Dark Hearts And The Net 611
For more than half a century, ever since the birth of rock and roll and the rise of culture-expanding new media technologies from TV (and channel-switcher), on to cable, the Net and the Web, opportunistic political leaders have advanced the idea that the ideas and imagery spread by new technologies are dangerous to children. This idea, enthusiastically passed along by the mainstream media, has entered the American political consciousness.
Bush implied Wednesday night that the Net can, by itself, turn otherwise bright and youthful hearts dark, and even goad youth to murder -- an allegation that comes in the context of a long-standing cultural civil war. It exploits the worst fears of parents who are too often ignorant of their children's technological and cultural lives. Just that kind of claim is used to justify curbing the growing power of kids to access information and to set their own social and cultural agendas. It also gives us yet another look at how our antiquated, overwhelmed political process will deal with the Net, no matter who's elected.
It was hard to listen to comments like Bush's and not think of the dinosaurs just after the meteor hit. And to be fair, it isn't just Bush. The high point of the vice-presidential confrontation was when the Republican candidate Richard Cheney berated the Democratic vice-presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman for softening his ferocious attacks on the "violent" culture of the young, especially movies, TV shows and videogames. Gore has repeatedly attacked TV, movies and the Net for the "cultural pollution" it's bringing to children's lives. And even before Wednesday night, Bush was demanding a wholesome "family hour" on TV every night.
This hysterical pandering has nothing to do with the reality of children's lives, or their welfare. If either Bush, Cheney, Gore or Lieberman cared a whit about children, they would shriek instead about the paucity of decent Internet access -- and even decent computers -- in America's public elementary and middle schools.
With perhaps a handful of holdouts, all American colleges are now wired up for the Net, one of the reasons that a whole generation of successful Web and media sites, from Yahoo to Napster to AIM and Slashdot have been created by college kids, not traditional media companies. Many of these new entrepeneurs are games and Net obsessives -- exactly the kind of bright kids who are online all the time. George Bush obviously doesn't know this.
The sad political truth is that access to the Net, the Web and broadband equals creativity, confidence and opportunity. If American schoolchildren were provided the same kind of bandwidth college students are, just imagine the kind of creative technological outpouring they might be capable of, not only in primary and secondary schools, but by the time they hit colleges and universities. Countries that are spending the money to give young children access to bandwidth -- many of the Scandinavian countries are doing this -- are seeding economic, educational and creative success, equality and prosperity.
In fact, a slew of new studies document that the young are using broadband to re-shape media and the information culture. They are the gurus, visionaries, technicians and authorities on the Information Revolution. According to the Pew center for Media Research, roughly half of American families now have Internet access. The aproximately 78 million Americans aged 21 and younger account for 28% of the population.
Lieberman likes to call himself a liberal, but he belongs to that long and glorious line of American politicians (H.L. Mencken called them "Boobus Americanus") who specialized in defining virtue and trying to ram it down everybody else's throat.
What a shame that the many real issues surrounding technology are perverted in this shamelessly exploitive way.
The biggest social, cultural and political issues in the country almost all relate to technology: How will the gene map be used, and will it be commercialized by bio-tech industries? (Yes). Will wealthy people start eliminating the retarded, emotionally disturbed and unnatractive from their birth "selection process"? (You betcha). Will the Net remain a unique and free space, or will it be forced to conform to non-virtual traditions and constraints? Will corporations be permitted to continue to grow unchecked and dominate technology in the way they now control culture, media and entertainment? Will all Americans have equal access to technologies like the Net and Web? (No.) Who will control intellectual property? (Companies like Microsoft, Sony, AOL/Time-Warner and Disney, looks like.) Who will manage new technologies from supercomuting to AI to nano-technology? (Megacorporations, apparently). If Bush or Gore talked about some of that stuff, the ratings might rocket up in a hurry.
But none of these issues will get much coverage or discussion, certainly not compared to the image of the Net turning young hearts dark and murderous. Politics like this can't possibly survive the Digital Age -- and they surely don't deserve to.
Re:Brash statement about idiots? (Score:2)
OK... (Score:2)
So we got Buchanon, who's running openly racist and anti-immigration ads, Nader who's, well, Nader, and wants to protect all of us from ourselves. Bush doesn't understand the internet, but Gore thinks he invented it, probably with the help of some Chinese campaign contributions that he didn't know were illegal. I'm gonna hold my nose and pull the lever for Bush, he represents the least totalitarian idealogy. Maybe we can explain the web to him.
Blaming guns for Columbine is like blaming spoons for Rosie O'Donnell being fat.
Re:The Electoral College (Score:2)
Not so. The electoral college pledges votes based on state-level voting. If he wins CA, he gets 100% of the CA electoral college votes.
The original idea of this was to retain powers at state level, since the founding fathers were generally against a strong federal government. Since then, the US public has fallen in true love with the idea of a strong federal government, which up until the depression had pretty much one-tenth the size and power it is now.
This *can* lead to the majority vote not electing a president, and it well might this time around, as Gore seems stronger in terms of the EC vote while they are neck-and neck in popular vote.
But let's clear up one other thing: the US is certainly not a Democracy, and never was. It's a Republic. And to clear another thing up, Democracy doesn't ensure government by the people any more than Republic. Majority rule isn't very comforting for minority viewpoints.
--
Re:bush is an idiot, gore is a liar (Score:2)
are there any decent contenders? sigh
Tell me about it. I took one of those online which canidate is right for you, and discovered I agreed with bush about 40% of the time, and gore 20%. I'm not surprized. I'm also not voting for either. But I think I have a fairly reasonable choice for senate that I'm hoping can keep the worst people off the surpreem court.
Accually though, I like voting for the loser. This way I can tell people "I didn't vote for him, and I did vote. So it must be your fault." Makes them think, and puts responsibility on their shoulders (Since most people don't vote, it is their fault for not voting for the other guy, and many who do vote voted for the guy in, I'm fairly safe accusing others of causing the problem with their vote.)
Re:Actualy it was a jab at g0r3 (Score:2)
Hal Duston
hald@sound.net
Re:More Media Bias (Score:2)
I would certainly agree that there is a difference between a Cola commercial and Die Hard, and I would also concur that adults are much less likely to be influenced when making mooral decisions than trivial "cola" decisions.
However, I would also state that media can have a powerful influence on the formation of those values. Most children also have enough parent supervision so that they too can learn the difference between "cola" choices and moral choices, but many do not. In your DieHard example it would be fairly easy for children to infer that violence is an acceptable way to deal with one's "enemies." There have been several cases of small children taking handguns to school (under 8 years of age), these children almost certainly were influenced to some extent by the media. Even the worst of parents do not teach their children to shoot people the disagree with. The television, however, often portrays that very message. Of course, the media wants to blame hand guns (while at the same time using hand guns as an important part of much of their programming).
Many parents who are concerned for their children's welfare do not appreciate a media that is essentially working against us. Most of us aren't asking for much, but we are never going to get anywhere on this issue as long as the media keeps pretending that children are unaffected by the constant exposure to violence and sex. At the very least they need to acknowledge the fact that many of their customers don't appreciate their programming choices. Even if there wasn't a link between media violence and real violence the fact that so many people are upset about the issue should clue the media into the fact that something should be done. After all, we are customers too.
I am not for clearing the airwaves of things that I don't approve of. I understand that my values are not everyone's values, but it isn't asking too much to push for a little more control over what my children see.
Re:OK... (Score:2)
--
Re:The wool over your eyes (Score:2)
However you are doing the same. You are assuming what the founders meant by millitia. You are assuming that their definition is that a melitia is basically a state controlled army. I on the other hand presume it means any one capable of defending their country in the time of need. ( As was the case during the revolution )
My intent was to give a counter point to the originals poster saing that his interpretation was the CORRECT one. Honestly no one will ever REALLY know what the founders intended. (we can assume all we want but we will never know)
But to refute your point about them intending millitia to be a state controlled force:
No one took or even tried to take guns away from the people after the revolutionary war. And at that time almost EVERY one had a gun. Which leads me to believe that their definitiaon of millitia was more in the direction of my interpretation.
But again that is an opinion
Ex-Nt-User
Re:The wool over your eyes (Score:2)
For every statistic you can bring up about why guns are bad. I can bring up at least one that says the opposite. But obviously MY statistics must be lies because I don't believe the same thing as you. (By you I don't mean to attack you specifically.. I'm attacking all the anti-gun people)
Let's Setup a baseline:
militia
n. Abbr. mil.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2.A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
By definition #1. the 2nd ammendment can't possibly mean that the right to own guns is restricted to the millitary, since our millitary is composed of PROFFESIONAL SOLDIERS. (Besides soldiers DO NOT OWN THEIR GUNS)
By Definition #2. This could refer to the national guard. I will give you that. BUT there WAS NO NATIONAL GUARD established by our founders. Thus it must refer to ordinary people that can help out in times of need. By this it means any citizen of the US.
By Definition #3: And I stress the whole body of physically fit civilians. Thus any civilian can and should be considered part of a millitia. Thus he has the right to own a GUN!
Now that we have established that ANY private citizen is a member of a millitia, we can see that the line the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed does in fact imply that the government can't regulate private gun ownership. Again because if by what you are saing that line refers to the militia and since anyone can be and is part of the militia that line applies to any citizen of the US.
Please don't misinterpret the meaning of millitia because this is where all the anti-gun people DO!
Needless to say I don't own a gun. I don't own one because at this time I CHOOSE not to own one. This contry is based on freedoms, and whether I believe in gun ownership or not, I believe everyone should have a CHOICE which is what anti-gun people are trying to take away!
