Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Democrats Government United States

MIT Electrical Engineer Selected For US Senate (npr.org) 120

Posted by BeauHD from the history-in-the-making dept.
A user writes: MIT Electrical Engineering graduate and California Secretary of State Alex Padilla has been selected by California governor Gavin Newsom to replace Kamala Harris. He will join Steve Daines and Martin Heinrich as one of three U.S. Senators with engineering credentials currently serving in the Senate. "Padilla, 47, the son of Mexican immigrants, will be the first Latino from the state to hold the position," notes NPR. "Padilla has been California's secretary of state since 2015. Previously, he was a state senator and Los Angeles city councilman." Since Harris was first elected in 2016, Padilla will fill the seat by appointment until 2022 when an election will be held for the next full six-year term.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MIT Electrical Engineer Selected For US Senate More

MIT Electrical Engineer Selected For US Senate

Comments Filter:

  • At Least It Is Not A Lawyer (Score:4, Interesting)

    by zenlessyank ( 748553 ) on Tuesday December 22, 2020 @07:55PM (#60858474)

    Hopefully he will make a difference.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Burdell ( 228580 )

      I know this is a common refrain, but... the "product" of the Senate is laws. What would an engineer (or a doctor, or a teacher, etc.) know about the specifics of the legal language? I think there is merit in elected officials having some legal background.

      Of course, I live in a state that is sending a failed football coach to the Senate, so... I'd rather see a lawyer.

      • An Engineer would know to hire a lawyer.

        In fact most lawyers would come to the conclusion that they should hire a lawyer. I would say there is no direct merit in elected officials having a legal background there is merit in people with political experience and there is also merit in having lawyers on staff, so you end up with lots of lawyers having political experience. The argument that lawyers make better politicians is like saying chef's make better restaurant customers, there's some truth to it but ult

        • I would say there is no direct merit in elected officials having a legal background....

          I cannot agree with this. I do not require a legal background but I find it helpful. Especially when under oath. Directly.

        • Re:At Least It Is Not A Lawyer (Score:5, Funny)

          by mvdwege ( 243851 ) <mvdwege@mail.com> on Wednesday December 23, 2020 @05:01AM (#60859300) Homepage Journal

          An Engineer would know to hire a lawyer.

          Hahahahahaaaa. Excuse me while I laugh.

          If there is one profession that is solidly defined by "I have my degree in a narrow competence, and that gives me the right to be a blowhard in anything else" it's Engineers.

          • Fortunately, if there is another such profession it is "Senator". Match made in heaven? Hell? Purgatory?
            • Yes.

              (Insert the normal comments about products designed by committees.)

              (I'm watching a film with Ray Harryhausen's wonderful animations and thinking "not the work of a committee".)

          • I hear you. Especially some electrical engineers, and especially when they spout their own armchair physicist theories. Having been taught a little about classical physics apparently entitles them to trash quantum mechanics. I know of one talented EE who is convinced that the Ether exists. They are completely entrenched like a Trump voter, thereâ(TM)s no arguing with them. My own degree? EE (takes one to know one)

      • Re:At Least It Is Not A Lawyer (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Geek On The Hill ( 7534494 ) on Tuesday December 22, 2020 @09:40PM (#60858710)

        Engineers are highly-educated, creative professionals of way above-average intelligence, who apply known science in novel ways to solve carefully-identified and clearly-defined problems.

        All else being equal, I prefer that kind of person to someone skilled in spewing legalese.

        But that's just me.

        • Re:At Least It Is Not A Lawyer (Score:5, Informative)

          by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Tuesday December 22, 2020 @10:26PM (#60858782)

          He only worked as an engineer for a few years, for Hughes Aircraft.

          He has been a full-time politician for nearly all of his adult life.

          Don't get your expectations up too high.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by mvdwege ( 243851 )

            "We need more Engineers in politics!"

            Non-white Democratic Engineer turns up.

            "But not that Engineer!"

