Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Democrats

Talk to This Year's Quirkiest Senatorial Candidate 364

Posted by Roblimo
from the plenty-of-substance-behind-the-laughs dept.
Not many candidates for the U.S. Senate are 4'9" tall and only have one hand. But Oregon Democrat Steve Novick qualifies on both counts -- and uses them as pluses in his TV ads. Like this one, where he shows why he's the best beer-drinking partner among all the candidates. Or this one, where it's obvious why he's for "the little guy." Also, as far as we know, he's the only candidate this year for any major office who has his own brand of beer. And his online campaign manager is a major Slashdot junkie, too, which is certainly in his favor. But will humor and oddness get Steve into the Senate? We don't know. So ask him. In fact, ask him anything else you'd like about campaigning and politics. He's promised to respond, and seems like the kind of guy who will give interesting answers, at that. (Please follow Slashdot interview rules, as always.)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Talk to This Year's Quirkiest Senatorial Candidate

Comments Filter:
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohnNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @11:05AM (#22784182) Journal
    From your website [novickforsenate.org] on issues, you say:

    I would join many other U.S. senators, and the rest of what we might call Google Nation, in supporting "net neutrality." We need to prevent broadband providers from creating a two-tiered system of access to information, in which content providers with money would have an advantage over those without it, and Internet users would often find it harder to Google their way to the information they really need.
    Your net neutrality rhetoric rings true with this readership, for the most part. How exactly do you propose you would enforce this?

    I mean, you say yourself that the companies with money are going to want this, how do you plan to fight the opposition? If your opponent Gordon Smith opposes net neutrality, you're going to face a lot more of that in the senate. Voting to ensure it in bills is one thing but what makes you unique to any other Senator trying to keep the net neutral? What are the best things we can do to help this? I tried explaining it to my friends and family but often find I've at best confused them.

    Allow me to play the devil's advocate, argue against this point:

    The government controls too much of our lives right now, why let them control the internet with a facade of "net neutrality?" It's just another form of restricting the market to evolve naturally, why would we want that?
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohnNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @11:07AM (#22784198) Journal
    If elected as Senator for Oregon, how hard would you push for environmental action? You seem to promote fiscal responsibility and I find these two topics to have interesting relationships to each other. Hypothetically (and I know this wouldn't be your responsibility) if Oregon had the chance to switch to a garbage disposal system that resulted in twice as much materials being salvaged from waste but also cost the citizens twice as much to fund, would you make the switch?

    On Slashdot, we often get stories where great new ideas come but require extra cash to go green. They are under heavy fire from fiscally responsible people. Where do you stand on this? I can think of many things if you'd care to address them. Like the investment to move to a wind powered infrastructure, compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulb usage being enforced by the government, tighter emissions on all transportation, electronic circuitry recycling costs, etc.

    If you care to further elaborate, I'm also interested in how fiscal responsibility can be maintained in addition to your pledge to reform healthcare.
    • by SteveNovick (1258404) <steve@@@novickforsenate...com> on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @01:23PM (#22785904)
      Thanks for the question. Environmental action has been one of the centerpieces of my record of public service. I spent over eight years at the U.S. Justice Department, suing polluters for violations of the Clean Air and Clean Water Act and I was a board member of the Oregon Environmental Council for the past decade.

      Your question does raise a challenge of transitioning to sustainable practices. In some instances, like Superfund cleanup, there are steps we could take right now to reduce the burden on average taxpayers by restoring the polluter pays principles that originally paid for toxic waste cleanup. [novickforsenate.com]

      But in other instances, like making the investment in renewable energy or expanding mass transit and other conservation initiatives, it will cost some money. That is why in this campaign I have been advocating several moves towards better fairness in our tax code like requiring people who make their money buying and selling stock to pay the same rate as what people pay on regular income. Or that people making a million dollars pay Social Security tax on all of their income, not just the first $100,000. In the long run, reducing our energy consumption, using it more efficiently and reducing the massive cost of global warming and pollution to our economy, health care system and communities will save money. But you are absolutely right that it will take some money up front. I'm committed to telling folks the truth about that and how we are going to pay for it.
  • Pork... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Notquitecajun (1073646) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @11:07AM (#22784202)
    How willing are you to NOT "bring home the bacon" and possibly sacrifice local needs and wants rather than further inflate the budget? Are you for attempting to actually CUT the budget instead of cutting the rate of increase?
    • Re:Pork... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by explosivejared (1186049) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `deraj.nagah'> on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @11:20AM (#22784334)
      Adding to that, would you be in favor of tougher sunset clauses on appropriations? What about the much maligned practice of earmarking?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Excellent question. I would love to hear a Democrat actually answer this question and see if they care about fiscal responsibility. And yes, I know the Republicans have been spending like drunken idiots, but at least that is in contradiction to what they *say* they believe in. Democrats traditionally believe in large government transfers of wealth from one group to another. It would be interesting to hear what they say now that we simply can't continue as we're going.

