A Look At Joe Biden's Tech Voting Record 603
Aviran brings us an analysis of Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden's voting record on technology issues. CNet breaks down the issues by category and provides details on the tech-related legislation he's introduced in the past several years. Biden received a score of 37.5% on CNet's 2006 technology voter guide. We've discussed the technology stances of McCain and Obama in the past.
Joe Biden's pro-RIAA, pro-FBI tech voting record (Score:5, Interesting)
That's the original post title and post by Aviran that's merely alluded to here... why the need to neutralize it? Would you have neutralized it for a Republican candidate?
Re:Change (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Change (Score:3, Interesting)
Even if they high profile guy in question has specifically said that he doesn't think Obama is ready to be president? The inescapable implication is that he (Biden) thinks that only because of his presence can Obama handle the job. Or, that Obama still can't handle the job, but that's OK, because he'll do it for him, etc. This is all just a sign of Obama's awakening to the fact that he's way over his inexperienced head, here.
Quite literally doesn't matter (Score:2, Interesting)
If the only alternative is McCain and $haircut, then Obama and LITERALLY WHOEVER gets my vote.
This is the power and the glory of the two party system at work.
Re:Some people just don't understand (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Some people just don't understand (Score:3, Interesting)
Because Hillary would have come with Bill, and that would have been very awkward, not to mention the number of people who hate the Clintons.
I think there's a bit of acrimony between Obama and HC from the primary, besides.
Re:Some people just don't understand (Score:2, Interesting)
The guy Kerry was thinking of making the Democrat VP ticket in 2004? (Which is why he was declared a traitor to his party...)
Re:Change (Score:3, Interesting)
No, Bush promised to "change the tone in Washington", and he sure did. To the tone of a trainwreck under Godzilla's claws.
Mainly by letting Cheney run the country (into the ground), while Bush took the "hard work" of being the Republican power monopoly's spokesmodel, "catapulting the propaganda" [youtube.com].
What we need to get from the next VP is a commitment, from them or from the president, that they will burn down the Cheney Bunker. No Republican would ever do such a thing to their most powerful "legacy". We have to see whether Obama or Biden will do so.
Even if they don't, a Biden behind the Obama curtain is going to be a lot less evil than a Cheney behind the Bush curtain. This is where Democrats' famed "internal divisions and disorganization" protect the people. Which is why I usually start with Democrats as my default, and then see who could be better in the office than one of those "mavericks" who don't all vote lockstep on their secret agenda the way Republicans do.
Re:Can't believe parent gets modded up... (Score:4, Interesting)
Why not? Because you say so?
A democratic government's responsibility is to make the world a better place. A happy society is an egalitarian society. Yes, that goal has to be balanced against others. But completely ignoring income inequality would just make us enter another gilded age. Are you ignorant of that era's miseries, or are you callous enough to inflect them on your fellow citizens?
Re:I'm not voting for Biden or McCain's VP (Score:2, Interesting)
SO you leave it up to the rest of us? Your choice, just don't complain if the worst choice in your opinion gets in to office.
Voting isn't about getting your perfect choice into office. It's about choosing the best candidate from those available. you look at the candidates and select the one you think can a) make the biggest difference in your life and b) cause the least harm to everyone else
I voted for Bush twice because the other candidates opposing him were worse choices. John Kerry was a putz and Al Gore just wasn't a leader (a fine and good public servant but not a leader). He was at the times the better candidate - and I stand by those choices despite the results.
This year I'll vote for Barack both because I think he'll do a good job and because I think McCain would do a poor job. I'm lucky this year... one of the candidates is IMHO a good choice.
SO don't vote - but remember, I will. SO if you think McCain is better in any way than Barack - you could cancel out my vote... or alternatively if you think Barack is the least dangerous candidate you could help ensure his winning the election by voting for him.
Re:Why I never trust "voting records" (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll give you credit for consistency and civility. Nevertheless, I think you're describing a nightmare world.
You and I had counterparts that had this argument nearly a century ago. My side won, mainly as a result of things like The 1937 Elixir Sulfanalamide Incident [fda.gov] and The Triangle Factory Fire [cornell.edu].
Yes, individual liability would work in principle to discourage unsafe practices. But you ignore human psychology. Most people aren't paranoid enough to suspect they're being sold fake, shoddy, or dangerous goods. And even if they were, it's utterly impractical for a private citizen or small company to test everything.
