimacy rate in the inner city. Oh wait, that'd be racist.
Here in the Baltimore metro area, where it's impossible for law-abiding citizens to obtain CCW thanks to our asshole legislature (unless of course, you have celebrity status or are already the victim of violent crime), and as a result the criminals are emboldened to prey on the law-abiding because they know they won't get shot. These thugs don't give two shits about any new gun law you'd pass -- they don't follow any of them now! As the saying correctly states, if having guns is criminal, only criminals will have guns.
are you the minutemen? the second amendment does not support the concept you think it does
Yes, it does. See Iraq, where recently a group of determined citizens armed with small arms and improvised explosives made life miserable for their occupiers. The right of citizens to bear arms is fundamentally important to keep the government's power over the people in check. You may trust the friendly government not to fuck with you, but I've seen too many abuses of government power in this country to ever reward them with relinquishment of a constitutional right.
Re:i enjoy playing with plutonium (Score:4, Interesting)
you enjoy driving your car. good for you. i don't enjoy thousands of unnecessary traffic deaths in this country. and for that reason, i have no problem taking away your toys. deal with it, child
~43.6k deaths from traffic accidents in 2005.
~30.6k deaths from firearms in 2005.
Cite: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_10.pdf [cdc.gov]
Privacy Policy (Score:5, Funny)
Of course, I tried e-mailing them yesterday to point out that their privacy policy looks to not match their actions (as they're linking to Google Analytics, so the cookies used to tracking people _are_ being shared with another website), and the e-mail address _on_their_privacy_ page bounced with an authentication error.
So I e-mailed postmaster@ptt.gov, and got:
cmon people (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, windfall tax (Score:4, Insightful)
Barack Obama and Joe Biden will enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits to give American families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families pay rising bills. This relief would be a down payment on the Obama-Biden long-term plan to provide middle-class families with at least $1,000 per year in permanent tax relief.
Because it's so wrong to make "excessive...profits". Speaking of which, who defines "excessive"? Will companies now have to look at ways to reduce their incoming, so that they don't make "too much" money? /that's/ gonna help the economy in the long run. Oh, hey, by the way, who funds the permanent tax relief, since this is only a 'down payment'?
Looks competent (Score:4, Insightful)
They've:
There's hope yet :)
Re:Progaganda (Score:4, Informative)
Having a .gov domain means it's a tax payer funded government web-site.
Um, no it doesn't. http://www.dotgov.gov/ [dotgov.gov]
Re:Sick of "change" (Score:5, Funny)
Two years of debates, at least 20 in the primary and three in the general. Unremitting press coverage. Two books, one specifically on Obama's political philosophy, written by the candidate in his own hand. Huge websites [barackobama.com] with encyclopedic overview of everything the candidate intends to do. This country's (to date) most expensive political television ad compaign, with issue ads, attack ads, 527s, the whole schmear.
I admit I am having trouble finding the "promise of improvement," but then again I can never see the Angeles national forest when I drive through it: there's too many trees on either side of the road and they obscure the view.
Re:html change (Score:5, Informative)
Looks like he's at least getting some decent web developers behind him.
Well, let's see:
Interesting commented-out content:
This isn't good HTML. It's HTML copied from several other sites and cobbled together by an amateur. Lame.
Re:html change (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently, you have no clue how web development works. Some of your criticism is valid, but some of it is plain inane.
1) Single pixel gifs and google-analytics are how people on a budget track website usage. You want to roll your own code - pay for it.
2) IE6 and IE7 is so different that it requires different CSS. We're hoping that people abandon IE6 ASAP so that we don't have to support that abomination anymore.
3) Commented out banner rotation is the quick way to deal with requests that say "Put this in now! But it's only temporary, so be ready to roll it back at a moments notice."
4) Lorem ipsum is the standard placeholder anytime anyone does any design work. Why? Because it is guaranteed public domain.
5) 20 errors in HTML validation? That's it? You might work flawlessly, but sometimes, flawless is what keeps you from putting out a working site on time.
6) Nothing on the page that could have been done better in HTML 3.1? Of course. Now you go develop it. Test it. Roll it out, and make sure it is easy to update in the future.
Yeah, the site ain't perfect. But it seems to me that you never developed a site that had to come in on budget and on time. The flaws you pointed out are nothing more than what is done every day in web development shops around the world. You want to fix it? I'm sure the site would love to employ a perfectionist know-it-all with zero work experience.
Re:Economy (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome to Slashdot - where everyone is an armchair economist.