      Prediction: If this is asked, he'll do

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by polar red (215081)

        Of course, the defense budget is a relatively small part of the budget, but he won't mention that,
        err ... I'll give you my source : http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm [warresisters.org] and you'll give yours ?
      • Re:Pork... (Score:5, Informative)

        by eln (21727) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @11:50AM (#22784640) Homepage
        Defense is a "relatively small" part of the budget? Are you sure we're talking about the same country here?

        The 2008 budget calls for total spending of $2.9 trillion (on tax revenues of $2.66 trillion). Of that, $481.4 billion goes to the Department of Defense. That's 16.6% of the entire budget. If you count other defense related areas, such as the "Global War on Terror" ($145.2 billion) and the Department of Homeland Security ($34.3 billion), we're up to $660.9 billion, which is 22.79% of the total budget.

        All of this, of course, doesn't even include the cost of the Iraq war, which is financed through separate appropriations. Bush has requested an additional $105 billion for 2008 war costs, which would bring total defense-related spending in 2008 to $765.9 billion, or 26.4% of the total budget.

        That's right, more than one quarter of the entire national budget is dedicated to defense spending, including the war in Iraq. By comparison, the next largest budget item, Social Security, comes in at $608 billion, or 20.97% of the total budget. And I'm not even including any military-related spending that may be assigned to other Cabinet departments or other programs.

        Sure, people like to throw around meaningless numbers like defense spending is only around 4 or 5% of total GDP. But guess what: we don't pay for it with total GDP, we pay for it with tax dollars. It's absurd to compare budget items to the total GDP, because it implies that spending a giant percentage of our total production on the federal government (around 20.27% assuming a projected $14.31 trillion total GDP in 2008) is somehow okay.

        Sources:

        GDP Estimate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_future_GDP_estimates_(nominal) [wikipedia.org]
        2008 Budget: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget%2C_2008 [wikipedia.org]
        2008 Iraq war appropriations: http://middleeast.about.com/od/iraq/f/me080225b.htm [about.com]
        • Re:Pork... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by paitre (32242) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @01:07PM (#22785656) Journal
          When you speak of social program expenditures, please also include that for Medicare/Medicaid, SCHIP, and HUD.

          The combined total of which results in closer to 45% of the total budget.

          The last time I checked, SSA, Medicare/Medicaid and HUD were not explicitly mentioned as a role of our government in the Constitution, while Defense most certainly is. Unlike so many wrong-headed individuals, I believe that unless the Constitution actually grants a power to the Federal government, then it DOES NOT have it, regardless of what others may wish to be the case.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Watson Ladd (955755)
            How else do you interpret the words ``general welfare''? What about ``necessary and proper''? The government is created to advance certain goals, and it is enabled to do anything necessary and proper to achieve those goals. Also, social security and medicare/medicade are not part of the general budget: If abolished those taxes would also be abolished, so general incomes would not rise.
    • How willing are you to NOT "bring home the bacon" and possibly sacrifice local needs and wants rather than further inflate the budget? Are you for attempting to actually CUT the budget instead of cutting the rate of increase?

      In Oregon?!? There's a bunch of folks who've lost their jobs because of Washington, as far as they're concerned (environmental lobbyists to be exact) and they want their due. In other words, start carving up that pork because the rest of the country owes them for keeping the owls happy

    • Okay Mr. Novick, I have a specific instance for you as an example:

      About 20 years back, Josephine County (Grants Pass, et al) got a massive infusion of cash in repayment for gov't-enforced restricted logging rights in their area. During this period of time, IIRC they spent it like drunken Sailors on Leave (e.g., they pretty much poured it into programs which has nothing to do with stimulating industries that didn't involve cutting down trees).