On the other hand, there's a very strong profit motive for companies to cheat and deceive: just look at the patent medicine era. These companies are also run by people. They cheat and believe they won't get caught. Most of the time, they aren't. So they do it again, and eventually people die.
And about your milk: if conventionally pasteurized milk is unsafe, I'm sure the FDA would be interested in hearing your evidence. And if they aren't, your newspaper will be. People will read the newspaper article, and the FDA will be forced to update its standards. That's how things are supposed to work.
Re:Change (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh, come on. His whole point was that if Georgia had been quickly allowed into NATO when it SHOULD have been allowed in, Russia wouldn't have sent tanks into it in the first place. Are you unable to grasp the utility of a deterrent? There's a reason we never "declared war" on the Soviets.
McCain is visibly uninterested in every aspect of policy other than warfare
You're confusing a natural instinct to have the federal government NOT INVOLVED in every little aspect of your life with being uninterested. Obama shows an interest in things that he thinks needs more federal government involvment, taxation, etc. Of course Obama shows a little more interest in health care. He thinks that taking care of your health is he government's job, not yours.
Why aren't you concerned with how little thoughtful observation time Obama seems to be giving the actual reality on the ground in the middle east, as it relates to what the troops - whom he wants to command - are accomplishing? That actually IS the president's job, and he appears to have primarily scorn for the employees he says he wants to lead. Or (just as likely) he has a very predictable, oily level of disengenuous scorn for the people on the left to whom he's been promising one thing when - of course - he'll "refine" his position, and simply ignore once he gets the job.
Re:Change (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, he got us the money. The Internet was a government funded research project, Gore got us the money for it which is all he ever claimed.
Imagine what would have happened if MuCullagh had not placed his smear story? Rove's objective there was to Swiftboat Gore and turn his greatest strength into a weakness. Gore could not campaign on his very real contribution to the creation of the Internet.
So instead we have had eight years of corrupt, incompetent rule, New Orleans is submerged underwater, the economy has turned from the largest ever surplus to the largest ever deficit and 3000 Americans and at least half a million Iraqis are dead in Iraq.
Yes We Can...WIRETAP (Score:2, Interesting)
A domain ready for service to the cause [veropossumus.com] - post your ideas.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
And another thing... 2006? (Score:3, Interesting)
John McCain could have a COMPLETELY different rating by now, because there's almost no substantive issue on which he hasn't reversed his position at least once in the last ten years. For example, McCain was against using the military for "nation-building" (never mind that that was never the mission in Bosnia anyway) when Clinton was president, and was against the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy when they were proposed and passed, but has obviously completely reversed his positions on both those issues and a number of others. For example, McCain was for outlawing abortion before he was against it (when he wanted to be a "maverick," bucking the Republican Party's position) before he was for it again (when he needed votes from the "Christian Right" in the current presidential campaign).
So what do we have in TFS? The use of a flawed means of analyzing Biden's tech voting record; the omission of the more relevant comparison of Obama and McCain, leaving the Biden numbers in a vacuum, looking scarily low for us tech nerds, even if we put aside the flawed nature of the rating; and the use of a page from 2006 to make this argument.
Seriously, I hope the schwag is really good, and not just cheesy "McCain 2008" mugs or T-shirts or something.
I have to give the modern (post-Reagan) Republican Party credit. They have the most amazing, unbroken party unity I've ever seen. This year, Bush's deep unpopularity has some Republican members of Congress (e.g., Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon) running away from Bush and pretending they've been endorsed by Obama. And the head of the National Republican Congressional Committee told [thehill.com] Republican members of Congress to run away from the Republican brand in this year's election. But still, when they need a vote in Congress for legislation a Republican president wants, they command party unity that would be the envy of the Chinese Communist Party of the 1970s. And this despite the Republican voter coalition consisting of at least three distinct parts whose interests are often at odds with each other. There's the Christian Right, which would have the government legislate their version of "what God wants," the libertarian Goldwater types, and the "Rockefeller Republicans," who tend to be socially liberal, at least in relative terms in the 21st Century USA, but conservative on economic issues. You would think this coalition would have fractured, but the Rs have managed not only to hold it together for a quarter-century, but actually strengthened it, taking over all three branches of government for about half of this decade. Meanwhile, the Democrats never seem to muster that kind of unity. Clinton and Carter, the last two Democratic presidents, had a lot of problems with Democratic-majority Congresses. Will Rogers famously said that he did not belong to any organized political party - he was a Democrat. As Homer Simpson would say, "it's funny because it's true." OK, there are signs that Howard Dean and Obama are transforming the party, but I can't imagine it ever being the complete lock-step monolithic voting the Republican Party has been for the last 20 years or so.
