Leela: Don't let their identical DNA fool you. While they might sound the same, they differ on some key issues. Jack Johnson: It's time someone had the courage to stand up and say: "I'm against those things that everybody hates". John Jackson: Now I respect my opponent. I think he's a good man but, quite frankly, I agree with everything he just said! Fry: These are the candidates? They sound like clones. [He looks a little harder.] Wait a minute. They are clones! Leela: Don't let their identical DNA fool you. They differ on some key issues. Jack Johnson: I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far. John Jackson: And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough! Fry: If I were registered to vote, I'd send these clowns a message by staying home on election day and dressing up like a clown.
by Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday May 27 2008, @11:58AM (#23558111)
that joke could have been modded "interesting" if we were speaking of Italy...
our situation is just like the upper post... sigh... we've even called (nation-vide) the 2 candidates "Veltrusconi" ( Veltroni + Berlusconi), since they're just the same....
they had the same program, their parties have almost identical names (pd vs. pdl), and the "opposition" actually said that they won't oppose...
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us. Man: He's right; this is a two-party system. Homer: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate. Kang: Go ahead! Throw your vote away!
Well -- identical twins have idential DNA -- or close to it. They aren't identical in their character, however.
The thing to remember is that while we might not have as much difference between candidates as we'd like, small differences make a big difference, if they're over something that's important enough. Lots of people have been complaining for a long time that the Democrats and Republicans are too much alike. They're probably right. It doesn't mean that things wouldn't have been different, for better or worse, if Al Gore had beeng granted Florida's electoral votes in 2000.
Many Democrats don't see much difference between McCain and Bush; many Republicans don't see much difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Some don't see much differnce between McCain and Obama. None of these people are wrong, except to the degree that they think the "small" differences between those individuals won't have big practical impacts on the life of the country.
I doubt either one of these guys has the background or passion for tech to really have well thought out, firm ideas on any tech issues. They likely had aides poll and give them pat answers on tech. In other words, don't expect them to stick to any positions they might articulate now. Then again, that probably applies to all issues, not just tech.
doubt either one of these guys has the background or passion for tech to really have well thought out, firm ideas on any tech issues
I can't speak for McCain, but go watch Obama at Google [youtube.com] and tell me that he has no passion for tech issues. Half of his broader economic plan boils down to putting our faith in science and technology again -- we'll never be competitive with China at building toys out of injection-molded plastic -- we can be competitive in the technological arena.
Half the reason I started following him back before it was popular was because he was one of the few candidates that I heard that even acknowledges the war on science and all the ill effects that we've suffered as a result.
It's been a key factor in setting staggering fund raising records this primary.
Not to mention the behind the scenes stuff that most people don't see. They use that website (they call it MBO) for everything -- coordinating volunteers and logistics, calling voters, fund-raising, voter outreach, etc, etc, etc.
I've worked on a fair number of political campaigns in recent years and I've never seen one that leveraged technology quite as effectively as the Obama campaign. It was probably the margin of victory over Hillary -- especially in the beginning when nobody else had a clue how well organized Obama was.
I don't know about McCain but I suggest you investigate Obama further on this, because he definitely seems to know what he is talking about in general. There's an excellent interview with him at Google on YouTube. He even answers a jokingly-asked programming question semi-right ("what's the best way to sort an array of random 32-bit integers?" to which Obama laughingly answered "well, I wouldn't go with the bubblesort.")
It's true that technology changes some things, like the economics of using copyright to provide economic support to creators. But a lot of the time technology is used as an excuse to reopen issues happily settled long ago, on things like the first sale doctrine, or the intrusion of the government into the private lives of citizens.
I don't look to tech geeks political leadership. I want somebody smart (which most geeks are) with their head screwed on straight (and geeks are as all over the map on this). If he's a tech geek, well that's nice, but not necessary. If he's got the right aims, and is smart enough to cut through the mumbo jumbo, that's enough.
In particular, I'd be wary of amateur tech geeks -- people who are computer enthusisasts, but not for anything that counts. I wouldn't rule them out, but I'd look extra close at their tech policies, which may exhibit a "knows enough to be dangerous" character.
Like amateur AI programmers vs. WoW players or something?
I wouldn't assume those sets are disjoint.
I'm thinking more of the guy who set up his home inventory system in Access, and considers himself hot stuff with PowerPoint animations, carries a BlackBerry, and takes this as proof he understands Technology.
The whole Ted Stevens "Series of Tubes" flap is an example. As has been pointed out, it is very reasonable to use this as a first approximation of how the Internet works for some purposes. Just not the specific purposes in question. Not knowing the limits of your knowledge is not only embarassing, it is dangerous when you are a lawmaker.
And that's where technological overconfidence becomes hubris, when you stop relying upon your ow personal experience and start relying upon received wisdsom without realizing you have done so. A top drawer lawer, if he was fully aware of his own technological ignorance, would grasp useful and misleading aspects of the "tubes" analogy in about five minutes. In about five more, he'd get on to the real substance of net neutrality, which is gaining control over markets by limiting vendor access to customers.
This is something even a pretty sophisticated engineer might miss, because he's too close. You have to be interested in economics, not the details of protocol implementations.
And what you've said, that they aren't tech fanboys, is a good thing. Or do you imagine that, amazingly enough, they'd be fans of exactly the same tech you are, and see all the Correct Solutions exactly the way you do? Ha ha, huh? Do you really want a President who not only has the power of the Chief Executive but also the arrogance to think he knows what's best for your industry?
What you want from these guys is the wisdom to see that letting folks alone to work out stuff for themselves is the best default option, and government should step in only as the utter last resort. You want them to know their own limits, to realize they're not only not experts in tech stuff, but also not experts in farming, or energy exploration and transportation, or medicine, or housing, or education, or any of the other million and a half things people do to keep the wheels humming. They're just lawyers, and if they confine themselves to drafting (or if President promoting the drafting of) well-written, focussed, modest laws that address the relatively few issues that actually can be helped with a good law...well, they'll do a lot more good than any number of demagogues and wannabe Caesars.
Politics can get pretty shallow, but there's more to it than being a bitch for the polls. I think this little Q&A is a case in point. Not the answers themselves, but the people chosen to deliver them. McCain chose a lawyer with strong connections to a major media conglomerate that many of us have reason to loathe. Obama chose a computer scientist with connections to a university that played a big role in creating the Internet. That, by itself, should tell you where there respective priorities are.