      The payments timed out last year, and now the county governmen

    • Re:Pork... (Score:4, Informative)

      by SteveNovick (1258404) <steve@@@novickforsenate...com> on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @02:10PM (#22786534)
      The first step on the path to fiscal responsibility is help the American public understand where their tax dollars go. In terms of federal spending, roughly 20 percent goes to defense, 20 percent to Medicare & Medicaid, 20 percent to Social Security, 8 percent to interest on the debt, and everything else is a relatively small portion for things like transportation, education and the environment. Even the earmarks that have been recently decried are only about 1 percent of the budget. Of course those earmarks include obvious pork like the "Bridge to Nowhere," but getting our fiscal house in order is going to take more than cracking down on appropriations.

      Part of what I would propose are moves towards tax fairness, like repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, or the capital gains and Social Security tax reforms I mentioned in a previous reply. But we also need to spend our taxes more wisely. I do think there are some programs - like the V-22 Osprey or the International Space Station - that are not a great investment of our tax dollars. I also think we can give federal agencies more of an incentive to save by rewarding them if they come in under budget.

      You can read a bunch more about this and my record of working to educate the public on budget and tax policy, as well as fighting waste in the Oregon State Lottery. [novickforsenate.com]
  • Why Democrat? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohnNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @11:09AM (#22784224) Journal
    After reading your views, I see a few things that put you at odds with the current Democrat party. What causes you to align yourself with the Democrat party? What differences do you personally see in yourself that by and large the Democrats adhere to? If elected, would you promise to remain Democrat or would you entertain the idea of going third party/independent?
    • Re:Why Democrat? (Score:4, Informative)

      by SteveNovick (1258404) <steve@@@novickforsenate...com> on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @02:13PM (#22786586)
      I have been willing to buck the establishment in this campaign and I think voters will appreciate that. But let me make clear that I am a Democrat through and through and will stay in the party no matter what. As Paul Wellstone said about himself, "I represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party."

      I will continue to stand up for my principles, even when I disagree with my fellow Democrats. But I truly believe that by expressing the progressive values, we will strengthen the Democratic Party. It is that willingness to tell the truth, regardless the consequences that I see as my biggest contrast with the D.C. Democratic establishment.
  • Nucular... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Notquitecajun (1073646) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @11:09AM (#22784228)
    Are you in favor of nuclear energy, or are you afraid of it?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by andphi (899406)
      I think you're presenting a false dichotomy. It's possible to both fear and favor a given course of action - expanding our nuclear energy base, changing jobs, or owning a fire-arm for self-defense, for example - if the alternatives are less favorable or more fearful than the one which worries one even as one chooses it.

    • Many Greepeace activists are now in FAVOR of nuclear power - because it's less polluting than coal or oil. Doesn't screw up the environment like giant hydro-electric dams either.

      As far as what to do with the nuke waste - we do have a state called Nevada It's almost the size of California, but with only 2.6 million residents, with 85% of them living in Reno or Vegas. It's dry, so little worry about run off. I've driven thru it many times - there really isn't much out there at all, so even a 100 square mi
    • Actually a very valid question in OR. Our only "power generating" Nuclear reactor was shut down a decade ago. Trojan Nuclear power plant [wikipedia.org] generated 12% of the state of Oregon's power supply when it was shut down. Most of the rest of the states power came from Dams (especially along the Columbia river). Now, in order to keep up with demand, and to replace Trojan's power generation capacity, many natural gas power plants have been built in the state, increasing emissions in the "green" state..
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Null537 (772236)
      Isn't this a bit of a weighted question?

      "Are you in favor of nuclear energy, or are you afraid of it?"
      "I'm against nuclear energy"
      "Ha! Nuclear fearing member of the sheeple!"