Re:"Joe Biden has strong anti-piracy record" (Score:5, Interesting)
Look:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00001669 [opensecrets.org]
Examining the top industry contributions to Biden, there is a TV/movies/music presence there, but it's less than a 20th of his top contributor. Also note that the RIAA/MPAA doesn't even rate a mention in the individual company contributors.
Basically, it looks like he formulated that opinion on IP without ... outside help.
Re:My thoughts on US politics right now (Score:3, Interesting)
Saying there were only 5% of the voters dissatisfied with the choices seemed way too low to me.
Note the "Neither [ucsb.edu]" column. Occasionally it dips down to 4%. I believe you are making the assumption that these two are somehow different from each other. I can assure you, they are not. They represent the same interests of power. If one votes for a person they are "dissatisfied" with, then they really aren't dissatisfied. It is nothing more than passing the blame.
You're right about the sameness of these candidates. We basically have a corrupt one-party system disguised as a 2-party system. And I wasn't making any such assumptions, just pointing out that they both suck, and a lot of people feel that way.
That poll shows nothing but which candidate people think is the lesser of 2 evils. Asked to pick between the two choices, most people will just pick one, rather than trying to stand up to some kind of ideal that they are convinced will simply be ignored anyway.
That doesn't mean people aren't pissed off about the candidates the parties have decided to put in front of them - they certainly are. But most will (misguided as it is) simply hold their nose and vote for the one they think likely to do the least harm over the next 4 years.
"Continuing to vote for the lesser of two evils means you are still choosing evil." I think it was Jerry Garcia who said that.
Re:Change (Score:5, Interesting)
The VP most certainly does set policy especially considering he is the one who carries a tie breaking vote in the Senate. He is the only person in the Executive Branch that has direct voting power in the legislative. Given the lame duck Senate we have today, that tie breaker vote does set policy.
Want to know Biden's record? Search ./ (Score:1, Interesting)
Biden [slashdot.org]
Seems to have a total hardon for the *AA and wants to regulate the 'net to hell.
Re:Change (Score:3, Interesting)
No, they are surrounded by the people that their experience tells them they need around them. Again, lack of worldlieness in that regard is a real factor.
I agree with you that Obama is lacking experience. But who of the Democrats would fit the "experience" bill the best? Bill Richardson? He is certainly worldly, and has depth. Joe Biden? He is one of the most experienced when it comes to international affairs and foreign policy? He and Richardson. Hillary? Well she was married to a man who is revered as one of the better presidents so I suppose that accounts for something. I am not knocking her, she is smart, touch and would have been a good choice. To me she suffers the same problems as Obama.
Where am I going with this? The presidency, a job that having experience is certainly a plus, does not necessarily require it. Having wisdom to know who to surround yourself with shows a fundamental understanding of what it takes to be president.
I will also say that this discussion would do much better in real time and person. It is too hard to have a real discussion about this subject in this format. For the record I don't think Obama or McCain are ready for the office.
Re:My thoughts on US politics right now (Score:5, Interesting)
Being a citizen is hard work if you do it right, and if you do it right you can have influence beyond your own vote.
Which doesn't mean waste your time arguing and confronting people, it means drawing them out about what matters to them and pointing out how the candidate you back can help. It means researching the under-reported local races and sharing the results with neighbors who want to vote but don't know the candidates. It means making get-out-the-vote phone calls, and registration drives in friendly territory.
Re:Wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
I have heard this accusation a lot lately. Eventually, I went and actually looked up what happened. I have come to the conclusion that your accusation is dishonest. A simple google for "obama" and "rezko" turns up thousands of stories, but here [suntimes.com] is a representative one.
For those who, like me, tend not to follow all the political scandals, here is a summary. Rezko and Obama bought adjacent parcels of land. Obama's parcel had a house on it; Rezko's was undeveloped. These two parcels had previously belonged to the same person, who had decided to split their property and sell it in two parts. Some time later, Obama wanted to expand his property, so he bought a slice of Rezko's land. I have not seen any indications that Obama bought the land for anything less than a fair price; in fact, I read an article showing that Rezko made a decent profit on the land but I can't find that article right now.
Lame, lame, lame (Score:3, Interesting)
This anti-tech/pro-tech chart is stupid and arbitrary.