In a country with over 300 million people, a more than $13 trillion dollar economy, worlds largest military, and many global interests and programs, there are simply too many important issues for the candidates to have a nuanced knowledge of all of them. Realistically, they must all rely on advisors, so I would take the views of their advisers fairly seriously. You can also get at least a sense of a candidate's general leanings, which suggests which advisors they are likely to listen to. It's also useful to look at the opinions of people who you respect on these issues that have actually talked to the candidates, e.g., Lessig's endorsement of Obama [lessig.org].
Now, let me add that, while a candidate must rely on advisors for detailed positions, he must know something about the issues himself, otherwise he cannot reasonably assess whose advice to take. We have in recent years seen a stark object lesson in the disastrous consequences when the decision maker really doesn't know anything at all and is simply led by whichever advisors are the loudest, most persistent, or the most clever at politicking.
The last point worth making is that the biggest problem on tech issues is that money talks. Lobbist access, fundraising, and political ads by large corporations have a tendency to drown out the public interest. I do think that on at least one of these points Obama has a clear advantage: His fundraising is based much more in small donations from ordinary people, so he is less beholden to these corporate interests and has less obligation to spend time listening to their lobbyists at fundraisers. I think this may make a bigger difference in the end than people realize.
Like other posters said, the candidates don't really have to know about tech, neither they need to know about agriculture or naval construction but they have to listen from knowledgeable people. And McCain chose a guy from Warner Bros as his tech consultant, Obama, a guy from MIT.
This alone should make McCain sound like a very bad choice.
"Chuck Fish, an attorney for the McCain campaign and former Time Warner executive"
"Daniel Weitzner, an MIT computer scientist"
Who are you going to place more faith in there? As usual republicans == corporate interests over technical or popular interests.
(BTW, before you accuse me of being a shill or a partisan or an idiot democrat, I'm not even USian and don't get to vote on this. I'm just calling it like I see it)
"I have no idea what Chuck Fish's interests are but if you want to change the market, it might be best to do it with someone who knows the market--or even has the ability to change it from the inside"
The fact he's an ex-exec from a business that is a prime player in some of the most suppressive, anti-progress, anti-freedom and anti-privacy organisations, organisations which consistently try to criminalise vast swathes of people and totally miss the point on technological issues.... Well that puts him on my blacklist.
Whatever your "it" is, his presence ought to set off some BIG alarm bells.
As I said in my original post - I'm not USian and have no affiliation to either party. I have a preference for democrats but their "family friendly" policies make me sick - but a Time Warner exec as a tech advisor? Seriously, don't vote for this guy.
I love the villianization companies such as Time Warner, who has the fiduciary responsibility to protect their assets, which in turn protects their employees and shareholders.
They have a wider view of what constitutes an asset and the lengths to which they should be able to go to protect them than a lot of people think is good for society. Is it ok for us to become a police state in order to protect their assets? Or do we draw the line somewhere?
I'd have to assume you reference their music and film divisions and how they "criminalise" people who illegally copy copyrighted material.
There's that. Then there's the legislation like the DMCA which criminalises things like DVD decoding on unlicensed devices.
If upholding copyright law and defending their property is "suppressive", "anti-progress", "anti-freedom", and "anti-privacy", then what do you expect from them?
They do more than uphold, they try everything they can to extend copyright and other law in ways that are detrimental to society. See the treaty discussed on slashdot earlier today which would allow border guards to take copies of people's private data stores in order to check for noncompliance. I would like some ethics from them. But this isn't about what I expect from them, it's about giving your electoral mandate to someone who aligns with their interests.
Close a up shop because you deem their business model to be "obsolete"?
Straw man, and not one of my opinions.
It's to make sure that people know that they will be backed up, which in turn encourages innovation. If the pharmaceutical companies didn't have patent protection from the government, they would not be able to stay in business. Although this isn't quite the same as protection of things like music and film, the idea is similar.
Thanks, I have a good understanding of IP law, perhaps you ought to check up on it yourself if you feel the need to illustrate a copyright example by using patents.
Why should a company spend all of the time promoting an artist, who are mutually bound by contracts, if you can just go download the music?
Another straw man.
Do I like how big business operates with regard to art? Not particularly, but artists need to make the change. Don't blame the companies for doing what they have the fiduciary responsibility of doing.
They have a fiduciary responsibility to try to change the law? And to abuse the court system by presenting weak cases? And try a scatter-gun scare tactic approach 0on universities and other folks? This is news to me.
So I think I can blame them for their lack of ethics if nothing else.
And who should I blame for legislation favouring specific business sectors over and above the interests of the populace and the technical crowd? Oh right, politicians who are in the pockets of the same media companies and hol,d their intrerests above those of society as a whole, or at least are quite prepared to hear a one-sided story. Which is, coincidentally, what we're talking about here, which politician should get your mandate. The one in bed with the coporations that are taking actions I disagree with wouldn't get my vote, were I a US voter.
I'm all for free market capitalism, but I'm not so laissez-faire that I think anarchy is the way to go. Let the market decide if Time Warner's media component is the right business model going forward. Things tend to not change overnight, so don't be impatient.
The market is not perfect, consumers are not always enlightened and competition is not always free and fair. That said it's not the business model I argue with, it's the ethics and the politics.
Some of the worst decisions are made with haste.
This is releveant to what, how? I'm not asking for radical overnight change, I'm looking for politicians and political parties that will stop us going even further in the wrong direction, then consider what to do from there.
Actually, I work for one of the world's biggest tech firms.
"So I'm pretty mystified by how you see it as conceivable that "corporate interests" are opposed to "technical interests."
See DRM, the multiple court cases over DeCSS, the whole DMCA and its restrictions over discussion of security, the massive abuse of the patent system (effectively cutting out or severely crippling many of your "thousand tiny tech start-ups you won't hear about".
I'm pretty mystified that you could have missed out on these themes over the past few years.
"Or are you thinking you still live in some quaint 18th century world where the individual inventor can do it all himself, and there is no real need to form large cooperating teams of technical folks and provide them with good support staff and plenty of capital investment -- i.e. found "a corporation"?"
I'm sorry if my use of the word "corporation" set off your hippie and/or student radar. Neither is the case here and I'm quite capable of backing up my previous comments without resorting to impugning the intelligence of those I argue against. I suggest you try the same, nice ad hominem though.