      How about "Are you for or against nuclear energy, and why?"
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohnNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @11:11AM (#22784242) Journal
    Complaints have been registered far and wide of our cowboy president. Democrats voting on bills hasn't done anything--some Democrats seem to have sat idly by as it happened. If you're elected into office, how are you going to stop this? More importantly with the president in his last term, how are you going to undo what has been done? Whether Clinton, Obama or McCain win, give us plans of action for how you intend to undo what you listed on your site: "warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, covert CIA 'black site' prisons, use of torture in interrogations and other tactics in tension or direct violation with the law have sparked outrage here at home and sullied our name abroad."
  • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot <<ten.egdup> <ta> <todhsals>> on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @11:11AM (#22784244) Homepage Journal
    Steve, your state already tried, and aborted, an attempt at universal health care. Do you want federal universal health care because Oregon needs to take money from other states to make it work? Would you raise federal income taxes to make it work? How much?
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Also, how will you prevent universal health care from being abused - IOW, how would you prevent the fat, lazy, and stupid from running the health bills up that the rest of us would have to pay for?
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by ChristTrekker (91442)
        That right there is a good argument against universal health care. Unless you really want government intruding on and micromanaging everybody's life. You don't have to worry about it being abused - universal health care, by its very nature, is an abuse.
        • by sm62704 (957197)
          universal health care, by its very nature, is an abuse

          I see all today's mods are from the US, the only industrialized nation in the world without universal health care!

          -mcgrew
        • by bzipitidoo (647217) <bzipitidoo@yahoo.com> on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @04:07PM (#22788022) Journal

          An abuse? Oh really? Are you aware that city water supplies are an example of universal health care? Fluorine is added to reduce tooth decay. It works, and it's pretty cost effective. Benefits everyone except possibly dentists. Lots of other things are done to the water supply. So we dodge the thrills of cholera epidemics that happen all too often in places that don't have good water supplies. But maybe you'd prefer to dig your own wells and buy your own filters and softeners, giving up the cost savings to be had from doing this on a massive scale, and do all the maintenance and monitoring yourself and worry about whether your neighbors' wells will dry out yours, stuff like that? And wonder when your young one will end up in a class seated next to the child of someone too poor to afford such niceties? That's why we have very low cost vaccinations, and will even give them away to the desperately poor. They're so worth it.

          Likewise there's a lot of savings to be had if we'd just put up a little money up front for checkups and preventative care. Sadly, you can't just get a blood test, no you've got to fill out a ton of paperwork about all the details of your health insurance, questions about your health history, and read and sign many pages worth of disclaimers, permissions to disclose info, permissions to substitute generic drugs, acknowledgments that you owe what your health provider fails to pay, and maybe an arbitration agreement, and, always, always pay some kind of fee. Often, poor people are poor because they have no financial sense. They find it very difficult to budget such things. The fee alone is enough to keep them away. Even if it's free of fees, it's not really free if you have to spend an hour or more on paperwork, sit on your butt in a doctor's waiting room for more hours (don't you just love being told that you can put your wait to good use by filling out forms?), and perhaps drive 20 plus miles just to reach the place. Our health care system is full of those kinds of inefficiencies. So if one such poor person works as a janitor at a school, and comes down with tuberculosis or the flu perhaps and feels very ill but does not see a doctor and instead keeps on working because he needs the money, and consequently gets half the student body infected, that's going to cost a whole lot of money. A few free tests and doctor visits for everyone once every 2 years or upon reaching certain ages, or some such, could save us all money. You may have noticed that often employers will spend a day or two to host some kind of health checkup for all their employees. Once had my cholesterol levels checked that way. Pretty haphazard and spotty checking, doing it like that. If you're away on a business trip or sick that day, guess you just miss out.

          Forcing people to pay for basic health care is like forcing people to pay to use toilets. Some airports used to do that. If you make it cheaper to crap on the floor, then some will. Those persons might care that it's unhealthy, and understand that it will cost society more in the long run, but feel they need that quarter more right now, and find their act to be the most pungently appropriate way of expressing their displeasure over such a system.

      • by imag0 (605684) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @11:41AM (#22784548) Homepage
        Please remember that, when using inflammatory rhetoric like that, the largest receivers of government welfare money happens to be large, multinational companies and not the "fat, lazy, and stupid" that you are probably thinking of.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Dice (109560)
        It's not just abuse by We The People that we need to worry about. A federal health care system means putting control of what goes into our bodies in the hands of the government. Let me remind you that this is a government which has a well documented history of experimenting on its own people [wikipedia.org] for the purposes of developing mind control drugs and the like.

        I, for one, do not welcome our new Big Government overlords.
      • Also, how will you prevent universal health care from being abused - IOW, how would you prevent the fat, lazy, and stupid from running the health bills up that the rest of us would have to pay for?