            (In analogy to: "I'm not a misogynist, I'd vote for a woman. Just not that woman")

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by dwpro ( 520418 )
              I had no idea this person's race before you brought it up. There was a day we could have had a discussion on a person's qualifications without identity being the primary focus. I wish you'd put forth an argument as to why he is an effective politician -- I know nothing about him and could be persuaded. Knowing his race doesn't add much to the discussion.

              • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

                by Anonymous Coward

                There was a day we could have had a discussion on a person's qualifications without identity being the primary focus.

                Indeed. Back in the day, we knew that anyone being proposed for high office was white, and male, same as all other candidates.

                • That you think that is what is important says some very sad things about you.

                  • That you think that is what is important says some very sad things about you.

                    The AC didn't say it was important. I read it as pointing out that the explanation for the apparent historical disregard of race and gender identity implied by dwpro isn't the only one available. dwpro was clearly implying that in the past we talked about qualifications rather than identity because we were focused on what was important. The AC pointed out that in the past it would have made no sense to talk about race or gender identity because it was not a distinguishing characteristic -- all of the cand

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by dwpro ( 520418 )

                      You can't argue that we were better in the past for not paying attention to race/gender when evaluating candidates for high office, because paying attention would have been pointless. They were all the same.

                      A couple things I disagree with there:

                      We've had Hispanic representation in the senate for ~200 years (https://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/HAIC/Hispanic-Americans-in-Congress/), black for 150 (or 50 if you think that's pedantic), Women for ~100. Minorities have been (and generally are) under-represented but this isn't exactly a new thing to be discussing, particularly on Slashdot.

                      if we're looking at 'ethnicity' - which is technically what's at question here as Latino isn't a race - we

            • Re:At Least It Is Not A Lawyer (Score:4, Insightful)

              by sabbede ( 2678435 ) on Wednesday December 23, 2020 @12:23PM (#60860172)
              No, your logic is crap. For one, "I'd vote for a woman" does not and can not mean, "I will vote for any woman". Nor is there any basis whatsoever for your assumption that a general desire for more engineers in politics necessarily translates into a specific desire for any engineer to be in office, or the resulting assumption that not wanting a specific engineer must be due to some ethnic animosity. Haven't you noticed that engineers don't agree on political matters? Might it be that someone wouldn't want this particular engineer in office because they disagree on important policy issues?

              That you can't think of any reason for opposing a politician other than racism or sexism says some very troubling things about how you see, or rather fail to see, the world around you.

              • Maybe Newsom is thinking that Padilla has a good chance it beating him once the recall is successful, and an immediate election lineup is presented before the voters.

                There are lots of names that go on the ballot, and Newsom will surely be one of them, and Padilla is probably his biggest (well-known) opponent.

            • You are being ridiculous.

              I, and presumably most people here, are perfectly happy with this non-white Democratic engineer being appointed. There is nothing wrong with him. We just don't expect him to be much better than any other politician.

          • He only worked as an engineer for a few years, for Hughes Aircraft.

            Did you miss the part in The Fucking Summary where he's an MIT graduate in Electrical Engineering?

            No amount of politicking will erase that achievement, nor what it took - in terms of skill, mindset, etc. - to reach it.

            I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you don't have anything even close to his credentials - in either engineering or politics - that gives any weight to your ineffectual stone-throwing.

            • Re:At Least It Is Not A Lawyer (Score:4, Insightful)

              by sabbede ( 2678435 ) on Wednesday December 23, 2020 @12:33PM (#60860204)
              Mechanical engineering according to Wikipedia, which also says his only job outside of politics was a brief (about a year) stint as a software engineer.

              One year writing code, 25 years as a politician.

              The man is a politician who happens to have a degree in engineering, not an engineer.

              • A degree in engineering from one of the most - if not the most - prestigious engineering schools in the world.

                One does not go through the trouble of (and succeeding in) obtaining an engineering degree from the top school in the world for it without being an engineer.

                I've never been a "professional" musician. Does that mean I don't think like a musician? Act like a musician? Does it mean I'm not a "musician"? Of course not.