According to the cnet's chart, anyone that's against piracy is anti-tech? Anyone that's for anti-porn filters in shcools is anti-tech? Complete bullshit. I'm sure almost everyone that voted for DCMA and internet filters consider themselves pro-tech, and have reasonable arguments despite being in disagreement with slashdot doctrine.
Same goes for most of the other bills that cnet arbitrarily decided would represent "tech" and arbitrarily decided whether yes or no on each issue was pro or anti tech.
Re:Change (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, a tie-breaking vote only ever comes up about once a year [wikipedia.org]. It's barely ever an issue, considering how many votes congress passes.
And congress is only lame duck because Neo-conservatives have set an all-time record for filibusters, and because Bush will veto everything the Dems do get through. They're trying to cause what seems like a shutdown of Congress, and then blame the Dems for it -- and the public is completely buying it. I tried to argue this same point to someone else, and was only met with the response "no, it's because the Democrats are a bunch of useless idiots." That's almost word for word, and it represents way too many people's thought processes.
Re:Change (Score:2, Interesting)
The not so subtle undertone to the 'celebrity' ad was 'black men want to rape white women'
Wow, man, how's the weather way out there in left field?
And, perhaps strictly-speaking, you didn't provide ad hominen attacks, but you certainly weren't short on personal insults. Here's a few words you used: senile, out of touch, slime merchants, pathetic broken shell of a man, elected out of sympathy, poor vet, sob, and blubber.
Try to show a little more respect for people, and perhaps you won't come off as a loony moonbat. All I heard from your posts was childish name-calling and one attempt at a supporting fact that was lost in hyperbole.
Re:My thoughts on US politics right now (Score:1, Interesting)
'...the system proved once again that it is an abysmal failure in promoting good leaders.'
"No, we have proven that we are abysmal failures at seeking out good leaders. It is we who are so easily distracted by their shiny trinkets. It is we who act so helpless when only we can make the needed changes."
i think it's more like, the ultra rich and powerful decide who gets to become a 'candidate' for presidency, and the last time the rich and powerful backed the 'wrong' guy was when bill Clinton beat out bush sr. Clinton was a nobody from Arkansas, and at the time bush sr had a 89% approval rating.
Clinton made a lot of enemies by shutting down the government several times, refusing to pass budgets full of deficits that make the rich more secure in their wealth and power, at the cost of 'the working man' who pays taxes and gets less benefit from it than the rich and powerful who get all manners of pork through congress. yeah some of the poor got hurt by government shutdowns, but at the end of the day, it was the pork deprived rich and powerful who were moved to put a crony in the white house for 8 years to completely undo budget surplus and economic recovery that had been accomplished by balancing the budget for a few years...
see the thing is the rich and powerful they like being rich and powerful, and they help their kids get rich and powerful, or see them with sever mental breakdowns trying to live up to what their parents expected of them... and they especially want the grand kids to be rich and powerful, afterall they usually tend to swing back into being the sorts of people willing to take the challenges of being rich and powerful, if their parents failed anyways.
if a person is completely unworthy of running a real company, the solution for the rich and powerful is for them to do no bid contract work for the government, where no matter how bad they screw up, they still get paid. there is a real disconnect between the haves and the have nots.
and the poor get shafted, myself for an example, i was denied disability, despite having a serious mental illness twice, it wasn't until i had a lawyer who takes 25% of my back pay that they'd even seriously consider my claim. Arguably i've never been able to handle any kind of stressful work with my illness, and i also dislike physical but menial labor... i also have a hard time budgeting, again because of my mental illness, but until i got a lawyer, they system was rigged against me getting needed benefits to cover the cost of my food, my medicine, etc. fortunately i was able to get the meds for free, because i'm unable to work and they only look at my income, and when a charity housing specifically designed for people with disabilities had an opening i then qualified for food stamps etc (instead of relying on my parents for food etc.)
and i still haven't gotten my money, but the hearing is going to be scheduled shortly where the lawyer will earn his living getting me disability... and the sad thing is, my disability from fed and state is around $700 a month, it's so low that once i have disability i'm allowed to work part time, like at a fast food. at least i'll have affordable living, because my rent will be 30% of my income, whatever that is. but food is my biggest fear, they won't raise my disability just because food costs go up. and my food stamps will be down to like $10 or $20 a month, because i have disability income.
oh well, if it's that bad, my family will help out.
and here's the goofy thing, the only exempt asset are houses, so if my family had money they could buy me a house, which might be cheaper than living in an apartment, but they don't
Re:Who benefits from the Bush economy? (Score:3, Interesting)
The ones who remember how abysmal the past 8 years have been, and how much worse the next 4-8 would be with McCain keeping the Bush economy running.