Ex-Nt-User
computers in grade school... (Score:2)
unless the way they are used can be changed drastically from the way it is now, i think katz is very wrong on the necessity of computers in grade school classrooms. in fact, i would say i have a much easier time agreeing with nader's position that there shouldn't be computers at all in grade school classrooms.
before you flame me for this, think about how computers are used in grade schools. for the most part, a grade school classroom has one or two computers sitting in the back of the classroom, and at various times throughout the day, the kids take their turn on the computer to play games like the oregon trail, and carmen sandiego. granted, those are old examples, but the concept is the same. and oregon trail is still very popular (it was re-released as a new full color game recently, with a lot of new flashy stuff (i.e. using the mouse for hunting)
beyond that, every once in a while somebody else who knew computers would come in to teach the kids special things about the computers. what a waste of effort. believe me, a kid in 3rd grade does not care how to use a word processor, and a 7th grader could care less about a database (roughly the time i was introduced to each of these concepts) in fact their attempt to teach me what about databases was so braindead it took me years to figure out what was the difference between a database and a spreadsheet.
if you want your kid to play educational games, do it at home, or in the school's computer lab outside of class time. and if you want to show him how to use the web, then that's great. do it at home. can't afford a computer at home? use the library.
we shouldn't be teaching our kids computers in grade school. not everyone is going to grow up to be a programmer. those who find them interesting can learn about them on their own, but not everyone will. by trying to show all these kids how to use computers before they are ready for them, you're only going to mess them up.
computers in gradeshool classrooms, until we can vastly change how they are used, are only going to cause problems.
and yes, i am speaking more than just from my personal experiences in grade school. i've helped with setting up computers at the grade school i went to many times, and i know many grade school teachers. if you don't believe me, go visit a few gradeschools yourself and ask to look around.
Re:OK... (Score:2)
But it doesn't matter because... (Score:2)
You see, it's a Catch 22...politicians pander to the senior citizens, etc. because they have very large voter turnout percentages. As such, in order to get elected, you have to address their needs.
The under 21 crowd has historically had the lowest voter turnout of pretty much any group. Politicians don't care about this group because basically their vote is chump change. However, the catch is that the under 21 crowd doesn't vote because politicians don't care about them. Ugh!
This is all obvious, I'm sure, but I'd like to put forth this challenge. I'd bet the average Slashdot reader is in their 20s (I said average, not all!). As such, you likely know people in the 18-20something group. Go out there and encourage them to vote! Don't tell them who to vote for, just pester them to actually go do it.
Politicians may not care about our age group (I use 'our' broadly as I'm almost out of the apathy age group), but for once, let's send them a message that we do matter. If all of the sudden, these age groups had 50% or better voter turnout, we'd start to matter to politicians.
So do it!
Re:Politicians (Score:2)
Re:Your donkey-tail and elephant gun are showing.. (Score:2)
If he wanted to make the internet the issue, it wouldn't have been hard to make that clear, and I would have been flaming him full-on for it. The fact is, it's pundits like Katz that are trying to make everyone think the internet was the main issue on Bush's mind. It's not.
Your donkey-tail and elephant gun are showing... (Score:2)
Frankly, I'm too disappointed by Katz's shameless partisanism to say any more, and I'm too irked about the mass media calling an attack upon a united states ship of war "terrorism" when by the standards of every nation on earth that is an outright act of war.
But that's WAAAAAY offtopic :-)
Re:I'll expand on that idiot part... (Score:2)
Fortunately, I did save enough to buy a gun, thanks NRA! And now, since I don't have any money left for retirement, and I may freeze/starve to death this winter, I'm going to come to your house, kill you, and take all of your stuff!
You can't just turn people out into the street!
And believe it or not, socialism is not a dirty word. You already pay for someone else's medical care, that's what health insurance is all about!
---
One's can't spell it & the other "invented" it... (Score:2)
Heart attack and cancer. What a choice...
Re:The candidates are the people (Score:2)
The interesting thing is that as I get older I begin to realize more and more things and find them ironic. For example there was a recent study [npr.org] which recommended that parents be given more time off work for parenting because there were issues with 0-5yo children. When I heard the story I giggled thinking about the irony of all these social programs which dictate higher taxes which in turn dictate both parents working which leads right back to social programs to "cure" the ills of working parents! Programs which will start the cycle all over again.
To some extent I see this happening here, the candidates representing the people who just don't get it and, in turn, creating more people who just don't get it. A vicious cycle. The irony here is that both candidates are trying to prove that they have what it takes to lead by
Re:OK qualified... (Score:2)
Yes, that was the argument they used to keep people from voting Republican up until Abraham Lincoln won.
-
Re:Between Nader and Browne? (Score:2)
And Hitler made the trains run on time.
And Stalin reduced overpopulation.
-
Re:Aging Government (Score:2)
It's incredibly frightening that the people who are in college today are someday going to be in government.
-
Re:OK... (Score:2)
You're forgetting one, and amazingly it's the one that's the *LEAST* totalitarian of the bunch: Harry Browne [harrybrowne.org].
You probably don't know about him, because the press doesn't cover him. Curiously, they cover Nader, who's behind Browne in the polls, and who is also on the ballot in fewer states than Browne.
And if you want to explain something to the Libertarian party, you can use their PGP key [pgp.com].
Try that with the Republicrats or the Democretins.
-
In the words of Chris Rock: (Score:2)
Two words: (Score:2)
If I only have a choice between two fools, I take the articulate one, thank you very much.
Other signs of Bush feeblemindedness (Score:2)
Re:The wool over your eyes (Score:2)
A citizen militia would be worthless if their weapons were ill-maintained. The intended meaning of the 2nd Amendment was, "Because the citizen militia can only function properly if the citizens are able to maintain their own firearms in good working order, government may not infringe on the citizens rights to keep and train on their own weapons.
Bear in mind that the Constitution prohibits standing armies, which destroys your interpretation.
Do yourself and your party a favor (Score:2)
That is an absolute load of crap.
I happen to have very strong libertarian leanings (with a couple of minor reservations, such as their stance on anti-trust, etc.), but with spokespeople like you the libertarians don't need enemies.
If you want to do the Libertarian Party a favor, change your tone and stop spouting nonesense.
In the meantime, I will resist the gut level reaction to your comments which would sway me away from Brown and continue to weigh the "empower the individual through very small, limited, and strictly constitutional government" argument of Mr. Brown against the "reduce corporate influence and reempower the individual" argument of Nader. My decision will come in due course according to facts, not diatribe, innuendo, and most especially not as a result of the outright nonesense you are spouting.
when you have children ... (Score:2)
Here are the facts from the Census people. (Score:2)
AGE
Universe: Persons
Under 1 year.............................................
1 and 2 years............................................
3 and 4 years............................................
5 years............................................
6 years............................................
7 to 9 years............................................
10 and 11 years............................................
12 and 13 years............................................
14 years............................................
15 years............................................
16 years............................................
17 years............................................
18 years............................................
19 years............................................
20 years............................................
21 years............................................
22 to 24 years............................................
25 to 29 years............................................
30 to 34 years............................................
35 to 39 years............................................
40 to 44 years............................................
45 to 49 years............................................
50 to 54 years............................................
55 to 59 years............................................
60 and 61 years............................................
62 to 64 years............................................
65 to 69 years............................................
70 to 74 years............................................
75 to 79 years............................................
80 to 84 years............................................
85 years and over.............................................
Get your priorities right first, Katz (Score:2)
Well, into the fray jumped Jon Katz over at slashdot.org">, with his article (though I'm more inclined to term it an op-ed) Dark Hearts And The Net.
It was nearly a good article. George Bush Jnr. apparently "implied Wednesday night that the Net can, by itself, turn otherwise bright and youthful hearts dark, and even goad youth to murder -- an allegation that comes in the context of a long-standing cultural civil war. It exploits the worst fears of parents who are too often ignorant of their children's technological and cultural lives".
Here, I agree. Yes, it's political pandering. Yes, it's appealing to the misinformed by feeding them more misinformation and relying more on people's lack of knowledge than it is on enlightenment, and in no way does it smack of a resonable, reasoned debate. But this is politics we're talking about here, so Bush is forgiven.
Katz spoils it all, though, by managing to spout the largest pile of useless bile three paragraphs later: And what a load of bollocks he's spoken. Why? What's he said?
"This hysterical pandering has nothing to do with the reality of children's lives, or their welfare. If either Bush, Cheney, Gore or Lieberman cared a whit about children, they would shriek instead about the paucity of decent Internet access -- and even decent computers -- in America's public elementary and middle schools."
I beg to differ, but I think anyone who's seriously interested in children wouldn't even contemplate shrieking about the paucity of decent internet access. I'd rather hope that such shrieking would be the last thign on such an interested body's mind, and that it wouldn't even be shrieking: a mere mewling I could tolerate.
Excuse me? Paucity of net access? How about educational standards? How about child abuse? How about welfare? How about illiteracy? How about employment? How about giving disaffected kids something, anything, a reason to stay in school and not to muck around? How about educating mall rats (and I may be stereotyping, but unfortunately stereotypes exist for a reason), whose knowledge of world affairs, well, doesn't exist?
Katz comments that "the sad political truth is that access to the Net, the Web and broadband equals creativity, confidence and opportunity". No, Jon, you're completely wrong. Completely, utterly and totally.
Yes, technology can empower people. Yes it can make a difference, it can improve creativity, confidence and opportunity. But it's not the be-all and end-all, not by a long way.