As for "popular" interests: the "popular" interests are what the vast seething market of consumers want
In other words the people of the United States of America, those that the POTUS is supposed to represent and to serve, right?
they don't give a flying fsck about technical interests at all, because they're not techies.
Didn't say they were, I said the likes of the republican's apparent tech spokesperson was against their interests.
"They want their tech stuff to Just Work and be incredibly cheap, if not free. They're not the least bit interested in coolness, or advancing the art in amazing ways, or any of those other geeky kinds of goals you might find among people who seek each other out and associate into a corporation so that they can spend the productive part of their lives advancing those technical interests."
Do you live in a fantasy world? Tech advances are a means to an end for some companies, not all, and not the only means. Large companies exist to make money. In fact for public companies that's a legal requirement or the board can face charges. Yes, a lot of tech comes from large corps, they are good for that, but please don't pretend that corporate influence, especially on politicians, is always a good thing. Especially given this person's prior record.
In the arena of copyright law, the likes of Time Warner are clearly directly opposed to what the people of the country want and are arguably going well beyond what's best for society and business in general. They don't respect privacy, they engage in campaigns of scaring the population into compliance with their take on IP...
Sheesh, get a clue. Or a job. Find out how the world actually works instead of regurgitating mindless slogans from the 19th century.
Back at you. You've swallowed the "money is always" right line a little too far there. Tell me, in your world, do companies always act in the best interests of the whole population? Or are there no incidences of monopolistic behaviour, unethical behaviour, exploitation of cheap foreign child labour etc etc?
Barak Obama consistently evaluates situations and sets goals in a dynamic and networked way. This is how his campaign has generated such a huge response from mostly small donors. John McCain has been labeled a maverick, but has closely associated himself with conservative players and the mindset that an authoritative leader can best set goals for others.
Virginia Postrel explores the differences between these approaches in detail in The Future and Its Enemies. Al Gore, for example, appears to be future oriented because of the many apparently progressive stands he takes on issues, but Al Gore uses a top-down evaluation strategy that locks in a particular view with little input before or after. As such the future is at odds with Al Gore, and will tend always to surprise him and chafe at the positions he takes which are based on a mostly static model of the world and the options for progress it presents us.
Conservatives are the ones that follow the constitution and do little to hamper our freedoms. Check out Reagan - the greatest president of the 20th century
Yes, all hail the creator of the "War on Drugs". And remember, "Just say No".
Technical skill is not even close to being on my radar of what I want in a president, nor necessarily even in his/her closest advisers. In fact, I worry when the ones at the top, be it a corporation or a government, think they know more than the underlings and specialists as regards any subject, including technology. In my mind, vision, scruples and the ability to see through BS are the leadership skills I look for in candidates. And as it happens, these are actually pretty easy to discern by simply examining their track records. The hardest way to determine these things is to listen to what they say.
Look, a candidate who can write code obviously may not have an edge over one who can't -- in fact, given the aptness of Philip Greenspun's comparison of pilots vs programmers (see here: http://philip.greenspun.com/materialism/early-retirement/aviation [greenspun.com] ), it's entirely possible programming skill isn't a great test of broad intellectual ability.:)
But tech issues absolutely underly quite a few other issues of economics and liberty, and those are certainly have a weight equal to other big issues like foreign policy.
But I think there's an even bigger reason why tech workers *definitely* should be looking at how candidates understand and address issues they understand. Because this is the arena where *you* may actually know enough, as a professional, to really gauge a candidates policy acumen. I doubt most slashdotters are experts in military tactics or nation building. Most of us have a shallow grasp of economics -- yes, even most of you Austrian school autodidacts. Same goes for health care, education, criminology, etc -- Slashdot readers may be smart laymen, but that's all most of us are in those fields.
But lots of us are IT pros. And if a candidate seems to really get it in the area where you can tell buzzspeak and platitudes from real knowledge, that tells you quite a bit about their ability to reach into an issue, understand it, and formulate a plan to do something about it.
I thought the Dems haven't selected a candidate yet.
It's basically all over but the crying and reconciliation at this point. Look for news around this time next week -- until then it's just the media rehashing old stories over and over or inventing issues (Assassination-gate) to sell copy.
There was a poll done on black americans and the large majority said they didn't know anything that Obama stood for, except that he was black. I don't see how this is any different than the white bigot who votes against him only because he is black.
Now what would have been interesting is if someone like a Powell or Rice had run. Would black Americans have blindly voted for a black republican?
Technically, neither party has an official candidate, and won't until they nominate one at their respective conventions. But when it comes to counting up the delegate votes, the fat lady has sung. Hillary Clinton still thinks she can scrounge up a majority, but she'd have to get all those delegates from the unsanctioned primaries in Michigan and Florida admitted and convince most of the uncommitted superdelegates to ignore the primary vote. Almost everybody who doesn't actually work for her agrees that's pretty unlikely.
On the question of retroactive immunity for telecoms that participated in warrantless surveillance by the National Security Agency, Fish sought to reassure the civil libertarian-leaning audience that McCain did not support "indulgences" (an allusion to the medieval church's practice of selling absolution for sins) and surprised many by saying that hearings should be conducted to determine the scope and extent of NSA acquisitions. (The campaign later walked back from that position, leaving it unclear just where Fish was coming from.)
Fish was substantially vaguer on the question of what sort of checks and oversight should be imposed on future surveillance, and reiterated McCain's condemnation of Democrats in the House for "fail[ing] to address" the problem of reforming the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. (The House has, in fact, twice passed bills reforming FISA, both of which have been deemed unacceptable by the White House.) He did, however, articulate a more general philosophy of "privacy as security." This, he explained, meant that "just as liberty is not licentiousness [sic]," privacy should not be conceived as absolute control over personal information, but rather as protection from harms accruing from the use or disclosure of information.
Yeah, no thanks. I'd take pretty much any other option than this guy.
Privacy IS actually privacy. It's not privacy (most of the time, sometimes it's ok if the government knows what you're doing, they won't abuse it I promise, and no you can't know what they're doing).
You want to count the votes in the state where Obama wasn't even on the ballot? How is that fair?
I haven't seen a single major media story discussing Hillary's claim of being ahead on the popular vote that didn't indicate that said claim was valid only given a very particular set of conditions. It's all over but the shouting, and additional carrying on does nothing but hurt the primary's winner in the real election.