        These are two different questions. I would imagine you would stop abuse by putting people who commit fraud, or get extra drugs, or doctors who perform unnecessary surgeries in jail. Much like the options currently available to HMOs. There may even be some kind of oversight.

        As for some people having higher hea

    • Hi Pudge,

      Oregon has not tried universal health care. It's voted on a version of it, but it never got around to trying it.

      Seth Woolley, Secretary, Pacific Green Party of Oregon
      • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

        Oregon has not tried universal health care. It's voted on a version of it, but it never got around to trying it.
        What I was referring to is the fact that it has failed politically, thus far, mostly because of financial considerations.

  • by R2.0 (532027) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @11:13AM (#22784258)
    That blue guy Stan Jones http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_Jones [wikipedia.org] was pretty cool.

    Just picture him at a Senate costume party with deelybobbers on - instant Andorean.
  • Beer (Score:5, Interesting)

    by esocid (946821) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @11:14AM (#22784262) Journal
    What will you do to get more Oregon beer east of the Mississippi river?

    But seriously, you state that The manipulation of scientific data and government reports by political appointees must end. And we must stop the revolving door that has put industry lobbyists in charge of protecting our natural resources. How would attempt to improve the reliability of the EPA's research and encourage transparency within its ranks as to thwart its recent politicization and "bullying" of its scientists who don't produce data to support a political agenda?
  • by davidwr (791652) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @11:14AM (#22784270) Homepage Journal
    America's finest and most accurate television news and opinion programs, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report respectively, would be honored to interview a candidate of your stature.

    Have you considered gracing their shows with your presence? If not, why not?
  • by roadkill_cr (1155149) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @11:16AM (#22784282)
    Does the advent of the Internet mean that a politician can win elections without requiring as much financial support? Or is it simply another media out of the many already used (radio, televsion, etc.) that one must now campaign on, making campaigning more expensive than before?
  • Left hook (Score:5, Funny)

    by Lucas123 (935744) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @11:16AM (#22784284) Homepage
    I like the name of your beer: Left Hook Lager, but why choose a lager to represent yourself versus, say, a stout?
    • by eln (21727)
      Alliteration, obviously. Besides, the lager name has been polluted for too long by the swill that the American macrobreweries call "lagers". Believe it or not, making a tasty lager is not only possible, it's actually done by many small breweries out there.
    • by chimpo13 (471212)
      Now's my chance to ask the immortal question, [nokilli.com] that my friend Lurch asked a little person: "So, do regular beers seem really, really big to you? Since you're a midget and all?"

      I hope the answer isn't "Fuck you" which is what he got when he asked.
  • by explosivejared (1186049) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `deraj.nagah'> on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @11:17AM (#22784290)
    You seem to be pretty frank about your policy on the war. How much effect do think you could have on the Democratic platform regarding Iraq? The party has equivocated (eg pulling funding) on whether or not it will go full force at ending the current deployment of troops and on just how it would plan to work with regional players. How do you think you can work to providing a consistent and working policy for Iraq? Your site says that you are amazed at the war can still be sold. What are you going to change about that?
  • I'm a fan (Score:4, Interesting)

    by djcapelis (587616) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @11:18AM (#22784318) Homepage
    I've been tracking your campaign for awhile, you seem like a really good candidate for the senate slot and a good fit for Oregon. Unfortunately I'm a Californian democrat... and I know that most Oregonians aren't terribly fond in Californians interfering with your state.

    Is there a way I can support you without getting you in trouble with your constituents? I know even a donation opens you up to the story of "funded by San Francisco Democrats" which would probably play pretty poorly in some parts of Oregon... Should we just stay on the side-lines or is there something folks outside your state can do to help you get your message out?

    And one more related question: In this increasingly interconnected world, how do you see interstate involvement in local campaigns as changing the United States as a whole? The DSCC seems to be a pretty critical source of extra-state funding for instance...
  • with out hitting a dozen people with their own beer label.

  • Interrogation... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Notquitecajun (1073646) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @11:21AM (#22784342)
    With your opposition to some current tactics, how do you propose - in a positive light - to add to the national defense against militant Islamists, who have proven both time and again - in peace and war - that they want to attack the US?
    • by geekoid (135745)
      There are many good and proven techniques that don't require torture.