Is Katz seriously insinuating that he'd rather schools spent money on internet access than textbooks? Are we to suggest that we should wire up schools whilst neglecting the fact that a startling number are attempting to drop or de-emphasise the teaching of evolution in biology classes in favour of creation science?
You can't, and shouldn't assume that throwing computers and technology at kids is going to make the world a better place, and it's rather ill though-out to say so: what kids need are teachers. They need adequate teaching facilties. They need well-stocked labs. They need teachers who know enough about the subject, and care enough about their subject to want to and to inspire their charges. Fortunately, I'm not the only one on slashdot who thinks this.
My old school has computers falling out of its ears. I was lucky. I went to a good school, we had enough money, we had good (in most parts), teachers. I was given the right chances, the right opportunities and I was pushed. This same school had computers falling out of its ears. Fibre optic backbones. A ratio of computers to pupils that puts my current university to shame. Did those resources help anyone pass exams? Did the classrooms full of PCs help anyone understand English literature? Did they directly inspire any kids to go out and do something, did they directly inspire kids to learn? Or did they simply allow kids to check their Hotmail at lunch and send emails like the following during their lessons?
At 15:56 23/05/00 +0100, you wrote:
>what do you suck?
>not what you do
Technology's just there. Like everything, it's what you do with it that counts: if you don't have the teachers to take advantage of it, where are you going to go? You'll have thirty pieces of beige-box equipment sitting being more or less abused on a daily basis, and you're not unlocking any potential anywhere. You're wasting it. These kids don't know anymore about the net because of net access. They know the latest football scores. They know what new single's at number one. They try, vainly, to look for porn, and were surprised when we came down on them like a tonne of bricks. They send idiotic, abusive emails to each other, in a new form of playground insult. Are these kids empowered because we sat them in front of a 15 inch CRT and told them to surf the net for an hour? Of course not.
People must realise that throwing technology at things doesn't make anything any better. Wiring up schools, wiring up hospitals, sharing information doesn't necessarily make anything any better unless you have better people. Technology in itself doesn't make better people, either. It can help, but you stick thirty kids down in front of your wonderful government-funded net access workstations with a horribly inept, disillusioned teacher and you have a waste of money of the highest degree.
Katz says "What a shame that the many real issues surrounding technology are perverted in this shamelessly exploitive way."
Yes, that's a shame. It's a shame that politicans are looking at the negative aspects of the internet in order to gain votes. Yes, it's a shame that politicians are capitalising on fear founded due to lack of knowledge. But it's also a shame that Katz is perpetuating the myth that many seem to share, including the politicians he so despairs of: technology doesn't help. People do.
More Katz: "The biggest social, cultural and political issues in the country almost all relate to technology: yadda yadda gene mapping, yadda yadda birth selection, intellectual property, management of new technologies from supercomuting (sic) to AI to nanotechnology."
Yes, these issues are important. Ethical considerations have to be examined. The foundation for intellectual property has to be re-examined. But before that, please look after your people. Katz is right: the internet isn't turning young hearts dark and murderous. But have you thought of what might be? Why are so many kids disaffected? Why are so many apathetic? Isn't it ironic that when adults complain about the children of this century, they complain that they're materialistically motivated, that they are so apathetic when its crass commercialism that has been drummed into their heads? Kids these days are mass-marketed into submission, and it's not as if they're "growing up" any slower.
Don't be preoccupied with technology. Work out how to use it properly, and how to teach people to use it properly before you start throwing it at everyone and expect them to intuitively know how to use it positively.
This post also appears on my blog at http://danhon.com/ec/ [danhon.com].
Re:Part of the problem... (Score:2)
That might be true if there was such a thing as the youth vote. But youth don't vote. Or rather, they vote in insignificant numbers. The politicians know this. And since most of them lack any conscience whatsoever, they'll hammer home the issues that they think will get the best press (Slashdot not included), the most buzz, and ultimately the most votes. Regardless of whether they really believe their own spiel.
Sad to say "youth vote" continues to be an oxymoron.
Re:C'mon! Like Al Gore really understands the net. (Score:2)
- I don't know about the union song story.
- The girl standing in class was based on talking to the father of the girl and a newspaper article. The quote about the equipment WAS a lie. The girl did only have to stand for one day, but because a boy gave her his desk; he had to stand. Read salon.
- Gore DID visit the flood victims; the 'lie' was that he went with a deputy, not the head of FEMA.
OTOH, Bush lies:
- He said Gore was outspending him. The opposite is true.
- He accused Gore of "fuzzy math" when Gore said that Bush was giving more in tax breaks to the top 1% of earners than he was planning to spend on defense, education and health care combined. The following day he admitted that Gore's statment was true.
- He disappeared for a year when he was in the Air National Gaurd. He's never explained that. He was allowed to 'make up' the time by serving in Colorado. He was in school at Harvard at the time.
Get facts, don't rely on one new source.
Re:Politicians (Score:2)
Re:Actualy it was a jab at g0r3 (Score:2)
"During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet"
Now I don't know about you, but I could take that as meaning that he is claiming he "invented" the Internet. Sure, what he is really saying is that he was a supporter of ARPANET before it became what we know as the Internet. But come on, he DID NOT create the Internet. ARPANET was created in the late 60's, Gore didn't even graduate from Harvard until 1969 and he wasn't a member of Congress until 1976. No sir, Al Gore had nothing to do with "creating" the Internet. Now, if you want to play with words and say that the Internet didn't exist until 1994 when the web came alive, then I suppose his claim of being an early supporter has some weight. It's a pretty good stretch either way in my book.
Because of his generous claim I think he deserves to be made fun of a little.
Re:I'll expand on that idiot part... (Score:2)
I'm voting Nader, but frankly it astounds me that anyone with a even a small degree of technical sense would vote for Gore. Just because he understands technology to some extent does NOT mean his uses of it will be all for the good!
Gore is my absolute last choice, I would write in a vote for Nixon or Carter before I'd vote Gore.
MOD UP parent - here's a summary (Score:2)
Here's a summary of the ten issues:
Space Exploration:
Both support the space program and the ISS.
Bush - Mentions support for Mars exploration and trying to make it cheaper to get people into space.
Gore - Has a short blurb on support for space exploration and would complete the ISS.
Science Education:
Bush - Supports a number of funds to help promote math education - also supports H1B visas.
Gore - Continue connecting schools to the internet (E-Rate program), deploy AmeriCorps people to help train techers to use the Internet, and also supports H1B visas.
I guess if you don't like the H1B visa program you are out of luck this election.
National Labs:
Bush - redo security at labs, provide $20b for R&D between now and 2006. Rework military to handle information warefare.
Gore - supports current energy department initiatives to increase security. Supports General John A. Gordon in revewing national nuclear security.
International Science Projects:
Bush - small blurb about how it's a good idea, but we need to make sure of accountabliliy.
Gore - committed to helping along international science projects, like the human genome project.
Energy Policy:
Bush - reduce dependance on foreign oil, increase funding for research into alternative enegry (though without goverment interference).
Suports nuclear power, deregulation of electric and gas, R&D tax credit for energy research.
Gore - maintain tax incetives for coal, oil, gas. Pursue tax policies to support efficient use of energy. Pursue much better efficiency of light duty vehicle fleets.
Global Warming:
Bush - Rejects Koyoto Protocol on the grounds of 80% world exemption. Use market based mechanisms to reduce pollution (tax credits).
Gore - Strongly supports Koyoto Protocol and through that market based mechanisms.
Biological and Physical Sciences:
Bush - increase funding of basic research (including it research), also double budget of National Institutes of Health.
Gore - Significant increase for "Twenty-First Century Research Fund", including National Institutes of Health. Stop cuts in funding for physical research.
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Bush - reduce nuclear arsenal to smallest level needed to maintain national security (probably less than StartII). Reduce as many weapons from high alert status as possible. Supports missle defense and attempt to recude availiable supply of materials need for more nuclear weapons. Does not support Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Gore - Supports limited missle defense system. Ratify Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Continue to denuclearize Russian Federation, build up anti-terrorist capabilities.
Missile Defense
Bush - Build NMD to protect US and allies overseas. Try to work with Russia to amend Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty, but opt out of treaty if that doesn't work.
Gore - Support limited NMD. Also work with Russia on adjusting Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty, but will not let Russia override veto on NMD if NMD is needed.
Re:I'll expand on that idiot part... (Score:2)
Re:children, schools and computers: not! (Score:2)
--
Some people just aren't happy... (Score:2)
...unless they're tearing apart someone else's opinions. Jon, you rule. Everyone else who can't seem to find anything better to do with their day than pick at every miniscule detail of every JonKatz post, get a life. The grammar isn't perfect, but whose is? Things occasionally get misspelled, but who among us has never misspelled anything? Yes, he seems preoccupied with the youth of today, but there's a good reason for that: they're the future. This world is divided into two camps: all the control freaks currently running the government, big business, and the media, and all the rest of us who are appalled at the idea of downsizing a company just so its stock value goes up a tenth of a point, or of a program like that hideous WAVE thing (which encouraged kids to rat each other out for things like "being different" just like in Nazi Germany), or of restricting anyone's access to information that might encourage them to formulate their own opinion instead of just taking on faith whatever Society crams down their throats. I'd be willing to bet that damn near everyone who reads slashdot belongs to the second camp. Guess what, folks? That puts us all on the same team. It's us, the freedom-loving people who hate the thought of being kept under the heels of those who strive to control us, against them. Like it or not, most of you people who bitch at Jon every time he puts two words together and forms a sentence are at heart actually on the same side as he is. As I am. As we all are. You just need to realize that the reason it seems like he keeps repeating himself about things like kids and Columbine is because you haven't gotten it yet, which is self-evident from the fact that 90% of the responses to anything the man says are overwhelmingly negative.