                Being an engineer and a politician are not mutually exclusive. You're talking out your

          • Only huh? So years of experience at the highest level of engineering doesn't count for much. Ok.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by drnb ( 2434720 )

          Engineers are highly-educated, creative professionals of way above-average intelligence, who apply known science in novel ways to solve carefully-identified and clearly-defined problems. All else being equal, I prefer that kind of person to someone skilled in spewing legalese. But that's just me.

          Using that logic we should be electing patent attorneys. ;-)

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Engineers are highly-educated, creative professionals of way above-average intelligence, who apply known science in novel ways to solve carefully-identified and clearly-defined problems.

          All else being equal, I prefer that kind of person to someone skilled in spewing legalese.

          But that's just me.

          I've worked with various flavors of engineers for almost two decades now. I can tell you they can also tend to be introverted insufferable entitled arrogant I'm-better-than-you people who solve carefully-identified and clearly-defined problems in an engineered environment, while living in a world that is clearly not.

          All else being equal, I'd rather have a commoner creating laws for the common man. You're right. Engineers are quite often brilliant and creative people by nature, and can provide a massive

          • Re:At Least It Is Not A Lawyer (Score:4, Insightful)

            by ranton ( 36917 ) on Wednesday December 23, 2020 @03:40AM (#60859192)

            I've worked with various flavors of engineers for almost two decades now. I can tell you they can also tend to be introverted insufferable entitled arrogant I'm-better-than-you people who solve carefully-identified and clearly-defined problems in an engineered environment, while living in a world that is clearly not.

            You may have been around engineers but it's doubtful you have much of an idea of what they do. Most engineers have to get things to work in the real world. I'm not sure what industry you work in where problems are carefully-identified and clearly-defined in engineered environments. Sounds like school. Actual engineering has to deal with dust and latency and human psychology and any number of issues. There is no other profession in between the engineers building things and the people using them. Even activities like product management and user experience design benefit greatly from an engineer's mindset.

            Perhaps you are thinking of physicists or some form of theoretical scientist.

            All else being equal, I'd rather have a commoner creating laws for the common man.

            You either are a common man or don't spend much time with them. While IQ is an imperfect measurement, there is a significant difference in decision making capability between a common man and those who excel in professions such as medicine, law or engineering. I don't agree there is much difference in capability between a lawyer or engineer to solve real world problems, but most members of both professions are far more capable than the common man when making difficult and important decisions (like law making).

            • Since when do engineers, in general, have any expertise in psychology? Hell, how many even have a realistic grasp of the concept?

              Few political questions can be addressed with engineering solutions. It is the wrong toolset for the issues in play. Not only are the problems not clearly identified or defined, the outcome of a given action will often not have predictable effects. Humans are not components of a machine, and do not respond well to being treated as such.

              If you'd like an example of just how

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by jbengt ( 874751 )

            All else being equal, I'd rather have a commoner creating laws for the common man.

            All else being equal, I'd rather have an honest man creating laws for the common man. That would not be all that common, so I wouldn't call them commoners.

          • And on top of that, I'd feel safe betting that brilliant and creative engineers spend most of their career in engineering, not politics. If you spend a year tending bar and then the next 25 years as an engineer, you aren't a bartender you're an engineer. If you spend a year in engineering and 25 years in politics, then you're a career politician. End of story.

          • I've sometimes wondered how well a country whose legislators and executives were chosen by a random draft of citizens would function. I know that's not what you're suggesting, of course. But I think it reflects a similar sense of disillusionment with the permanent political class as that which I've come to feel.

            Would a random draft effectively exclude (or at least reduce the percentage of) people in positions of power who are motivated by undesirable personality traits such as arrogance, narcissism, and a n

        • Re read his employment history. Lifelong politician not engineer.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Counter-example: I'm a trained professional engineer.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jbengt ( 874751 )

          Engineers are highly-educated, creative professionals of way above-average intelligence, who apply known science in novel ways to solve carefully-identified and clearly-defined problems.