      In fact, the US is pretty good at it.

  • How will you make the Senate more accountable to the people? At a minimum, what example will you display in your own Senate office?
    • by sm62704 (957197)
      You have your politicians mixed up. The House is supposed to be accountable to the people, the Senate is a check against the Tyranny of the majority" [wikipedia.org]. That's why there are different numbers of Representatives (from the HOUSE of REPRESENTatives) depending on a state's population, while the Senate has two members per state.

      -mcgrew
  • Building the team? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by D3 (31029) <daviddhenning.gmail@com> on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @11:22AM (#22784358) Journal
    When you decided to get into politics and/or make this run, how did you build your team? How did you choose your advisers? Were they all people you already knew or just knew one or two and they made recommendations? Basically, how does one go from "I think I could be a good Senator" to having the political machinery to make a run at it?
  • What are your thoughts on the sinking dollar and the price of gold? Do you support the abolishment of the federal reserve and a return to a hard currency?
  • by explosivejared (1186049) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `deraj.nagah'> on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @11:26AM (#22784400)
    You talk about fiscal responsibility. Does that include government regulation that promotes sustainable growth over growth for growth's sake? If so, what would such regulation be? Finally, I think we can all agree that Americans live beyond their means. What role should the government in dealing with the current credit crises? What action should be taken at the microeconomic level? Are you in favor of the Bear Sterns bailout, etc?
  • Medical Marijuana (Score:5, Interesting)

    by phobos13013 (813040) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @11:27AM (#22784416)
    Where do you stand on the issue of medical marijuana in your state? For ten years, use of marijuana has and created [redorbit.com]a legal vacuum for the public interest versus the private use issue [nwsource.com]. Would you protect growers of medical marijuana in your state from federal prosecution when such situations occur? Do you support the free and open use of a chemical that has no known addictive qualities, no known adverse health effects and broad, diverse public support for its decriminalization?
    • by esocid (946821)
      While I agree with everything else, I don't know about the no known adverse health effects. When smoked it has been linked to an increased risk of gum disease [reuters.com]. So maybe eating it or drinking it as tea has no adverse health effects. Plus in general it prevents and helps with glaucoma, one thing I know I'll never get.
      • by Sloppy (14984)

        I don't know about the no known adverse health effects.

        Well, the more general issue with marijuana prohibition is: should policy be set by politicians or by doctors? Who is more likely to know of adverse effects, weigh possibly adverse effects against beneficial effects, and make the best informed decision? Why is government spending so much effort and taxpayer money, on micromanaging such a small and seemingly arbitrary aspect of healthcare, while not arresting people for wearing casts made of new mate

        • by Descalzo (898339)
          You ask an awful question:

          should policy be set by politicians or by doctors?

          There is no doubt about it: policy should be set by our elected representatives. No doubt about it. The problem lies in how the decision is made. We obviously need politicians who make better decisions, but that's their job. Doctors should definitely advise them about medical issues, and there's no doubt about that either. But keep in mind that politicians have more than medical reasons to make their decisions, so that means

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Hatta (162192)
      Lets get serious here. Do you support the right of an adult to use marijuana for recreation? If yes, what are you going to do to support that right? If not, do you support the right of an adult to use alcohol for recreation?

      If you answered yes to the first, and no to the second, how do you reconcile those answers? Be sure to note the fact that marijuana is less toxic, less addictive, less likely to cause violence, and less harmful in every other way than alcohol.

      If you answered no to both questions, tha
  • Iraq Pullout (Score:4, Interesting)

    by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland AT yahoo DOT com> on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @11:29AM (#22784430) Homepage Journal
    While I was among the many Americans that didn't want the military to engage in Iraq, not we are there.

    You want to pull out of Iraq within 6 months.
    How to you propose to do that? What efforts are you going to put into rebuilding.
    Just leaving would be a horrible mistake that would cause even more strife to the Iraqis.

    Wouldn't it be better to ahve a rebuild plan that is shared with the rest of the world? remove more of out troops as specific goals are met?

  • Flat Tax, Fair Tax (Score:5, Insightful)

    by penguin_dance (536599) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @11:38AM (#22784514)
    Where do you stand on having a Flat Tax? What about the Fair (or Consumption) Tax? And why.

  • As a brewer I am sure you understand the value of science.
    What will you do to see that a strong science advisory board is available to the senate?