Now to address the subject of his essay: Politicians suck. Like anyone can argue with that. I haven't voted in any election in about 15 years because I realized long ago that voting is pointless. Like it or not, we do have to put up with a 2-party system. 80% of the voters in this country will vote either Republican or Democrat no matter what. Ralph Nader? He doesn't have a chance in hell because so few people take *any* third-party candidate seriously. My own parents, god love 'em, always always always vote Republican no matter what, especially now that the Republican is someone who professes to be as Christian as they are. In their minds, all that matters is that the man says "I'm a Southern Baptist." His actual opinions and views on important things like education and freedom and how much control the government has over them don't matter whatsoever; "As long as he's a Christian, he'll do the right thing." When I remind them that Bill Clinton also professed to be a Christian during election times, their faces go all grey and clammy and suddenly the topic changes to what I want for Christmas or something. They hate Clinton with a passion, you see, and can't reconcile themselves with the fact that he fooled them by saying he was a Christian (not that they voted for him, of course, since he's a Democrat). My point is that you can't trust anything that comes out of the mouth of a politician, ever, before or after they're elected:
How many times do we have to catch them in lies before we stop believing what they say?
It's all about control, people. They'll say quite literally anything to get voted into office; whether it's true or not, and whether they intend to follow through on it or not, doesn't enter into it. We can't even tell if Bush Jr. actually believes that the net turns kids into brutal dark-hearted monsters that yearn to take out all their frustrations on the people who're mean to them; he's saying that because he thinks that's what the majority of Americans wants to hear. Everything that they say is geared towards making us more likely to vote in their favor. We're nothing but a table full of demographics to them, and whatever they think the majority of people wants to hear is what they'll spew forth; screw the minorities and their opinions. That's the biggest fault with democracy, incidentally; if 90% of the people think that the other 10% shouldn't be allowed to, say, marry each other, even though it doesn't affect that 90% in any way whatsoever at all, period, then 27,000,000 people are just out of luck. Viewing things in percentages disguises the extent of the truth. If there are 27,000,000 people who have a certain opinion, I'd have to say it's a pretty valid one no matter what the other 90% says, and that 90% has no right whatsoever to force 27,000,000 people into a way of life that they hate... and all politicians pander to this "You'll do what we say whether you like it or not" mentality because voting is also geared around what the majority wants. "Truth," "compassion," "understanding," "tolerance"... these are all concepts which escape them utterly, and so millions upon millions of people have to suffer because whatever group outnumbers them gets to dictate how they'll live their lives. That concept sickens me, and being the freedom-loving bunch of guys slashdot readers are, it probably sickens you too.
And that's all Jon is trying to do... point out to us the fact that the politicians we're presented with every few years -- the "official" ones, of course, not those third-party and fourth-party and green-party candidates who're doomed from the word go because they favor taking some control away from the government and giving it to We, the People, where it belongs, which they of course just can't allow -- are complete idiots who spout beliefs they think will be popular in an attempt to get elected. Doesn't anyone remember the Simpsons Halloween special where Kang and Kodos, the space aliens, replaced Dole and Clinton? "It doesn't matter which one of us you vote for," they said... "Either way, your planet is doomed! Doooooomed!!" Nothing could be closer to the truth... but I suppose because it was presented as humor, nobody took it seriously. I think the show's writers were being deadly serious when they wrote that episode. And everyone who watched it knew it was true, said "Boy, that's so true," especially the part about how voting for a third-party candidate was tantamount to throwing your vote away, but then went right on with their lives afterward. Nobody thinks they have any chance of changing the very foundation of the political system, so we all just put up with it, thus guaranteeing that nothing will change. A self-perpetuating system of oppression designed to keep the powerful in power. You can't even hope to run for any office unless you have millions of dollars to throw away on advertising yourself. If this were truly an equal opportunity political system, there wouldn't be any election campaign fundraisers; all politicians would be allowed a certain number of free political ads on TV and radio and newspapers and magazines and websites. That way, nobody would have an advantage simply by virtue of being wealthier than the rest of them. "Who will pay for the ads," I hear you ask. Well, who pays for public service announcements? I think political ads are just as important to the public as PSA's are and should be just as free to those who make them. Think that'll ever happen? Think those in power (who are, remember, among the wealthiest in America) will willingly give up the advantage that their wealth gives them? Think again.
Politics as a whole stinks. Politicians stink. I can count the number of good honest politicians who actually worked for the public interest (as opposed to the interests of Big Business and themselves) in the past 50 years on one hand. And as long as we all just put up with it and keep deluding ourselves into thinking that happiness and liberty and freedom and equality for all are merely one election away, that all it'll take is the right person in the White House, we might as well just glue wool to our bodies, get down on all fours, and let the shepherds bugger us until the end of time. Why do you think "equality for all" has eluded us for hundreds of years? It should be a very simple thing to accomplish; just treat everyone like you yourself would want to be treated. The quintessence of simplicity. And I think most people do that, for the most part, except when it conflicts with their religion (which is another post entirely, although you could probably replace every instance of "politics" in this post with "religion" and be close to the truth). What's stopping us as a society from just loosening up our sphincters and letting people be who they are without trying to force them into whatever ethical/moral mold is currently in vogue? I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. And now, back to the point.
Jon Katz is trying to wake you sheep up and reveal What's Really Goin' On to you. Soon as you open your eyes and break out of the social conditioning you've been subjected to all your lives, as soon as you think for yourselves instead of letting someone else do it for you, as soon as you realize the ridiculousness and idiocy that permeates all things political, as soon as you let yourselves believe that nothing is going to get any better as long as the governments of this world (yes, it isn't just the US that sucks) keep everyone under their thumbs and heels, "the healing can begin." Separately we may not have enough power to do anything about it (though I thrill to the thought of the positive changes that could be wrought on this planet if we all banded together and said "Screw you and your greed!" to those in power), but at least we don't have to keep deluding ourselves into thinking that our votes matter and we only have a choice between Republican A and Democrat B, between Kang and Kodos. Realize that saying "Don't blame me; I voted for Kodos!" isn't an excuse; we are all to blame.
"The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness."
Re:Some people just aren't happy... (Score:2)
Of course it's important how much the government spends. What I'm saying is that Bush & Gore will both continue to support repressing the American public (and anyone in any other country they can manage to get their tendrils into) in favor of big business, foreign politics, religious zealots, etc etc, so their budgeting ability is immaterial... and there are many candidates who not only will NOT support such repression but can also balance the budget. I won't tell you who to vote for... but I can certainly suggest who you shouldn't vote for.
"The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness."
Re:Some people just aren't happy... (Score:2)
There are far more important issues at stake here than money. The government's budget is a figment of its imagination anyway. Which would you rather have: a country (or world) where the budget is balanced but you aren't allowed to choose for yourself whether to home-school your kids or send them to public school to be bullied and ridiculed and dumbed-down and shot at and punished for being individuals instead of good little sheep, or a country where there's a deficit but everyone can make ALL their own decisions for themselves? It's like comparing apples and chainsaws, really. The budget and issues such as our personal freedoms are vastly unrelated. Bush might spend less money than Gore, but they'll BOTH screw us all over with regard to personal freedoms, so the question of the budget shouldn't even be a consideration. You shouldn't be considering voting for EITHER of them... you should find someone who can balance a budget AND just live and let live, and vote for him (or her). And screw Greenspan; he's one of Them, you know... :)
"The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness."
Re:What a great article! (Score:2)
Gore can't win for losing. If he makes a minor mistake he is raked over the coals as a serial exagerator. But if the press and the Bush campaign embellish the alleged Gore exagerations (btw, Gore WAS an inspiration for Love Story) then, again, that is Gore's fault.
When are people going to start holding the press and Dubya responsible for their own embellishments and exagerations?
Re:Actualy it was a jab at g0r3 (Score:2)
Gore's contributions to the development of the internet were not minor. He never claimed to have been the sole inspiration, creator, etc. of the internet. But, no less an authority then Newt Gingrich has admitted that Gore WAS on the leading edge of understanding the importance of computer networks and he was the leading supporter of groundbreaking legislation that lead to the privatizing and expansion of th net.
You can try to minimize his importance in these matters, but then it is YOU who are doing the exagerating.
BTW, Gore WAS an inspiration for Love Story. He never claimed that Tipper was as well. He only quoated a newspaper article that misquoted the author as saying she was. The reporters who were there have expressed suprise that the story has been so massively distorted as it has been.
Also, Gore never claimed to have written the EITC. He claimed to have written an EXPANSION of the EITC (he did). And Gore DID work on the SPR. It was first created before he entered congress. But the funding and structure of it was not put in place until AFTER he joined.
The lies, embellishments, and exagerations about Gore's alleged lies, embellishments, and exagerations dwarf those alleged lies, embellishments and exagerations.
Re:Actualy it was a jab at g0r3 (Score:2)
To today's modern corporations the dissemination of wealth shows up as a loss on their books. After all. Trickle-down economis works only so long as the corporations don't view that as a sign of them running a leaky ship.