It's fair because Obama choose to withdraw his name from the ballot in order to suck up to Iowa and New Hampshire.
You mean like how Hillary sucked up to them by saying that FL and MI "won't count for anything"? Don't take my word for it -- it's her own quote [dailykos.com].
Planning for short-term gains at the expense of the long-term is precisely a quality I DO NOT want in a president.
Then I'd guess that you don't want the candidate who ignored the caucus states and whom assumed the coronation^Wrace would be over on Super Tuesday?
And as a Floridian voter who was informed, in no uncertain terms, that the democratic primary would be rendered a non-binding beauty contest, I decided to re-register as a republican so my vote would actually count for something (even if it was half strength).
I'm far from the only one who did that. Even more simply stayed home. The biggest thing on the ballot for the primaries was a property tax amendment which was especially a big draw for elderly voters who owned their own homes.
The democratic primary vote here was deeply flawed and those delegates should not be seated. The only truly fair way of doing it would be to hold new primaries, which the logistics make exceedingly unlikely. I could accept a compromise and seat the Florida delegation at half strength, but knock it off with this popular vote bullshit. It "disenfranchises" every state that held a caucus because Hillary doesn't like those (because she did poorly in caucuses).
If the tables were turned and Hillary had an insurmountable lead while Obama won the non-binding Florida and Michigan primaries, do you think for a second she'd be lifting a finger to get those delegates seated?
Several thousand voter registrations were invalidated and "purged" from the rolls erroneously by several county supervisors of elections. The mandatory recount (which happens in EVERY election in Florida with such a small margin) was only partially completed. Some supervisors felt that simply retabulating the memory cards from the optical scan voting machines was an adequate recount rather than re-feeding the actual ballots through the machines (this is all before we even MENTION the punch card ballots). Bush won Florida, and thus the presidency by a mere 516 votes. Well within margin of error territory.
it's obviously still a pretty big deal for a lot of Americans.
And it remains to be seen whether or not those Americans can actually swing the election.
I for one refuse to base my vote off of the fear of what racists might do. That Hillary is reduced to using this piece of FUD to make her case says volumes about how far she has fallen.
That's something a lot of people don't understand and never figured out; something which I figured out before I could even vote. For most elections and high-profile posts, you should obviously look at the character of the person who you are voting for, but we should understand people in such positions don't make most decisions or even implement the decisions they take themselves, their subordinates do.
Which is why one of the most important qualities in a leader is to be a good judge of character and be able to select good, skilled, and honest subordinates to whom they can delegate important tasks. So look at the people they have working for them right now in their campaign, look at the people they associate with now, or have worked for them in the past as well as at the people they are likely to nominate once they are elected/chosen. This applies to presidents, prime ministers, as well as CEOs in fact.
But let's take a look at races, without prejudice : -> Race A votes 91-9 for the candidate of the same race (and 25% admit that they only did soe because of race) -> Race B votes 58-42 for the candidate of the same race (and only 2 guys admitted it had something to do with race)
Sure, their support is racially motivated, even racist by some standards (racism is a terribly ambiguous word, meaning everything from "pride in one's race" to "discomfort with strangers" to "desiring the extinction of another race".) But I for one can't blame them for it: it's no more wrong than Arkansans voting for Clinton because she lived there for a while, or for military families voting for McCain because he is a veteran. One would hope that voters would take their responsibility more seriously than that, but people are always going to have some sympathy for "one of their own" becoming President.
Well then, what's so wrong about white voters refusing to vote for Obama because he's black? Frankly, I can't help but be sympathetic with those white voters who say they are afraid of black retaliation: the proper response to them isn't "you are a horrible racist!" but "how can we alleviate those fears?" But there is a distinction between voting FOR someone vs. voting AGAINST someone. To take a less controversial example, saying "I am proud to be a Texan!" is less likely to offend anyone than saying "I'd hate to be one of them Oklahomans!", let alone "You can't trust those damn Okies!" (None of the above statements apply to me, btw.)
I will admit that it is a mixed bag, with "black pride" all mixed up with white hatred, and white racism all mixed up with "white pride", so that it's hard to tell the difference.
You quote Obama's "mentor" (actually pastor); I'll quote Obama [npr.org]:
In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience -- as far as they're concerned, no one handed them anything. They built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pensions dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and they feel their dreams slipping away. And in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear an African-American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.
Is voting for your own race necessarily racist? Someone more similar to you is more likely to effectively advocate for your interests. A race related preference may have nothing to do with your belief that one race is superior to another.
For instance, I'm a pot smoker. I would vote for any candidate that smokes pot in an instant. Not because I believe pot smokers are better people, or that they're better qualified to lead, but because such a candidate would be most likely to fight strongly for legalization of cannabis. There's no prejudice involved.
Similarly, a black person voting for a black candidate may only be acting out of self-interest and not prejudice.
The ACLU Scorecard [aclu.org] might be helpful. It doesn't contain some technical issues, and has a bit of fluff, but it's worthwhile anyway even for a general overview of a candidate's voting style.
Both of these candidates, however, are abstaining quite a bit in the recent votes to avoid alienating any swing groups.
With regards to Senator Obama, do you have a citation for that? Everything that I've seen suggests that he is open to the idea of decriminalization. Every quote that I've heard suggests that he realizes the folly of putting people behind bars for non-violent drug offenses.
Obviously that's not as good as Gravel or Paul's positions on the issue, but I'm not going to base my vote on the single issue of pot smoking. Not when we have an ongoing war, climate change, a failing economy, nuclear proliferation and the rise of China, India and Russia to deal with. And yes, I am a regular pot smoker.
Besides which, even if you got Gravel or Paul in office what about the state laws against marijuana? Those are the ones that actually impact pot-smokers on a day to day basis. Other than the bullshit Federal raids against medical marijuana dispensaries I'm hard pressed to think of any meaningful impact that the Feds make against pot-smokers.
Obama and McCain want to put potsmokers in prison.
Obama has indicated a willingness to halt the DEA raids on dispensaries in California. He and Bob Barr (Libertarian) favor letting states handle the issue. Obama still wants the FDA involved somewhere; I'm not sure about Barr. McCain has waffled but apparently endorses the current Bush Administration policy. link [sfgate.com]
What about the Democratic love affair with John McCain? It wasn't uncommon to hear Democrats talk about how much they liked him and how they would even possibly vote for him. Now that it's game time, it's interesting to listen to the silence.