          Being in the engineering world for 40 years, I believe that calling the sentence quoted above quote overgeneralized would be an understatement.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by khchung ( 462899 )

        I know this is a common refrain, but... the "product" of the Senate is laws. What would an engineer (or a doctor, or a teacher, etc.) know about the specifics of the legal language? I think there is merit in elected officials having some legal background.

        The result of those laws affects everybody, including engineers, doctors and teachers. What would a lawyer with no knowledge of engineering, teaching, or medicine know about the impact of the laws they are reviewing?

        You are confusing form with function. While the law is written in legalese (the form) that is the domain of lawyers, the purpose of the law is to regulate the lives of everyone, the engineers/doctors/teachers/plumbers/etc, the expert in the function, actually have more to contribute. This the

      • The Senators have a staff. Their point is to determine what the laws should do - they can hire lawyers to craft the law itself. Or, to put it another way, the act of actually writing laws is quite literally below their pay grade. Which is fine - an engineer rarely is given carte blanche to do whatever they like. Usually they craft a solution to what they were tasked to do. And being an engineer means they can understand why, say, a "right-to-repair" law is valuable.

        Also, he wasn't a practicing engineer

      • I know this is a common refrain, but... the "product" of the Senate is laws. What would an engineer (or a doctor, or a teacher, etc.) know about the specifics of the legal language? I think there is merit in elected officials having some legal background.

        Ideally, someone familar with the issue at hand could bring a deeper understanding and point out the potential ramifications of a proposed law. Staffers (and lobbyists) write buills anyway; having someone who can identify the practical impact, based on experience, is important.

        I'm guessing most politicians never read a bill in it's entirety; but rely on staffers to highlight aspects that will hurt or help them politically; and don't care about what's all in it until some obscure line item is used in an atta

      • Re:At Least It Is Not A Lawyer (Score:4, Insightful)

        by sabbede ( 2678435 ) on Wednesday December 23, 2020 @12:03PM (#60860116)
        Hah! That reminds me of how Senate candidate Jon Ossoff recently dodged a question by saying he didn't want to get "bogged down in the details", which was funny because that's exactly the job of a legislator.

        But you don't actually need to be a lawyer to do the job. It's handy, but even handier is having staffers who advise you on matters where you lack specific expertise. There's also an argument for reducing the number of lawyers involved. They have a habit of writing things in a way that only lawyers can understand, which is great for their industry, but bad for the rest of the population who now have no hope of understanding the laws they're required to follow. To some degree that might be unavoidable, but 6000 page bills means we've gone overboard.

        Thing is, the "product" of the Senate isn't laws, it's policy. You don't need to be a lawyer to understand and shape policy, and having policy makers with a broad base of expertise is more likely to result in good policy than if they all have the exact same training and experience. Lawyers and football coaches have very different professional interactions with other people. Don't make the mistake of thinking the coach only knows how to play a game - their expertise is in leadership, management, public relations, motivation, discipline, strategy, negotiation, and so forth. All things related to understanding how people behave and how to get them to reach their full potential. An excellent background for a policy maker.

      • "Padilla has been California's secretary of state since 2015. Previously, he was a state senator and Los Angeles city councilman." He's had plenty of exposure to legalese.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by imidan ( 559239 )
        Usually, Senators do not write legislation on their own. Most bills are cooperative efforts. I agree with you that we should have lawyers in Congress, but I think we should also have engineers, medical doctors, teachers, business people, artists, scientists, philosophers, and others. Each brings something to the crafting of a bill from their background, which potentially makes the bill more thoroughly vetted. We on Slashdot often ridicule proposed bills that evidence ignorance of scientific or technological
    • Doubtful. People are not an engineering problem. Nor do they take well to being treated like one. Though the specific expertise will come in handy for directly related policy questions.

      Though looking at his resume, it doesn't look like he's much of an engineer. Seems he spent maybe a year writing software for Hughes before going into politics. At least according to Wikipedia, which says he graduated in '94 and went into politics in '95.