I find it interesting that you appear to define freedom and wealth by how many possessions we can get. The freedom to buy more stuff and the freedom to live our lives as we chose are NOT the same thing.
bad interpretation... (Score:2)
lets see...
data points = {25.7, 26.1, 26.0, 25.9, 25.7}
Mean = 25.88
Median = 25.9
Mode = 25.7 - i find this kindof useless
Standard Deviation = 0.1788 .3576
SD*2 =
so ... + or - 2 standard deviations of the mean would be {25.5224 , 26.2376}
All values are within this range, so it would be tough to say that there is any appreciable change in graduating populations.
sigh...
tagline
Re:... defending Katz... (Score:2)
Dont vote for people because no one will vote for them. It severely limits your choices and options.
if people dont vote their consicense, and vote for who they feel is the best candidate, and instead vote for one of the two candidates that might "win", that, by definition assures that there will never be a new viewpoint.
politics is not an either or choice.
tagline
Re:Stupid, it was not a "stat" (Score:2)
tagline
Kramer for President! (Score:2)
-------
CAIMLAS
Thank you. (Score:2)
If what you are saying is correct (that the reps don't have to vote the way the popular vote went), and that getting the votes in the big states is what mattered, then wouldn't all a large corporate entity (or group, like the MPAA) need to do to influence (or even control!) who gets elected would be to "buy" the representatives in the states (via campaign funds or such)?
I take it that the electoral college seems to have been set up to prevent this very thing (perhaps), is it feasible that it might be failing (or has failed)?
What is really needed is some way to make voting easier (more convenient) for the working public, as well as much more stricter controls on corporate influence of candidates (so that the richest candidate can't win, and so that corps can't control via kickbacks, funding, etc - or by telling their employee's how to vote under penalty of being fired or some such).
In short, make it possible for real third party action - make it possible for normal people to get into office, level the playing field...
I support the EFF [eff.org] - do you?
Please refresh my memory re:The Electoral College (Score:2)
As I understand it, the popular vote means almost nothing, with the EC being there. The question is, who elects (or how are they chosen) the people in the EC?
Finally, who becomes pres is almost irrelevant - while we sit here and discuss all of this, who would be best, blah, blah - we ignore the candidates and such regarding those seeking offices in the House and Senate - where the REAL decisions are made. Or am I off base?
I support the EFF [eff.org] - do you?
I would bet... (Score:2)
Since you note that you haven't looked at network TV for a while, let me assure you the ABC has instead become the "Christian family hour - all day" channel (or so it seems every time I flip past it). There are more shows on there pandering in various ways to "Christian" morality, etc - that it makes me sick (between that and Disney ads).
LET ME DECIDE MY RELIGION, IF ANY!
Family hour - BAH!
I support the EFF [eff.org] - do you?
In other words... (Score:2)
In other words, the internet is a slum?
Every time a politician slams this virtual place in which geeks have made a home for ourselves, geeks (rightly) feel slammed. After all, a politician dissing the 'net is a politician dissing the people who choose to use it and find it a positive force in their lives.
We "netizens" have built this place, and feel a quite reasonable attachment to it therefore. We don't like being told, no matter how subtlely, that we should be ashamed of being here, or being a part of this realm.
What you seem to be missing is the emotional subtext, which is blindingly clear to the weepy masses. The logical component of his statement may be vacuous enough to be dismissed, but as an emotional appeal its dangerous.
Re:children, schools and computers: not! (Score:2)
Well, actually you can. Or homeschool, if you don't want to deal with the regulations of founding a school.
Re:You get it completely wrong (Score:2)
I'll admit, George Bush might not want to censor the Internet (it's tough to tell what his real positions and what his "look I'm a good Christian censorship fanatic" positions are), but you conservatives shouldn't keep lying about your positions. You don't believe in Liberty in general or the First Amendment in particular.
A George Bush presidency, provided the congress doesn't change, means Dick Armey, House majority leader, will be free to enact legislation. What is Armey's position on this issue?
Armey's Reflection on Values in Our Society [freedom.gov]
Henry Hyde actually tried to pass legislation on this issue right after the Columbine.
Basically, the only reason Republicans claim to be for freedom, is so they can continue to fool small 'l' libertarians into voting for them. But the only real Libertarian position they are solid on is the Second Amendment, they'd like to see an end to the rest of the Constitution.
Thanks, but no thanks. I'll be "wasting my vote" and voting against the Two Party Tyranny system.
My parents will be heartbroken, they're Republicans and have been active in politics. Don't you remember Orrin Hatch on TV banging a copy of Quake and saying how eeevil it was, right after Columbine? All they do is try to scare me, "you don't want Lieberman to get in, do you? That would be even worse" because they know they can't defend the Republican party on this issue. What's the difference between the two parties on this issue?
At least be honest about the tyranny the Republican party wants to inflict on the American people. You'll still get fascists, people living in fantasy land, and idiots to vote for your candidate. They seem to make up a significant portion of the electorate. Leave people who legitimately believe in freedom alone.
Re:Correction (Score:2)
Re:Did Bush "exaggerate" in last Wednessday's deba (Score:2)
reality that there is no consensus whatsoever among scientists that
humans have affected global temperatures. See the Petition Project,
which has been signed by something like 19,000 scientists, for
details.
Ah, petitions! That crucial piece of the scientific method.
Seriously, the signatures to the petition have been a laughing
stock on the net for months. There are no `authentication' procedures
in place: for all I know I am a signatory to this petition.
Re:Did Bush "exaggerate" in last Wednessday's deba (Score:2)
is a `greenhouse gas' (ie. increased concentrations of atmospheric
CO_2 are correlated with increased atmospheric retention of heat).
No part of the petition denies this. What apparently all of the
signatories agree to is that *in fact* this increased concentration is
beneficial to the environment and the earth's population. There is no
scientific consensus to this end, and no conscientious scientist would
agree that this claim has credibly been established.
Also the petition sponsors have in the past tried to give the
impression that they were associated with the NAS, and were in fact
rebuked by the NAS for this. The whole of the association is that
Seitz' used to be a president of the NAS.
Fair enough. There is real room for scientific controversy about
the consequences of global warming, and the environmental lobby have
hardly played fair. Let's not try to pretend, though, that this
petition is any more respectable than the tactics of the environmental
activists.
Re:Actualy it was a jab at g0r3 (Score:2)
First, several recent studies have suggested that computers in schools have little or no impact on educational performance. Second, the amount of tech jobs is not dependent on how much the government spends. I could just as plausibly claim that Bush's tax cuts will give taxpayers the ability to buy more technology products, therefore increasing demand for tech workers.
Bush talks about boosting funds to fight the drug war!!!!!
So does Gore. You're not going to find any sort of rational drug policy in the major parties.
I've lived in this damned state and I can tell you some of the things he's done.
I currently live in Texas, and much appreciate not having a state income tax. And amazingly, children and old people aren't starving in the streets.
Gore/Lieberman while still not great, are technology friendly.
Excuse me? These would be the same people who brought us the CDA, the Clipper chip, Carnivore, and whose Justice Department wanted to have strong encryption completely banned.
Bush is far from ideal, but Gore and Lieberman are no better.
Re:More Media Bias (Score:2)
Short answer: yes. Trying to convince someone to buy Coke instead of Pepsi does not involve changing his moral values, and is far more likely to occur than someone watching Die Hard and deciding that maybe murdering innocent people isn't so bad after all.
Net Deepest Congo (Score:2)
First, the reason stupid attacks like the one Bush made are feasible is that the *vast* majority of Americans, even those with access, have no real idea about the origin, operation, culture and communities that are its constituent elements. Their perceptions are based on either an AOL-astigmatism or a perverse hyper-marketed "Unleash Your Earning Income with Spam!" outlook. The natural results are good old-fashioned fear of the unknown and misrepresentation.
Second, the issues that Katz considers most crucial are *far* from what the average voter considers to be important: am I paying less taxes, am I better off, am I going to go broke taking care of my ailing parents? This doesn't mean the issues he raised are not important, but they don't have the traction of prescription drugs and social security.
It's nothing new for politicians to lump problems together in a way that makes it easy to demagogue but difficult to solve. We can remove the politicians' crutch here by eliminating the FUD and focusing on the benefits of universal access.
What's the matter, are we afraid to take Mr. Kurtz down the river? Maybe it's too fun here in the darkness...
Re:Computer in schools-- NOPE! (Score:2)
--
No more e-mail address game - see my user info. Time for revenge.
Re:PGP key (Score:2)
I have a 1024 bit key, a 1280 bit key, a 1694 bit key and a 2048 bit key.
What are you talking about?
Re:Other signs of Bush feeblemindedness (Score:2)
More Media Bias (Score:3)
Whenever the issue of violence or sexual content in the media comes up there is always a wave of people that trumpet how "harmless" these things are, and how little they affect the viewers. What I don't understand is that if the media is so powerless to affect the state of mind of their audience then why do companies pay them so much money for their advertisements?
Are they seriously trying to tell me that the 30 minutes of sex and violence in a television show has no affect on the viewers, but the 30 second commercial for a soft drink has a big enough affect on these same people to be worth thousands of dollars? Clearly it has to be one way or the other. Either the media has little affect (and the advertisers are getting ripped off) or it has a huge affect and the media is simply being disingenuous.
The Internet does bring violence, but... (Score:3)
But that violence is already in human nature. Most of the manifestations are in the form of flaming. Rarely does it reach real life, but it does happen. What's scary about it to older people is that they really don't understand it, and they don't understand or see all the overwhelming good the Internet is doing, and how miniscule a part of it all that this real violence actually is.
There are cases of Internet induced violence. One incident in Texas that George W. may have on his mind involved a meeting by e-mail and an eventual murder. In another case from Oregon I'm sure you all know about, it has been documented that Kip Kinkle was downloading lots of weaponry and satanic related material on the Internet.