If the John McCain from 2000 was running he'd had a serious shot at my vote in spite of my support for Senator Obama.
The John McCain that we all know and loved seemed to have been replaced somewhere around the 2004 election. I stopped listening to him when he started kissing Jerry Falwell's ass and went on the campaign trail for the man that accused him of fathering an illegitimate black child to torpedo his chances in South Carolina.
(To be fair, I did start listening to him again when he stood against his party on torture -- but you don't hear him talking too much about that lately, do you?)
Right, because the best way to remain a world leader is to cower on your turf, so worried about your job that you turn away tens of thousands of talented foreigners who are just dying for the chance to become Americans and contribute to making your country great.
I'll admit, my stance may be biased. I'm a Canadian working in the USA, and I work with a huge number of people who are on H-1b's, and just as many who are now naturalized citizens, but first came on work visas. Not a single one is considered "cheap labor"; they are paid as much as their local, home-bred American counterparts. The job crunch is not due to people like us "stealing" your jobs, it's due to your flaccid economy to begin with... but from what I can see tech is booming in spite of the American economy's current weakness, and there's really no excuse for complaint in this regard.
Might I remind you that America's initial ascent to world superpower was largely powered by foreign immigration? After WW2 we moved a great many scientists and engineers out from Europe, and they in turn have paid their dues to America. It's a win-win for everyone, except the locals who refuse to compete with the inbound immigrants. No offense, but I've seen some truly lazy people (in both Canada and the USA) who would rather sit and bitch about how the immigrant dude is willing to work harder than he is, and it's TOTALLY not fair. Guess what? Hard work is what put this country at the top, and hard work is the ONLY thing that will keep it there.
Send These Clowns a Message! (Score:5, Funny)
Jack Johnson: It's time someone had the courage to stand up and say: "I'm against those things that everybody hates".
John Jackson: Now I respect my opponent. I think he's a good man but, quite frankly, I agree with everything he just said!
Fry: These are the candidates? They sound like clones. [He looks a little harder.] Wait a minute. They are clones!
Leela: Don't let their identical DNA fool you. They differ on some key issues.
Jack Johnson: I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far.
John Jackson: And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough!
Fry: If I were registered to vote, I'd send these clowns a message by staying home on election day and dressing up like a clown.
Re:Send These Clowns a Message! (Score:5, Informative)
our situation is just like the upper post... sigh...
we've even called (nation-vide) the 2 candidates "Veltrusconi" ( Veltroni + Berlusconi), since they're just the same....
they had the same program, their parties have almost identical names (pd vs. pdl), and the "opposition" actually said that they won't oppose...
uhm...time to change country, i guess...
Parent
Re:Send These Clowns a Message! (Score:5, Funny)
Man: He's right; this is a two-party system.
Homer: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead! Throw your vote away!
Parent
McCain Farnsworth (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Send These Clowns a Message! (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing to remember is that while we might not have as much difference between candidates as we'd like, small differences make a big difference, if they're over something that's important enough. Lots of people have been complaining for a long time that the Democrats and Republicans are too much alike. They're probably right. It doesn't mean that things wouldn't have been different, for better or worse, if Al Gore had beeng granted Florida's electoral votes in 2000.
Many Democrats don't see much difference between McCain and Bush; many Republicans don't see much difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Some don't see much differnce between McCain and Obama. None of these people are wrong, except to the degree that they think the "small" differences between those individuals won't have big practical impacts on the life of the country.
Parent
Do you really think they have opinions? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Do you really think they have opinions? (Score:5, Informative)
I can't speak for McCain, but go watch Obama at Google [youtube.com] and tell me that he has no passion for tech issues. Half of his broader economic plan boils down to putting our faith in science and technology again -- we'll never be competitive with China at building toys out of injection-molded plastic -- we can be competitive in the technological arena.
Half the reason I started following him back before it was popular was because he was one of the few candidates that I heard that even acknowledges the war on science and all the ill effects that we've suffered as a result.
Parent
Re:Do you really think they have opinions? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not to mention the behind the scenes stuff that most people don't see. They use that website (they call it MBO) for everything -- coordinating volunteers and logistics, calling voters, fund-raising, voter outreach, etc, etc, etc.
I've worked on a fair number of political campaigns in recent years and I've never seen one that leveraged technology quite as effectively as the Obama campaign. It was probably the margin of victory over Hillary -- especially in the beginning when nobody else had a clue how well organized Obama was.
Parent
Re:Do you really think they have opinions? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Do you really think they have opinions? (Score:5, Funny)
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Why Bother With An Election?
by Egregious Charles
Firehand of Irons in the Fire, one of my regular reads, got this great
email from a friend.
Sometimes, the Danes seem to have more sense than we.
Parent
Re:Do you really think they have opinions? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's true that technology changes some things, like the economics of using copyright to provide economic support to creators. But a lot of the time technology is used as an excuse to reopen issues happily settled long ago, on things like the first sale doctrine, or the intrusion of the government into the private lives of citizens.
I don't look to tech geeks political leadership. I want somebody smart (which most geeks are) with their head screwed on straight (and geeks are as all over the map on this). If he's a tech geek, well that's nice, but not necessary. If he's got the right aims, and is smart enough to cut through the mumbo jumbo, that's enough.
In particular, I'd be wary of amateur tech geeks -- people who are computer enthusisasts, but not for anything that counts. I wouldn't rule them out, but I'd look extra close at their tech policies, which may exhibit a "knows enough to be dangerous" character.
Parent
Re:Do you really think they have opinions? (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't assume those sets are disjoint.
I'm thinking more of the guy who set up his home inventory system in Access, and considers himself hot stuff with PowerPoint animations, carries a BlackBerry, and takes this as proof he understands Technology.
The whole Ted Stevens "Series of Tubes" flap is an example. As has been pointed out, it is very reasonable to use this as a first approximation of how the Internet works for some purposes. Just not the specific purposes in question. Not knowing the limits of your knowledge is not only embarassing, it is dangerous when you are a lawmaker.