      So, given that he spent 25x more time as a politician than as

  • Person likely contains a functioning brain, not suitable for work in the Senate. Maybe if he undergoes a lobotomy he'd be more suitable, but even then ... engineer. Better take out the entire brain and replace it with berry blue jell-o just to be safe.

    • You didnt RTFA.

      - Padilla has been California's secretary of state since 2015. Previously, he was a state senator and Los Angeles city councilman. -

      Career politician with an engineering degree he did nothing with. Hes a politician they can control who happens to be latin american so he has the right Optics to control the restless natives. Thats all he is to those elitist fucks.

    • Hearing his speech when he accepted the nod, he seems like a halfway decent dude on top of being intelligent. Clearly, they picked the wrong man. Unless he's got some easily exploitable flaw that can lead to massive corruption, he'll be lost trying to work a government position.

  • We need more lawmakers from Nerd culture (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Applehu Akbar ( 2968043 ) on Tuesday December 22, 2020 @08:12PM (#60858516)

    Arizona just voted to make this happen, even though it meant electing a Democrat:
    https://www.kelly.senate.gov/ [senate.gov]

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by feranick ( 858651 )
      Well, with the antiscience culture pervading the GOP, it has to be a Democrat, really, if you want a nerd with scientific credentials.
      • To be clear: a GOP candidate with scientific credentials, could happen. In practice, s/he'll have to face an electorate devoted to antiscience conspiracies.
        • These days they'd sooner vote in serial philanderers or women who had multiple abortions than a scientist.
        • No, they'll be dealing mainly with actual Republicans, not the straw man Democrats invented to slander them.

          It is not science they distrust, but those who wish to control them. If those who want to control you (mis)use science to justify increasing their authority, then the science becomes suspect. Those people cannot be trusted, they will lie to gain power, which they will abuse, which means they will abuse you. Whatever the basis of their argument, it must be heavily scrutinized.

      • antiscience pervades the Democrats as well. They just claim "Science says so" without caring that science made no such conclusion. Putting people with a disease that kills old people in a nursing home because "science"?
      • Don't mistake a distrust of those in power for an antipathy towards science. Knowing how science works and having faith in it as a system for building knowledge does not mean agreeing with what some politician says the science means or how we should respond. I can agree that average temperatures have been rising, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with the "Green New Deal".

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by geekmux ( 1040042 )

      Arizona just voted to make this happen, even though it meant electing a Democrat: https://www.kelly.senate.gov/ [senate.gov]

      That's nice. Unfortunately, we're not electing lawmakers right now. We're electing "professional" party cheerleaders and political shit-slingers. We'll see if they ever get back to doing their other job anytime soon. I kind of doubt it.

      Politics has gotten a taste of popularity and narcissism now, and it likes it. Much like the mainstream news, facts are hardly relevant anymore. It's all about "ratings" now. You don't read about how lawmakers came together to solve problems anymore. You hear about t

    • Was he a career politician too?

      Jeraldo Ravira has a law degree too. He also hosted Al Capones secret vault for several hours (spoiler, just dirt). At one time he had skinheads on his show because it was trendy to have skinheads and blacks fight on live tv. I would not call him an accomplished lawyer. Why would you do the same for a guy who spent the last 15 years as a political lap dog?

      - Padilla has been California's secretary of state since 2015. Previously, he was a state senator and Los Angeles city coun

    • Arizona just voted to make this happen, even though it meant electing a Democrat: https://www.kelly.senate.gov/ [senate.gov]

      Kelly may be a democrat but, based on his background, I'd wager he is a centristt who is more likely center-right than a radical-socliast-left winger (tm) that the R's seem to want to paint all Democrats as.

      • Kelly may be a democrat but, based on his background, I'd wager he is a centristt who is more likely center-right than a radical-socliast-left winger (tm) that the R's seem to want to paint all Democrats as.