Blaming the Internet is wrong, of course. The problem is ourselves. The Internet is just a very efficient communications medium. And the important thing is that we need to keep it all in perspective; the Internet is bringing far more value to our lives, our economy, and our society, than it is bringing these few problems. If we can find ways to addresses these problems without harming the good, then I'm for that.
You can find the stats on car deaths per year. Those exceed the Internet deaths per year. But we don't doubt the value of having cars. We are not proposing to ban cars (well, most of us aren't). The Internet is nowhere near as bad as cars in terms of the negative, and in fact it may well help reduce the negative of cars by its very being.
Grand assumptions/statements by Katz? Nawwwww (Score:3)
If I may quote?:The sad political truth is that access to the Net, the Web and broadband equals creativity, confidence and opportunity.
Might I be the first to ask how you come to that conclusion? To me, such a claim seems to be pure lunacy, equivalent to saying that "access to paint and canvas equals Rembrandt-level talent" or "access to a football equals multi-million dollar contracts with the New York Giants." Perhaps we should begin converting "Katz-isms" into general lines of code... "access_to_broadband == confidence" would equate to true... or perhaps you are merely wishing this were a true statement, giving us "access_to_broadband = confidence" instead.
Just because there are good things on the 'net doesn't mean that there aren't bad things as well, Jon. There are "dark" things out there, things that most people would regard as hideous: child pornography, snuff flicks, etc. Does access to these sorts of things equate to creativity?
I don't think any candidate is correct in blaming Columbine, etc. on the 'net (poor parenting would be on the top of my "Blame List"...) but I also do not think that "unlimited access to the 'net for all" equates to virtuous ends by default.
The Internet is simply another way to access information, just like a public library. We all have access to libraries, Jon, but I know plenty of people who I wouldn't place in the creative, confident or opportunistic categories.
Unless you were attempting to be ironic and illustrate the opposite position of most politicians ("access to the net == a corrupting force capable of swaying young minds to bloodshed" vs. "accesss to the net == a shaping force capable of manufacturing miniature DaVincis from average children"), I believe you have failed. Examine your own articles for Irony and Consistency, along with the almighty Logic before hitting that Submit button in the future, mmmkay?
-------------
Re:Actualy it was a jab at g0r3 (Score:3)
See? He invented the Common Gateway Interface [cornell.edu] too!
--
Idiot?! Coming from Katz? (Score:3)
I haven't said anything because, well, he hasn't been worth it, but the irony here of Katz slamming Bush for not getting it is just too much. Worse, it is a knee jerk attempt to excite the least thoughful elements of
The Internet has the capacity to be a bad place. This, like so many other communities, is merely a reflection of the world outside, except without transaction costs. No long travel times to get to the red light district. No easy parental supervision to keep kids from getting to the back alleys of the Internet. The vast majority of the Internet, like the rest of the world, is a great, creative, positive environment - no doubt.
However, to believe that the Net is ONLY a creative, positive place is naive, perhaps even "stupid." Yes, Bush misspoke when he said that Columbine was because of time spent on the Internet. Not because it was necessarily wrong, but because he did not more carefully qualify. I'm sure the two individuals spent a great deal of time on the Net. This was largely because Bush doesn't fully understand. But Gore definitely doesn't understand any better, and even if he says he does, do you really believe him? He's just better at BS.
Yes, the real issue is parenting, and yes the only real response is parenting on the Internet, not filters, not censorship. But most parents are scared of the Internet, because they don't know how to parent in the brave new world. Yes Bush was wrong to use FUD against the Internet to reach all those incompetent baby boomers (obviously the geek BBers are excepted). Still, we should acknowledge that we do permit strange communities to form. That we do see bitter and unhappy teens dwelling on the wrong issues, off in a corner by themselves.
Whether that corner is the dark end of the lunch room in high school, or a dark little IRC channel, it is the same thing. Yes people need to reach out, and brighten those corners. Parents and administrators should do it in the lunch room by addressing the very real flaws of the high school community dynamic. But we shouldn't be so shallow or naive as to believe that that dark little IRC channel doesn't bear consequences.
Now John "Polly Anna" Katz is trying to play demagogue to tens of thousands of people who grok the Net a thousand times better than he. He grabs the easy issues, and trolls responses from people who should have better things to do, and for that, perhaps, we should thank him. But the pathetic politics of a non-geek don't play well.
If you want to focus on that comment, don't forget what Gore said. Didn't the Al and Tipper (the censor herself) reference, and concerns about violence send a chill down your spine? I'll admit I was angry when I heard Bush's comment, but I just got cold when I heard Gore's response. Do the math. We have a lot of work to do either way!
Re:OK... (Score:3)
When any politician claims to "create" anything, that means that they secured the funding for other people to do so. That's the only power a member of Congress has to actually produce anything. Al Gores father, Sen. Albert Gore, Sr. "created" the US Interstate highway system. He wasn't out there laying down rebar and pouring concrete, he convinced other members of Congress to support it, had bills written to be voted on, made deals to get votes, etc. In the same way, Al Gore, Jr. was talking about the importance of a "information superhighway" when the other members of Congress thought he was a space case to do so.
The truth is that we have an "information superhighway" now. And Gore does actually deserve more credit than any other member of Congress for helping to ensure that it happened. No, he didn't invent TCP/IP. But if Vint Cert, the man who did invent TCP/IP, says that Gore played a vital part in bringing it to the public, I'll go with that.
there are decent contenders (Score:3)
Look at Nader and Browne, hell look at Buchanan. Dont be deceived into thinking that you only have one choice.
Its kindof like saying that there is choice in the MS operating system... THeres Win98, NT4.0, W2K enterprise, advanced, data, personal, WinCE... See there are a lot of options... but they all suck.
take a stand, vote for someone other than Gore or Bush. And no, it isnt wasting your vote.
tagline
Re:Between Nader and Browne? (Score:3)
Stuff Nader said about some of the patent issues that have been discussed on Slashdot. [wired.com]
When I read this, it at least makes me think he has managed to get himself informed on some of the issues.
I know he's not great on a lot of other issues, but America could (and indeed will) do a lot worse.At least he reasons, as opposed to jabbering emotionally loaded nonsense at us.
Of course, to me, all that stuff is Big Government stepping all over people, and I'm sure to Nader its Big Corporations controlling the government. Still, at least he's thinking.
This doesn't mean I plan on voting for him or otherwise endorsing him, but it is nice to read something coherent and rational.
A great oversimplification, as usual (Score:3)
That's BS. While there have been a notable group of high school and college students who have become successful through starting web sites (e.g. Slashdot), there's very little reason to trot out terms like "guru" and "visionary."
In the Open Source world, for example, there's much enthusiasm and idealism among young programmers, but there's also an obvious lack of software engineering principles and experience. Witness that almost no open source projects have regression test suites, save some of the old projects like gcc. And it's hard to apply to the term "visionary," to people who are mostly trying to write software that's like something available for Windows. Is Gnome visionary? Star Office? Any of the half dozen clones of Breakout announced daily at linuxgames.com?
Re:Politicians (Score:3)
//rdj
politics and you... (Score:3)
In most families, both parents work. Usually they put their children into day care by the time they are toddlers. If both parents are working and come home at the end of the day tired, are they really going to want to listen to their children's questions or ask them how their day was? No, instead they put them in front of the t.v. or a video game console. As much as we all like t.v. and video games, this isn't something that young children need to be imersed in. There's plenty of time for that later.
I guess to make my point, I'd like to reference the columbine incident. The media has blamed everything from guns to the ineternet on this tragedy (I didn't follow it all that closely so I'm not 100% sure). But isn't anyone going to blame the parents? I mean, from what I heard, the children had the weapons and stuff like that in their own homes! Even papers talking about it...Doesn't anyone pay attention to their children or take responsibility for what their children do?
The blame needs to be put on bad parenting...not the internet or television. Someone needs to be there when a child sees a cartoon kill another cartoon on t.v. and remind them that killing isn't acceptable, what they're seeing is "make believe." Expand childrens minds with television and the internet. The information is very powerful if used correctly so why don't we use it properly to teach children what's right from what's wrong. Obviously some children these days don't know the difference. Perhaps we should spend more time pointing out that parenting is a problem these days and that we need to guide people towards being better parents for their children.
Neither Bush nor Gore should be debating about the internet filling the heads of today's youth with bad ideas and thoughts. They should be debating about how today's parents aren't teaching their children the values and morals that our parent's parent's had as children. Yeah, there was murder and what not back then, but nothing like we have today.
Re:I'll expand on that idiot part... (Score:3)
So, in other words, you want a president who has the horribly flawed idea that it is the governments responsibility to pay for your retirement. You want a president who thinks that its the United States' job to play the part of world police force. You want a president who supports socialized medicine. Lets me say that again, SOCIALIZED medicine. As in socialism. You think socialism is a neat idea?
Geuss what, not all of us want to pay for your medical bills. If you didn't save properly in your youth and prepare for retirement, then quite frankly, fuck you. If you don't have enough money to survive thats your own damn fault and I sure as hell do not want to be forking over my money that I could be using to prevent myself from being in that same position.
It all has to do with consequences. If you don't take responsibility for you actions, why should I have to pick up the slack? Don't get the wrong impression, I do care about my fellow man, and I don't mind supporting them when they need help, but that doesn't mean that I want to pay for someones entire lifestyle. It's your respoonsibility to make sure that you can support yourself when you retire, not the governments, and not mine either.