And that's where technological overconfidence becomes hubris, when you stop relying upon your ow personal experience and start relying upon received wisdsom without realizing you have done so. A top drawer lawer, if he was fully aware of his own technological ignorance, would grasp useful and misleading aspects of the "tubes" analogy in about five minutes. In about five more, he'd get on to the real substance of net neutrality, which is gaining control over markets by limiting vendor access to customers.
This is something even a pretty sophisticated engineer might miss, because he's too close. You have to be interested in economics, not the details of protocol implementations.
Parent
Do you really WANT them to have opinions? (Score:5, Interesting)
What you want from these guys is the wisdom to see that letting folks alone to work out stuff for themselves is the best default option, and government should step in only as the utter last resort. You want them to know their own limits, to realize they're not only not experts in tech stuff, but also not experts in farming, or energy exploration and transportation, or medicine, or housing, or education, or any of the other million and a half things people do to keep the wheels humming. They're just lawyers, and if they confine themselves to drafting (or if President promoting the drafting of) well-written, focussed, modest laws that address the relatively few issues that actually can be helped with a good law...well, they'll do a lot more good than any number of demagogues and wannabe Caesars.
Parent
The Message and the Messenger. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Do you really think they have opinions? (Score:5, Insightful)
In a country with over 300 million people, a more than $13 trillion dollar economy, worlds largest military, and many global interests and programs, there are simply too many important issues for the candidates to have a nuanced knowledge of all of them. Realistically, they must all rely on advisors, so I would take the views of their advisers fairly seriously. You can also get at least a sense of a candidate's general leanings, which suggests which advisors they are likely to listen to. It's also useful to look at the opinions of people who you respect on these issues that have actually talked to the candidates, e.g., Lessig's endorsement of Obama [lessig.org].
Now, let me add that, while a candidate must rely on advisors for detailed positions, he must know something about the issues himself, otherwise he cannot reasonably assess whose advice to take. We have in recent years seen a stark object lesson in the disastrous consequences when the decision maker really doesn't know anything at all and is simply led by whichever advisors are the loudest, most persistent, or the most clever at politicking.
The last point worth making is that the biggest problem on tech issues is that money talks. Lobbist access, fundraising, and political ads by large corporations have a tendency to drown out the public interest. I do think that on at least one of these points Obama has a clear advantage: His fundraising is based much more in small donations from ordinary people, so he is less beholden to these corporate interests and has less obligation to spend time listening to their lobbyists at fundraisers. I think this may make a bigger difference in the end than people realize.
Parent
Re:Do you really think they have opinions? (Score:5, Insightful)
This alone should make McCain sound like a very bad choice.
Parent
Re:Do you really think they have opinions? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
A lot can be seen from their choice of advisor. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A lot can be seen from their choice of advisor. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
All I need to know (Score:5, Insightful)
"Daniel Weitzner, an MIT computer scientist"
Who are you going to place more faith in there?
As usual republicans == corporate interests over technical or popular interests.
(BTW, before you accuse me of being a shill or a partisan or an idiot democrat, I'm not even USian and don't get to vote on this. I'm just calling it like I see it)
Re:All I need to know (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact he's an ex-exec from a business that is a prime player in some of the most suppressive, anti-progress, anti-freedom and anti-privacy organisations, organisations which consistently try to criminalise vast swathes of people and totally miss the point on technological issues.... Well that puts him on my blacklist.
Whatever your "it" is, his presence ought to set off some BIG alarm bells.
As I said in my original post - I'm not USian and have no affiliation to either party. I have a preference for democrats but their "family friendly" policies make me sick - but a Time Warner exec as a tech advisor? Seriously, don't vote for this guy.
Parent
Re:All I need to know (Score:5, Interesting)
They have a wider view of what constitutes an asset and the lengths to which they should be able to go to protect them than a lot of people think is good for society. Is it ok for us to become a police state in order to protect their assets? Or do we draw the line somewhere?
I'd have to assume you reference their music and film divisions and how they "criminalise" people who illegally copy copyrighted material.
There's that. Then there's the legislation like the DMCA which criminalises things like DVD decoding on unlicensed devices.
If upholding copyright law and defending their property is "suppressive", "anti-progress", "anti-freedom", and "anti-privacy", then what do you expect from them?
They do more than uphold, they try everything they can to extend copyright and other law in ways that are detrimental to society. See the treaty discussed on slashdot earlier today which would allow border guards to take copies of people's private data stores in order to check for noncompliance. I would like some ethics from them. But this isn't about what I expect from them, it's about giving your electoral mandate to someone who aligns with their interests.
Close a up shop because you deem their business model to be "obsolete"?
Straw man, and not one of my opinions.
It's to make sure that people know that they will be backed up, which in turn encourages innovation. If the pharmaceutical companies didn't have patent protection from the government, they would not be able to stay in business. Although this isn't quite the same as protection of things like music and film, the idea is similar.
Thanks, I have a good understanding of IP law, perhaps you ought to check up on it yourself if you feel the need to illustrate a copyright example by using patents.
Why should a company spend all of the time promoting an artist, who are mutually bound by contracts, if you can just go download the music?
Another straw man.
Do I like how big business operates with regard to art? Not particularly, but artists need to make the change. Don't blame the companies for doing what they have the fiduciary responsibility of doing.
They have a fiduciary responsibility to try to change the law? And to abuse the court system by presenting weak cases? And try a scatter-gun scare tactic approach 0on universities and other folks? This is news to me.
So I think I can blame them for their lack of ethics if nothing else.
And who should I blame for legislation favouring specific business sectors over and above the interests of the populace and the technical crowd?
Oh right, politicians who are in the pockets of the same media companies and hol,d their intrerests above those of society as a whole, or at least are quite prepared to hear a one-sided story. Which is, coincidentally, what we're talking about here, which politician should get your mandate. The one in bed with the coporations that are taking actions I disagree with wouldn't get my vote, were I a US voter.
I'm all for free market capitalism, but I'm not so laissez-faire that I think anarchy is the way to go. Let the market decide if Time Warner's media component is the right business model going forward. Things tend to not change overnight, so don't be impatient.
The market is not perfect, consumers are not always enlightened and competition is not always free and fair. That said it's not the business model I argue with, it's the ethics and the politics.
Some of the worst decisions are made with haste.
This is releveant to what, how?
I'm not asking for radical overnight change, I'm looking for politicians and political parties that will stop us going even further in the wrong direction, then consider what to do from there.