        That was exactly his attraction in this state: a military/tech type more in the tradition of Goldwater and McCain than representing his generally anti-science party.

  • First of all, he graduated with a mechanical engineering degree, not electrical - RTFA. Secondly, engineering is a profession in which experience is worth more than education, so classifying him as an "engineer" is weak. In any case, I hope that Mr. Padilla does a better job in Congress than the OP and Slashdot moderators do at posting.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by kwerle ( 39371 )

      ... In any case, I hope that Mr. Padilla does a better job in Congress than the OP and Slashdot moderators do at posting.

      Settin' the bar *mighty low*, there.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mvdwege ( 243851 )

      "Just not that Engineer"

  • TIL that most states allow their Governor to appoint a replacement to US Senate vacancies for the full duration of the remaining term. I always thought that special elections were the norm.

    • TIL that most states allow their Governor to appoint a replacement to US Senate vacancies for the full duration of the remaining term.

      They don't. Special elections are not only the norm, but mandated under the 17th amendment. However, most states only schedule them to coincide with the next election in the 2 year cycle the House follows. It just so happens that 2022 is the next such election.

      In Georgia, there was a special election so it was actually filling two Senate seats this last go around..

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by pavon ( 30274 )

        Yeah, I had remembered learning that the 17th amendment requires special elections and allows for temporary appointments. I'm surprised that the states/courts consider waiting two years for the next general election period to fit the 17th amendment requirements for a special election. Especially given that winning an election for another position is a pretty common reason for vacancies, so having appointees serve for two full years isn't be a rare corner case. I know when we have had a vacancy before, state

        • It's not just 4 years as the max. Leaving aside a result of death or retirement (the GA senator retired or died), it's not that unusual for it to be a full 6 year term. Sitting Senators sometimes run for (Vice) President and Senator in the same year (I think Warren was trying to do that in 2020). Or, if from a state where the governor is of the same party, a cabinet position in a new administration might go to a veteran, just reelected, senator.

  • Either evil from the start, or was corrupted by being given cookies.

  • ...but less than 40% of Massachusetts Republicans backed Shiva Ayyadurai -- you know, the self-proclaimed inventor of e-mail! -- in the primary, and not even 0.6% of voters supported his write-in candidacy as an Independent in the general. Such a missed opportunity there, MA GOP!

  • A constant source of sadness to me is that (as a tech person, CS to be exact) is that very, very few smart, reasonable people will ever be attracted to politics because of the insufferable volume of backslapping, schmoozing, and complete horseshit our elected officials push around on a daily basis. Mr. Smith is long gone, never to return.

    I know that I- while relatively quiet and pensive, but far from an introvert- can think of no greater hell than having to deal with frat-boy personality types all. damn.

  • No doubt an affirmative action pick for MIT. Meanwhile, I doubt Noisome even knows that Padilla went to MIT. But, at least he might understand that mathematics and statistics are more than just arithmetic.

  • Not all engineering graduates become engineers, or stay "pure" (hands-on, technical) engineers. Practicing engineers (i.e., in specific enumerated fields where incompetence directly risks the safety of the general public) can often be distinguished by state licensing (such as "Engineer in Training" (EIT) or "Professional Engineer" (PE)), though that may not be required for engineers employed by larger companies (the "Industrial Exemption"). Not sure how far along Padilla went along the EIT/PE path, but Ae

  • I'll be shocked if he's not all wired up to charge right in and spark some serious resistance. On the other hand, I'm positive he will conduct himself with the same potential as the rest of his peers.

  • In 2018 almost a million voters in California signed a petition to add an initiative to the ballot to repeal the big gasoline tax which then governor Jerry Brown and then Lt Governor Gavin Newsom had imposed. The ballot initiative (which became Proposition 6 [wikipedia.org] on that year's ballot) simply repealed that tax hike, which would have left the state to fund road maintenance and repairs with the money the state was already supposed to be using but was instead diverting to other programs - in other words, government

Slashdot Top Deals

"Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?" -Ronald Reagan

Close