    What about a strong technology advisory board?
  • If you are elected, which committees would you like to serve on and why?

  • by jollyreaper (513215) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @11:43AM (#22784562)
    Hooks are so 17th century. Which of the following would you consider adopting if you win your election?

    1. Fighting claws as seen in Enter the Dragon
    2. Hydraulically actuated pincer
    3. Chainsaw
    4. Rocket fist
  • Steve,
    In 2006 Kinky Friedman [wikipedia.org] ran for Governor of Texas, using a similarly "quirky" campaign approach, injecting humor into his message and campaigning in a style considered by many to be unconventional. While he made a strong showing as an independent (with 12.5% of the vote), he still placed fourth. What influences your campaigning style, and how do you seek to avoid the same pitfalls of other lighthearted (though serious) campaigns?
  • Mr. Novick, your YouTube presence has attracted a lot of attention -- even mine. I find your ads pithy, sharp, witty.

    When Senator Hillary Clinton ran for the open Senate seat in New York everyone knew it was but a springboard to the US President campaign trail. When Senator Obama left the State Senate for the US Senate, many people dreamed -- and more, probably, feared -- it was but a springboard for the top national office.

    What is your opinion on candidates who use a limited election to project a national campaign? Who, while denying the charge, are seen as using an office for personal gain rather than determinedly seeking to serve in the very office they fight to obtain?

    Lastly...what makes your beyond-the-borders campaign different than those (named and not named) others whose State-representing Senatorial campaign have reached national (and international) attention?
  • by InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @11:54AM (#22784714)
    In your television ads, you state that you are not like other politicians. How do your political actions differ from those normally held by politicians: namely, increasing budget sizes - whether for the war, healthcare, public schools, or other state-run programs - through taxation or deficit spending; and advancing laws violating human rights - whether through increased regulation of the economy, privacy violations, taxation, etc.

    Also, how do your political motivations differ from those that have become the norm in politics? Politicians, acting as the "supply", have increasingly manipulated the economy to service the demand of corrupt companies offering to fund their campaigns - such as by contrived monopolies or selective tax breaks. How do your influences differ from the standard fare?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      advancing laws violating human rights - whether through increased regulation of the economy, privacy violations, taxation, etc.

      Come on. You may oppose taxes or want a lazzie-faire system, but to put those concerns as the same level as human rights is pretty insulting.

      There are valid disagreements about the optimum role of taxation and government regulation (there cannot be none of either, even at the minimal contractual enforcement level of uber-libertarians). Whereas, I would say that human rights are

      • "but to put those concerns as the same level as human rights is pretty insulting."

        What it comes down to is this: in order to live and survive in the US, one must work and get paid for that work an amount of money that he and his employer freely agree upon as the correct compensation for his productivity. This is a fundamental need.

        It follows from that need that one must also have an inalienable right to the "sweat of his brow" - a right to the amount of money that he and his employer agree is the corr
        • by j-beda (85386)
          "Forced taxation is a violation of the inalienable right to your productivity. Voluntary taxation, on the other hand, would not be, nor would be freely donating some percentage of your income to a charity of your choosing, and persuading your friends, family, and community to do the same. "

          There is a strong argument however that the benefits of living and working within the framework of a society that has all sorts of infrastructure and legal protections is measurably of greater value than the "lost" prod

  • Sorry to break it to you, but he's not the only major candidate running this year to have his own brand of beer. A brewery in Kenya, home of Barack Obama's father, is brewing Obama Beer [observer.com].
    • Darn it, if we had a few more candidates, we could have hell of a drinking game!

    • by sm62704 (957197)
      Sorry to break it to you, but he's not the only major candidate running this year to have his own brand of beer. A brewery in Kenya, home of Barack Obama's father, is brewing Obama Beer [observer.com].

      Obama isn't running for the Senate, he's already a Senator running for President. But ok, he's running. Steve Novick is the only candidate with his own brand of beer that doesn't have a hate filled racist preacher! [reuters.com]

      A white man voting for Obama is like a black man voting for a candidate whose preacher is in the
  • by bbasgen (165297)

    Infrastructure is failing in various parts of our civil society, while we also have droughts throughout the country that will continue to persist if not worsen. Oregon experiences its share of both of these important issues.