Re:Maybe it's not just the internet... (Score:3)
It's when politicians and activists turn violence into an excuse to start legislating what people can and cannot watch on television, play on their computers, etc., that we have a problem. Playing Doom or downloading the Anarchist's Cookbook are, of course, harmless acts. Millions upon millions of people each day do these things without a second thought, and exhibit absolutely no violent tendencies.
Politicians, though, love using the actions of a few to justify their own bias, or at least those of the lobbyist who's promising votes or money, and then try to project that bias onto the many. We all know the Internet is not innately harmful, and we all know video games don't cause killing. I think that, for the most part, the politicians know this too. Calling G.W. Bush "stupid" for blaming the Internet for violence is wrong. G.W. Bush is extremely smart for doing that. The stupid ones are the people who will vote for him because of such a bold-faced lie. And these people are just looking for an easy way out, a "simple solution" to a problem that they simply don't know how to solve. It's so much easier to point the finger at Quake and say, "Video-games made him do it!!!" than it is to point at society at large.
I guess the "Golden Rule" in this case, is that if someone is unstable enough to think that the Flak Cannon or Redeemer in Unreal Tournament is an accurate portrayal of real life, and is then inspired to go off and kill someone, or that the Internet is simply a repository for bomb-making instructions, then said person is pretty messed up in the head to begin with.
Re:To Nader or Not To Nader (Score:3)
Ah, so that makes you an expert on Texas politics.
and I see what a mess IT is. G. Dubya has been missing in action here since early in the year.
If you knew anything about Texas politics, you'd know that the position of Governor in Texas doesn't really do all that much. By law. The Lt. Governor position has much more power.
You get it completely wrong (Score:3)
That's boldly inaccurate, therefore your entire premise is flawed. This is the second article on here today that misstates what Governor Bush said, so allow me to post the question and his answer in context.
From the 2nd Presidential Debate 10-11-2000
MR. LEHRER: Back to the question about the differences on gun control. What are they, Governor, from your point of view, between you and the vice president?
GOV. BUSH: Well, I'm not for photo licensing. But let me say something about Columbine.
MR. LEHRER: All right.
GOV. BUSH: And, listen, we've got gun laws. He says we ought to have gun-free schools. Everybody believes that. I'm sure every state in the unions got them. You can't carry a gun into a school. And there ought to be a consequence when you do carry a gun into a school.
But Columbine spoke to a larger issue, and it's really a matter of culture. It's a culture that somewhere along the line, we've begun to disrespect life, where a child can walk in and can have their heart turned dark as a result of being on the Internet, and walk in and decide to take somebody else's life. So gun laws are important, no question about it.
But so is loving children and, you know, character education classes, and faith-based programs being a part of after-school programs. Somebody -- some desperate child needs to have somebody put their arm around them and say, "We love you." And so there's a -- this is a society that -- of ours has got to do a better job of teaching children right from wrong.
And we can enforce law. But there seems to be a lot of preoccupation on -- not necessarily in this debate, but just in general, on law. But there's a larger law: Love your neighbor like you'd like to be loved yourself -- and that's where our society must head if we're going to be a peaceful and prosperous society.
BUSH is practically exculpating the internet! He is saying that it's our culture/society (kids being neglected by parents, no respect for REAL human lives not 64 bit ones etc..) that causes violence, and something has gone wrong WHEN a "heart can turn dark" from video games, internet use etc...
Your censors in this election sit on the LEFT side of the aisle. If you are truly concerned about censorship and the First Amendment, you should familiarize yourself with Tipper Gore and Joe Lieberman. Conservatives "Conserve" the Constitution, Liberals treat it like a thread.
Politicians (Score:3)
Spotteddog
Re:Actualy it was a jab at g0r3 (Score:4)
Al Gore never claimed to invent the Internet. That story was started by none other then Declan McCallugh (of LiViD defamation fame and in no small part responsible for inciting the persecution of DeCSS and css-auth developers).
For the story debunking the myth that Al Gore claimed to have invent the internet see this [salon.com] ; Salon story.
Caveat: I am voting for either Ralph Nader or Harry Brown (currently leaning toward Mr. Brown). If you oppose Gore (or Bush) that is fine, but be sure you do so for factual reasons, not myths propogated by yellow journalists.
Thank God for Jon Katz! (Score:4)
I hadn't decided who to vote for yet, but that post really sent the message home and I'm definitely going to vote for Gore now.
Thanks for letting me know that Bush was an idiot, I hadn't noticed. In fact, I guess I was just trying to make an educated decision based on their proposed policies as well as their character and experience...Geesh, I guess that was silly wasn't it! Oh well, luckily I saw your post in time!
Please keep posting more stories like that one. It was well thought out, researched, and --most importantly-- it was very fair and unbiased.
Keep up the great work!
www.niceFire.com [nicefire.com]
Of course Bush never lies... or does he? (Score:4)
So was Bush lying, stretching the truth, or as I suspect, he just didn't really know, because he's not all that aware of what is actually happening in his home state and relies on his "advisors" to tell him?
And just so it's clear that this is not the only incident of Bush stretching the truth
Then there is education reform in Texas, which Bush is claiming so much responsibility for. Education reform in Texas actually got started two Governers ago, when Mark White (Democrat) was Governer of Texas. It continued under Ann Richards (Democrat) and has, to be fair continued under Governer Bush. But for Bush to claim any real responsibility for education reform in Texas is at best a stretch.
Want me to go on? How about Bush's much touted "tax cut" in Texas, giving "some of the surplus back to the people". Well, I live in Texas and let me tell you how it really worked. It is true that the State property tax rate was cut. When that happened, all of the counties, cities, college districts, school boards, and other taxing districts that rely on state funding immediately had to raise their property tax rates to compensate for the decreased funding they would receive from the state. Net effect - my total property taxes (and those of everyone in my city that I have spoken to) have actually increased. Nice tax cut.
Then there is the "Compationate Conservative" thing. How compationate is it for the state of Texas to have the second highest percentage of uninsured people in the nation? Particularly when the majority of those without insurance are Latino children (who Bush otherwise acts so fond of). How compationate is it that Bush actively tried to limit the access that children in Texas had to the new federal CHIP program that provides affordable insurance to children of low income families?
Bush is a liar too (aren't all politicians). He's just not called on it much.
Re:OK... (Score:4)
During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet.
Ok dude. In this quote he is saying that he created the internet while he was in Congress.
"I" is possesive, and suggests that he himself was the one who did this. He could have said "We took the initiative", or "I urged other congressmen to take the initiative", but he didn't. He claimed sole responsiblility for an act which he played a very small role in.
GORE is not Congress. There are a whole array of other congressmen, and I doubt they'd give him as much credit as he gives himself.
Gore did claim to have invented the internet, and I suggest you learn english.
The Electoral College (Score:4)
Re:Brash statement about idiots? (Score:4)
Thought that too. And besides, even if it were true, it means very little. The current crop of 18-yr-old voters are hardly the most poitically aware and active bunch in the last 20 years. I might go as far to say that they are probably the least likely bunch since the late 60's to actually be aware, much less participate in the presidential election. That's too bad, and I hope I'm wrong about that.
Katz's drift that alienating the young net-savvy voters by insulting their intelligence by painting the net as a chasm of evil seems somewhat moot. Is there really a chance that large numbers of the 18 20 23&1/2 doom/quake/napster crowd is going to vote for him anyway?
I doubt it. Are there hordes of registered voters in the 36-52 demographic with young kids that are scared to death their child might be the next Klebold and are waiting to hear which candidate "understands" how evil this internet thing is and is going to do something about keeping this bugaboo from corrupting their kid.
GW isn't going to be swept into office by swaying young voters and he knows this. If he were to stand up there and demonstrate a real understanding of the internet to the extent that Jon Katz would hail him as a true revolutionary political candidate, he would lose votes from that majoruty of registered voters that are afraid of the internet because they don't understand it and don't want to.
Science Policies (Score:4)
If you're going to get informed on the platforms, you might as well get informed on the decisions that really matter.
Comment removed (Score:4)
What a great article! (Score:5)
This prompted me to go to http://www.bush2000.com/contact.asp [bush2000.com] ; and submit the following...
I have no doubt that this will turn the tide in the election.
---
Re:Actualy it was a jab at g0r3 (Score:5)
He was overemphesizing his congressional record, in which he actively supported and promoted the creation of the internet. He in no way claimed or implied that he invented the internet, any more than Jed Bush's statements that he was instrumental in creating Florida's voucher program imply that he invented the notion of vouchers or was the first to implement them. At worst he was guilty of exaggerating his congressional record, nothing more.
They have diametrically opposing views of the role of government. They could not be more contrary! Their only similarity is that neither one has the remotest chance of being elected. Your simultaneous interest in both these candidates says a lot about your political knowledge.
No, it says nothing about my political knowledge. What is says is two things:
* The individual is being marginalized in favor of large special interest and corporate influence in government, and both candidates offer a solution
* I remain undecided on whether the best approach is government regulation of industry (which can and does work quite well in some instances) or very, very small government and corresponding freedom (both for individuals and corporations) that implies.
Why am I undecided? Because freedom for corporations often translates directly into less freedom for individuals (e.g. up until a few years ago people with medical conditions were effectively locked into their jobs because they would lose medical insurance if they went to another employer with a pre-existing condition. Later regulation which decreased the freedom and discretion of the insurance industry had a direct and immediate effect in enhancing the freedom of the individual. One may make sophist arguments such as "people were free to leave and aren't entitled to basic medical anyway, so they shouldn't complain" but the reality was, if your life depended on medical care and you would lose it if you changed jobs or were fired, you had the freedom any prisoner or slave has ever had: comply or die). The Libertarians make some compelling arguments, but they also gloss over a number of important and very complex details.