Parent
Re:corporate interests? (Score:5, Insightful)
"So I'm pretty mystified by how you see it as conceivable that "corporate interests" are opposed to "technical interests."
See DRM, the multiple court cases over DeCSS, the whole DMCA and its restrictions over discussion of security, the massive abuse of the patent system (effectively cutting out or severely crippling many of your "thousand tiny tech start-ups you won't hear about".
I'm pretty mystified that you could have missed out on these themes over the past few years.
"Or are you thinking you still live in some quaint 18th century world where the individual inventor can do it all himself, and there is no real need to form large cooperating teams of technical folks and provide them with good support staff and plenty of capital investment -- i.e. found "a corporation"?"
I'm sorry if my use of the word "corporation" set off your hippie and/or student radar. Neither is the case here and I'm quite capable of backing up my previous comments without resorting to impugning the intelligence of those I argue against. I suggest you try the same, nice ad hominem though.
As for "popular" interests: the "popular" interests are what the vast seething market of consumers want
In other words the people of the United States of America, those that the POTUS is supposed to represent and to serve, right?
they don't give a flying fsck about technical interests at all, because they're not techies.
Didn't say they were, I said the likes of the republican's apparent tech spokesperson was against their interests.
"They want their tech stuff to Just Work and be incredibly cheap, if not free. They're not the least bit interested in coolness, or advancing the art in amazing ways, or any of those other geeky kinds of goals you might find among people who seek each other out and associate into a corporation so that they can spend the productive part of their lives advancing those technical interests."
Do you live in a fantasy world? Tech advances are a means to an end for some companies, not all, and not the only means. Large companies exist to make money. In fact for public companies that's a legal requirement or the board can face charges. Yes, a lot of tech comes from large corps, they are good for that, but please don't pretend that corporate influence, especially on politicians, is always a good thing. Especially given this person's prior record.
In the arena of copyright law, the likes of Time Warner are clearly directly opposed to what the people of the country want and are arguably going well beyond what's best for society and business in general. They don't respect privacy, they engage in campaigns of scaring the population into compliance with their take on IP...
Sheesh, get a clue. Or a job. Find out how the world actually works instead of regurgitating mindless slogans from the 19th century.
Back at you. You've swallowed the "money is always" right line a little too far there. Tell me, in your world, do companies always act in the best interests of the whole population?
Or are there no incidences of monopolistic behaviour, unethical behaviour, exploitation of cheap foreign child labour etc etc?
Parent
McCain has been one of Amtraks most (Score:5, Insightful)
Barack Obama's Plan (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/ [barackobama.com]
method is more important than issues (Score:5, Interesting)
Barak Obama consistently evaluates situations and sets goals in a dynamic and networked way. This is how his campaign has generated such a huge response from mostly small donors. John McCain has been labeled a maverick, but has closely associated himself with conservative players and the mindset that an authoritative leader can best set goals for others.
Virginia Postrel explores the differences between these approaches in detail in The Future and Its Enemies. Al Gore, for example, appears to be future oriented because of the many apparently progressive stands he takes on issues, but Al Gore uses a top-down evaluation strategy that locks in a particular view with little input before or after. As such the future is at odds with Al Gore, and will tend always to surprise him and chafe at the positions he takes which are based on a mostly static model of the world and the options for progress it presents us.
Re:method is more important than issues (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Tech knowledge doesn't matter ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Tech *policy* absolutely matters (Score:5, Insightful)
But tech issues absolutely underly quite a few other issues of economics and liberty, and those are certainly have a weight equal to other big issues like foreign policy.
But I think there's an even bigger reason why tech workers *definitely* should be looking at how candidates understand and address issues they understand. Because this is the arena where *you* may actually know enough, as a professional, to really gauge a candidates policy acumen. I doubt most slashdotters are experts in military tactics or nation building. Most of us have a shallow grasp of economics -- yes, even most of you Austrian school autodidacts. Same goes for health care, education, criminology, etc -- Slashdot readers may be smart laymen, but that's all most of us are in those fields.
But lots of us are IT pros. And if a candidate seems to really get it in the area where you can tell buzzspeak and platitudes from real knowledge, that tells you quite a bit about their ability to reach into an issue, understand it, and formulate a plan to do something about it.
It's worth paying attention to.
Parent
Re:Has Obama been selected (Score:5, Insightful)
It's basically all over but the crying and reconciliation at this point. Look for news around this time next week -- until then it's just the media rehashing old stories over and over or inventing issues (Assassination-gate) to sell copy.
Parent
Re:probably a slight majority of americans (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Because it's been a string of 43 white guys... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:probably a slight majority of americans (Score:5, Insightful)
Now what would have been interesting is if someone like a Powell or Rice had run. Would black Americans have blindly voted for a black republican?
Parent
Re:Has Obama been selected (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Has Obama been selected (Score:5, Insightful)
Fish is McCain's guy.
Yeah, no thanks. I'd take pretty much any other option than this guy.
Privacy IS actually privacy. It's not privacy (most of the time, sometimes it's ok if the government knows what you're doing, they won't abuse it I promise, and no you can't know what they're doing).
~Wx
Parent
Re:Has Obama been selected (Score:5, Insightful)
I haven't seen a single major media story discussing Hillary's claim of being ahead on the popular vote that didn't indicate that said claim was valid only given a very particular set of conditions. It's all over but the shouting, and additional carrying on does nothing but hurt the primary's winner in the real election.
Parent
Re:Has Obama been selected (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean like how Hillary sucked up to them by saying that FL and MI "won't count for anything"? Don't take my word for it -- it's her own quote [dailykos.com].
Then I'd guess that you don't want the candidate who ignored the caucus states and whom assumed the coronation^Wrace would be over on Super Tuesday?
Parent
Re:Has Obama been selected (Score:5, Insightful)
And as a Floridian voter who was informed, in no uncertain terms, that the democratic primary would be rendered a non-binding beauty contest, I decided to re-register as a republican so my vote would actually count for something (even if it was half strength).
I'm far from the only one who did that. Even more simply stayed home. The biggest thing on the ballot for the primaries was a property tax amendment which was especially a big draw for elderly voters who owned their own homes.
The democratic primary vote here was deeply flawed and those delegates should not be seated. The only truly fair way of doing it would be to hold new primaries, which the logistics make exceedingly unlikely. I could accept a compromise and seat the Florida delegation at half strength, but knock it off with this popular vote bullshit. It "disenfranchises" every state that held a caucus because Hillary doesn't like those (because she did poorly in caucuses).