    I'm curious if you have considered a national water infrastructure? It would certainly be difficult, expensive, and time consuming. Is long term planning no longer viable in our modern political climate? Like so many other issues such as national debt, corporate greed, an
  • But will you ever be even-handed?

    Have you ever considered becoming an economist [economist.com]?

  • by Locke2005 (849178) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @12:11PM (#22784928)
    Dear Mr. Novick:

    The Forest Grove School District is currently attempting to intercept conversations between students on it's school buses, in flagrant violation of ORS 165.540(1)(c) and Federal Statute 2511(1)(b). What will you do make sure all governmental entities comply with existing law?

  • My question: How can I help your campaign?

    I'm a registered Democrat in Portland, Oregon. I have professional editing experience. I have advertising copywriting experience. Obviously, since I'm on Slashdot, I have plenty experience with computer technology. Other sciences, too. I'm comfortable meeting and talking with groups of people. If there is any interest in my helping, reply or write to my email address above.
  • Reminds me of the X-Files:

    NUTT: Not all woman are attracted to overly tall, lanky men such as yourself. You'd be surprised how many women find my size intriguingly alluring.

    MULDER: And you'd be surprised how many men do as well.

    (I figure this is OK, since he is using his size in his campaign :-)
  • Would a campaign slogan consisting of "One of us! One of us! One of us!" reach its target market of voters effectively?
  • would you support legalization of any/all drugs?
    If not how can you justify the 'war on drugs', and do you believe that people should be protected from their own stupidity by laws instead of information?
    If you will which drugs? and how would you defend yourself against the claims that this would create more drug addicts?
  • Oregon has a disasterous reputation when it comes to education. State schools are not doing well and the department of education at the state level has a reputation for being gridlocked. Whether or not this reflects events on the ground, it hurts Oregon to be seen this way. It hurts the migration of business in, it hurts those who are already in Oregon, and it depresses those entering or in the system. I've lived in Oregon for many years now and have yet to hear a single good word about the schools here. To
  • Health care (Score:3, Interesting)

    by the computer guy nex (916959) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @12:24PM (#22785070)

    . I will be an outspoken fighter in the Senate for comprehensive national health reform. I want to make sure everyone has affordable health care, and that means doing the hard work of addressing the complex web of factors that drives up costs.

    Many democrats now support socialized health care as reform. Would you vote for or against Senator Clinton's national health care bill?
  • 1. When do you want to see all USA troops removed from Iraq. If window > 12 months, WHY?

    2. Will you introduce or back a bill to immediately restore habeus corpus? If not, WHY?

    3. Will you seek to imprison or support the imprisonment of the Bush Junta for their obvious war crimes? If not, WHY NOT?

    4. Will you introduce or back a national adoption of the International Depletion Protocol, as developed by Prof. Heinberg of California? If not, WHY NOT?

    5. Will you introduce a bill or support a bill that

  • What's it called, "Brawndo"? Is it full of electrolytes?
  • I would like to hear how much you think the closure of your school, and thus your removal from public education, lead to your success in life.
  • "Even TIME magazine recently did an expose on the boondoggle known as the V-22 Osprey.on the boondoggle known as the V-22 Osprey. "

    *Cough*I'm just sayin'.
  • The house is not without it's own lunatic fringe.

    Professor John Frary http://www.fraryforcongress.com/ [fraryforcongress.com] has thrown his hat into the ring and his dignity to the wind in an effort to unseat long-time democrat Mike Michaud.

  • by Kymermosst (33885) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @05:01PM (#22788696) Journal
    Mr. Novick,

    First, I work for a large software company that has a significant operation some distance away from Portland. But, they are one of the only high-tech companies in the area. With the thinly veiled threat of outsourcing and off shoring, what are you going to do to bring more high-tech jobs to areas in the state that are not the Portland metro area? The economic benefits of bringing highly-skilled and highly-paid workers to the rest of Oregon should be obvious.

    Second, did you know that on the eastern side of the Cascades there is actually more of Oregon besides ski resorts and their associated towns? It always seems that people (and politicians) who live in the western portion of the state think that Idaho begins just on the eastern side of Bend and Sunriver - I was wondering if you knew about the rest of it, unlike the governor and most of the other state Democrats.

    Finally, can you do something about all of the Californians moving here? :)

If you're not careful, you're going to catch something.

Working...