As with nearly everything in life, the ideal situation will probably end up being somewhere in the middle, though probably more in the libertarian direction than the Green direction (hence my leaning toward Brown).
I will say this, however. Your inflexibility in considering two differing points of view on a number of complex issues says a great deal about the openness of your mind, and the simplicity with which you appear to view the political world.
... defending Katz... (Score:5)
So him saying that this is the largest demographic group is correct. It's what happens when the previous largest generation's kids grow up. Baby Boomers kids are graduating high-school, and there are a whole lot of them.
Oh - and to all you people who are voting for "lesser evil" or whatever, please take a stand and consider voting for someone beside the two big parties - and no, its not wasting your vote.
tagline
Brash statement about idiots? (Score:5)
and they now know that at least one presidential candidate is an idiot.
- JonKatz
Ahem, in the past 20 years, we have been nowhere near the record of Americans turning 18. That event occured when the peak of the babyboom generation turned 18 in the 70's (or was that the late 60's?) and the current number of 18yr olds pales in comparison.
Umm, wanna expand on that idiot part Jon?
Visit DC2600 [dc2600.com]
The candidates are the people (Score:5)
So let's get it straight who Bush was talking to. Bush was talking to the Million Mom March [millionmommarch.com]. Bush was talking to the same Mom's who needed Microsoft's Digital Diva [eastsidejournal.com] to explain to them how to send their email messages from their "cyberspace address" out over the "information superhighway".
He was talking to all the people who watched a high school full of children being led out by SWAT teams, the people who read newspapers and read about those two kid's obsession with the internet.
He was representing the great swath of Americans who just don't get it
My point is, don't blame Bush. Bush, as a C student, is uniuqely qualified to represent the vast and growing idiot demographic in America.
Blame the idiots. Think globally, but mock them locally.
-just a thought.
Aging Government (Score:5)
I hope I'm not the only person in the USA who is bothered by the status of the government. Not neccisarly their "injustices to Americans" or the widespread corruption that you see on the news, but the fact that we're listening to a bunch of 50, 60 year old people who probably don't know what modem stands for. It's sad that it's going to take another 30 or 40 years before college people today get into the government. Sometimes I wonder if it will even happen in my lifetime.
Will the Net remain a unique and free space, or will it be forced to conform to non-virtual traditions and constraints?
Let's look at this logically. Eventually, someone who is elected to an important position is going to be very pro-freedom-of-information. If we elect someone today who is either against it, or the topic isn't on their priority list, then they are going to let monopoly companies decide what happens to freedom of speech online. What happens when we elect the person who is very pro-freedom of speech? It's going to be a lot of backtracking, might as well get someone who understands the issue now.
But most important, we can't do shit unless we vote. It's free, it's quick, and it's the easiest way to change the world. Register. [beavoter.com]
Re:Actualy it was a jab at g0r3 (Score:5)
Gore: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet"
Now, you can cut that up like a lawyer, but to anybody whole is familiar with the English language, Gore was taking a granule of truth and exaggerating it out of proportion. That is another way of saying he lied. It would not be so noteworthy if he didn't do it every week, like claiming he and Tipper were the inspiration for Love Story, claiming to have written the Earned Income Tax Cut law and worked on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve while in Congress (both were created before he entered Congress), like claiming to have helped write candidate Hubert Humphrey's convention speech in 1968 (he didn't) ... And the list goes on.
A good compiliation of some of Gore's most egregious lies are here [nationalreview.com]. You are an apologist for a compulsive liar.
Now, what is equally amazing to me is how you could be having difficulty choosing between Browne and Nader. They have diametrically opposing views of the role of government. They could not be more contrary! Their only similarity is that neither one has the remotest chance of being elected. Your simultaneous interest in both these candidates says a lot about your political knowledge.
"When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood."
Actualy it was a jab at g0r3 (Score:5)
I thought it was rather funny =]
NightHawk
Tyranny =Gov. choosing how much power to give the People.
children, schools and computers: not! (Score:5)
Anyone who cared one whit about children would never equate anything to related to computers with their general welfare. If you care about kids and their schools, talk about class size, books, inspirational and loving teachers, safety from violence, interesting curricula, engaging and nurturing environments, respect from adults and children; computers are just about at the bottom of the list of what any informed educator sees as making a difference in children's experience of school. Many trendy and ill-informed people see them as a remedy for all kinds of things, but to my knowledge, no research into the area has ever suggested that computers aid learning or the educational experience to anything like the degree that the things I mention above do.
This isn't new (Score:5)
Since the public in general doesn't understand much about the Internet it is an easy target. Rock and roll isn't much of a target anymore because it is mainstream, people have moved on to rap music. The same logic can be applied to women voting, alcohol, printing presses, etc. If its new, someone will attack it despite the enormous good that might come of it, Politicians are just capitalizing on the sensationalism that the media can stir up over things like the Columbine shootings. Once the media brands the Internet as contributing to some tragedy it is very hard to convince people (who don't know much about it) that that idea is ludicrous.
Politicians are particularly skilled at this type of spin. Examples abound: Vote against a gun control measure and you might be branded 'pro-crime', vote to cut some sprending out of a bloated federal program and you could be branded 'anti-education' or be accused of wanting to throw old people out into the streets.
Society is, by and large, ignorant of what the internet is and what it can do for them. They assume its only purpose, other than IMing your friends on AOL, is evil. Politicians are just trying to ride wave into office. Unfortunately, these are the guys who make the laws.
Computer in schools-- NOPE! (Score:5)
If every student can't have their own at their desk, they are nothing more than toys for the few that have the opportunity to use them. The rest can only view from a distance; the majority can't interact. Couple that with the fact that there's just not enough room in a classroom for thirty or more of these boxes, and the immediate conclusion that computers in school, if they are there at all, should be in a lab. In this day and age of portable classrooms, what facility has the space to spare to set up a sporadically-used computer lab, and pay for the staff to operate it?
Secondly, computers are distractions. In a classroom they take even more time away from the real reason students are there-- to learn. No, not everything in school is fun. Some of it may, to the kids, not seem neccessary. But lack of fundamentals is one of the things that's killing this country. I can't tell you how often I find illiterate high-school students. They read like third graders! Why? Certainly not because they don't have computers in the classroom.
Computers in the classroom-- ya might as well call an arcade a "classroom." Don't give me platitudes about how they'll be able to research projects on the Web. With very limited exceptions, it just doesn't happen. What does happen? Games. Note-passing. Oggling naked women. Software piracy (in high school we called it "off-site archival preservation"). Generally, those things that in the past were not allowed in the classroom.
Information on the 'net is uncatagorized and unorganized. Students can hardly write these days, do you really think they'll be able to distill terabytes of noise and glean the kilobytes of needed data? Even if they could get to the stuff they need, much of it is on the 'net as advertisements. I am often frustrated to find that information that would be available printed and bound in the library is only on the web in the form of an abstract and order form. Not particularly useful for school-age researchers. I end up hiking to the library anyway. At least their card catalogs are focused, and don't contain millions of porn links disguised as what I want.
Americans have missed the boat on what education means. Education is not job skills. True education make one a better person. It builds character. Education creates wisdom. If kids today get out of school knowing little more than where the power switch is and how to run a small set of software applications, we have done a grave disservice to not only them, but to ourselves. We will have weakend the fabric of this country's society.
How about we get back to teaching what kids need to know to get through life. Reading is important for numerous reasons. Math lets them describe their world in measurable ways. Literature helps them understand their feelings, and express themselves to others. History tells them how we got here, and generally points to where we're going. Science teaches critical thinking. These are what schools need, not computers. Ignore these, and we'll get a society that won't even know how to build a computer!
Jeff
Re:The candidates are the people (Score:5)
Saying that a teen had his heart turned dark on the internet is no different than saying a teen had his heart turned dark on the streetcorners of a slum. It's not blaming either the internet or streetcorners, nor is it saying that everyone will respond the same way. But it is saying that negative people and ideas that one might encounter can turn hearts dark. We're in favor of free speech because speech matters, so we can't turn around and say, "oh, but ideas don't matter if they are dark."
I'm not saying you need to agree with the argument, but it is an argument to engage and rebut, not hyperventilate about.
Re:"there are more people turning 18..." (Score:5)
Jesse Ventura was able to get himself into the debates (largely because Skip Humphrey figured he would take votes away from Norm Coleman) and held his own. He ran funny ads during The Simpsons. He talked about social tolerance and fiscal responsibility (including the realization that some government spending, e.g. education, is more an investment) - a political philosophy you don't largely find in republicrats or democans, but seems to be quite popular amongst younger disaffected voters. He spoke with common sense instead of political wisdom.
And you know what?
Minnesota had by far the biggest turnout of any state in that election, lead by youngsters. We elected him, and most of us are pretty happy with the job he's done.
Now, I don't think we can jump right from that to getting someone like that into the White House. There's a lot of work left to be done to lay the groundwork. The best blueprint of how to do this (strategically, not philosophically) is the National Socialists of Germany in the 1930s. You need to start small. Target a vulnerable house seat or two. Put all of your resources into winning those one or two seats. The next election, you'll have incumbency and, with any luck, a general buzz of legitimacy. That should help you double your seat count, and maybe get a seat in the senate. And you just keep building, and don't overreach your capabilities. Eventually you'll get to the point where you can put forth a candidate for president and be taken seriously.
Unfortunately, our (American, obviously) society is so hooked on quick-fixes that I am not sure there are enough people out there willing to put in the necessary work to get this accomplished. But it is possible.