If the tables were turned and Hillary had an insurmountable lead while Obama won the non-binding Florida and Michigan primaries, do you think for a second she'd be lifting a finger to get those delegates seated?
Parent
Re:Has Obama been selected (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Has Obama been selected (Score:5, Insightful)
And it remains to be seen whether or not those Americans can actually swing the election.
I for one refuse to base my vote off of the fear of what racists might do. That Hillary is reduced to using this piece of FUD to make her case says volumes about how far she has fallen.
Parent
Re:Has Obama been selected (Score:5, Funny)
Sure no one has the patents to listen threw the whole serman and perhaps those words loose their power.
There has to be some kind of award for this one.
Parent
Re:Has Obama been selected (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is why one of the most important qualities in a leader is to be a good judge of character and be able to select good, skilled, and honest subordinates to whom they can delegate important tasks. So look at the people they have working for them right now in their campaign, look at the people they associate with now, or have worked for them in the past as well as at the people they are likely to nominate once they are elected/chosen. This applies to presidents, prime ministers, as well as CEOs in fact.
Parent
Re:Has Obama been selected (Score:5, Insightful)
Source? That sounds like some ridiculous shit you'd read on a blog.
Parent
Re:Has Obama been selected (Score:5, Insightful)
-> Race A votes 91-9 for the candidate of the same race (and 25% admit that they only did soe because of race)
-> Race B votes 58-42 for the candidate of the same race (and only 2 guys admitted it had something to do with race)
Sure, their support is racially motivated, even racist by some standards (racism is a terribly ambiguous word, meaning everything from "pride in one's race" to "discomfort with strangers" to "desiring the extinction of another race".) But I for one can't blame them for it: it's no more wrong than Arkansans voting for Clinton because she lived there for a while, or for military families voting for McCain because he is a veteran. One would hope that voters would take their responsibility more seriously than that, but people are always going to have some sympathy for "one of their own" becoming President.
Well then, what's so wrong about white voters refusing to vote for Obama because he's black? Frankly, I can't help but be sympathetic with those white voters who say they are afraid of black retaliation: the proper response to them isn't "you are a horrible racist!" but "how can we alleviate those fears?" But there is a distinction between voting FOR someone vs. voting AGAINST someone. To take a less controversial example, saying "I am proud to be a Texan!" is less likely to offend anyone than saying "I'd hate to be one of them Oklahomans!", let alone "You can't trust those damn Okies!" (None of the above statements apply to me, btw.)
I will admit that it is a mixed bag, with "black pride" all mixed up with white hatred, and white racism all mixed up with "white pride", so that it's hard to tell the difference.
You quote Obama's "mentor" (actually pastor); I'll quote Obama [npr.org]:
Parent
Re:Has Obama been selected (Score:5, Insightful)
For instance, I'm a pot smoker. I would vote for any candidate that smokes pot in an instant. Not because I believe pot smokers are better people, or that they're better qualified to lead, but because such a candidate would be most likely to fight strongly for legalization of cannabis. There's no prejudice involved.
Similarly, a black person voting for a black candidate may only be acting out of self-interest and not prejudice.
Parent
Re:Sorry, but I'd prefer their voting records (Score:5, Informative)
Both of these candidates, however, are abstaining quite a bit in the recent votes to avoid alienating any swing groups.
Parent
Re:What about the other candidates? (Score:5, Insightful)
With regards to Senator Obama, do you have a citation for that? Everything that I've seen suggests that he is open to the idea of decriminalization. Every quote that I've heard suggests that he realizes the folly of putting people behind bars for non-violent drug offenses.
Obviously that's not as good as Gravel or Paul's positions on the issue, but I'm not going to base my vote on the single issue of pot smoking. Not when we have an ongoing war, climate change, a failing economy, nuclear proliferation and the rise of China, India and Russia to deal with. And yes, I am a regular pot smoker.
Besides which, even if you got Gravel or Paul in office what about the state laws against marijuana? Those are the ones that actually impact pot-smokers on a day to day basis. Other than the bullshit Federal raids against medical marijuana dispensaries I'm hard pressed to think of any meaningful impact that the Feds make against pot-smokers.
Parent
Re:What about the other candidates? (Score:5, Informative)
Obama has indicated a willingness to halt the DEA raids on dispensaries in California. He and Bob Barr (Libertarian) favor letting states handle the issue. Obama still wants the FDA involved somewhere; I'm not sure about Barr. McCain has waffled but apparently endorses the current Bush Administration policy. link [sfgate.com]
Parent
Re:Vote Hillary! (Score:5, Insightful)
If the John McCain from 2000 was running he'd had a serious shot at my vote in spite of my support for Senator Obama.
The John McCain that we all know and loved seemed to have been replaced somewhere around the 2004 election. I stopped listening to him when he started kissing Jerry Falwell's ass and went on the campaign trail for the man that accused him of fathering an illegitimate black child to torpedo his chances in South Carolina.
(To be fair, I did start listening to him again when he stood against his party on torture -- but you don't hear him talking too much about that lately, do you?)
Parent
Re:H-1b is the real tech jobs issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, because the best way to remain a world leader is to cower on your turf, so worried about your job that you turn away tens of thousands of talented foreigners who are just dying for the chance to become Americans and contribute to making your country great.
I'll admit, my stance may be biased. I'm a Canadian working in the USA, and I work with a huge number of people who are on H-1b's, and just as many who are now naturalized citizens, but first came on work visas. Not a single one is considered "cheap labor"; they are paid as much as their local, home-bred American counterparts. The job crunch is not due to people like us "stealing" your jobs, it's due to your flaccid economy to begin with... but from what I can see tech is booming in spite of the American economy's current weakness, and there's really no excuse for complaint in this regard.
Might I remind you that America's initial ascent to world superpower was largely powered by foreign immigration? After WW2 we moved a great many scientists and engineers out from Europe, and they in turn have paid their dues to America. It's a win-win for everyone, except the locals who refuse to compete with the inbound immigrants. No offense, but I've seen some truly lazy people (in both Canada and the USA) who would rather sit and bitch about how the immigrant dude is willing to work harder than he is, and it's TOTALLY not fair. Guess what? Hard work is what put this country at the top, and hard work is the ONLY thing that will keep it there.
Parent