George Bush - corn $6/bushel
Bill Clinton - corn $2.5/bushel
Yep, they really want to go back to the good old days of Clinton, and make less than half of what they are making now.
Especially those who know that Bush squandered every penny and ounce of respect this country had amassed in over two centuries.
Oh, you mean all that respect LBJ earned when he invaded Viet Nam? Or, that respect earned when Jimmy Carter let the Iranians bully us around for 444 days, or, turned the Olympics into a political event by canceling American participation?
And how, prey tell, do Democrats engender the respect of the world, when, as we speak, they complain that the Iraqis are actually making money and we shouldn't be spending money on reconstruction over there. Does the world really think that we shouldn't have to spend to build up a country that we blew up? OR, when, if we prematurely leave Iraq, and all of those hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people that supported the USA in Iraq, get butchered, and Obama does nothing, then, will that earn the respect of the world? Or, when Obama waffles on Russian bullying of a NATO ally, say, Poland, will -that- earn the respect of the world?
The world may not like that Bush invaded Iraq, but I guarantee you that they respect Bush more for staying and trying to turn that situation around, then they will Obama, who plans on walking out.
Re:Reagan and Clinton were both successful leaders (Score:2, Interesting)
So you've never heard of those no-name colleges "Columbia University" and "Harvard Law School" (where he served as president of the Harvard Law Review)?
That's not much compared to Bill Clinton:
Undergraduate : Georgetown
Graduate : Oxford University (Rhodes Scholar)
Law School : Yale
Then, by the time Clinton's in his 30's, he's a popular governor of Arkansas, turns the state's economy around, is identified as a rising star nationally because -he's a good leader-, and then, runs for President, and wins.
What's Obama done in comparison to -that-? Nothing, really. I mean, he becomes a state legislature, and his biggest claim to fame there is redistricting the state so that more blacks could get elected to the leadership, supporting a bunch of affirmative action and pro-life stuff, and along the way, nearly depriving the entire state of electricity as part of a misguided plot to try and bankrupt the local utility. Illinois' economy sucks before and sucks after, the schools are still terrible where he's at.. nothing.. but he runs for Senate and gets in because in Chi-town he's got 100% of the black vote and splits the white vote with his opposition. IT's a good political strategy, for sure, but its not nearly the same caliber of education, leadership, or success that Bill Clinton achieved.
Re:Change (Score:5, Interesting)
Alternate theory: I read a book recently, called "Team of Rivals", about Abraham Lincoln's presidency. This is a book that Obama claims has influenced him heavily, especially his vision for his own presidency.
Lincoln could have chosen yes-men for his cabinet. Inexperienced men would be grateful for their positions, and feel less qualified to disagree with their boss. Instead, he gave very prominent positions (State, Treasury, War, etc.) to the very men he had defeated in the Republican nomination fight. Lincoln, having served only one term in the House, was about as inexperienced as presidents came. For much of his first term, critics within his own party consoled themselves with the false assumption that the Secretary of State was actually pulling the strings.
All that infighting led to quite a few ego-driven disputes that Lincoln had to step in and resolve. It also led to an atmosphere where doubts were aired, and where issues got brought up and resolved before decisions were made.
The fact is, Obama knew full well that tapping an experienced, opinionated foreign policy wonk with decades more senate experience would highlight his inexperience. If he was feeling really insecure, he could have gone with a one-termer like Tom Kaine or Jim Webb. If he wanted to surround himself with yes-men, he could find a VP whose views more closely mirrored his own. I hope Obama really does try to build a Lincolnish presidency, where the (sometimes very public) infighting usually led to better choices.
Biden seems like a good start.
Re:Can't believe parent gets modded up... (Score:3, Interesting)
To quote GTA:SA, "People dont have a right to cheap transport. The Constitution is very clear on this. Remember, its only a small step from mass transit to Communism."
By the way, progressive taxation cannot possibly be a goal of communism if only because one of the actual goals of communism is getting rid of money as such - you know "from everyone according to their ability, to everyone according to their need". Progressive taxation is typically associated with socialism, not communism (and no, one does not necessarily lead to another).