Congressmen Rated On Tech-Friendliness 270
Uncle Dick writes "CNET has released the results of a study ranking every US Representative and Senator on a scale rating their relative friendliness towards various technology and internet related issues. Republicans and Democrats fare similarly in both houses of Congress, although CNET gives the edge to the GOP. Big Winner? Ron Paul (R-TX). 2004 Presidential candidate John Kerry (D-MA) does not fare so well."
Ron Paul (Score:4, Informative)
For those who don't realize it, Ron Paul ran for President once as the Libertarian Candidate.
Re: (Score:2)
- Sees technology as beneficial when well employed. Fosters it as a result and doesn't push hindering legislation (eg internet tax).
- Sees that guns don't cause crime, people do. Doesn't support gun bans or legislations which simply keep guns out of the hands of upstanding citizens.
- Sees that there is a fundamental issue with immigration more essential than Mexicans
Re: (Score:2)
For what it's worth, I think that guy is right.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not the only one. You should take the World's Smallest Political Quiz" [theadvocates.org] and see where you show up. Libertarians on the balance tend to be very pro-tech/tech-savvy. It would be interesting to see how congressional candidates (not just elected officials) would end up. I'm betting it would be Libertarians in a landslide.
OMG: I'm a "liberal" (Score:2, Flamebait)
From the GP's link:
LIBERAL
LIBERALS usually embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but ten
Re: (Score:2)
Lets see if I can remember how it goes. The Libertarians are the classic liberals. The modern liberals, are the defacto conservatives. The conservatives aren't at all conservative. The neocons are liberals with a socialist background who decided they wanted to call themselves conservative.
Personally... I a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
-Opposes abortion
-Against gay marriage (this automatically should get him kicked out of the liberterian party IMO)
-For the electoral college (this is not conservative per se, but it is certainly not liberterian where one vote should count the same as every other)
I agree he is pretty liberterian, but the last thing I want is a social conservative after the Orwellian years of Bush. Liberals can lean liberterian too (I consider myself both)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess it makes sense, though...it's not the government's place to have anything to do with that. And of course Fair Tax would end giving tax breaks to married couples, which is the only reason I could see for government having their hands in laws concerning marriage. (Health insurance usually doesn't r
Re: (Score:2)
That's right, he wants to tie our currency's value to an international commodity's price. He complains about how 1-2% annual inflation has been devaluing our savings, failing to note that, had we been on a gold standard, the money supply would have experienced 50% deflation in five years, matching the 1929-1933 10% annual deflation that cau
Re: (Score:2)
Where do people get this stuff? Neither deflation nor the gold standard caused the Gr
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you know, no where in particular. It's not like Milton Friedman won a nobel prize for it or anything. It's not like that's how they teach Economic History at, say, MIT and the University of Chicago. It's not like your own response refuting this also advances the same claim:
"It is interesting to note that during the Depression real wage rates generally increased due to the fact that prices of goods fell more quickly than monetary wages; this seems to be a general tren
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
remarkably biased view (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know but it certainly dooms your slashdot karma.
Seriously, there does seem to be a flaw here - does "Tech friendly" mean "Hacker friendly", or "Big Technology Business Friendly" ?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the survey is intended to reflect opinions of tech people. From TFA:
From these issues, by "tech friendly", the survey means "friendly to big corporations involved in t
Re: (Score:2)
Blockquoth the AC:
Fair point. On the other hand, how representative of the best interests of the general population are true geeks? To be sure, there's a lot of overlap, but often with legal or regulatory frameworks, what's reasonable and in the interests of the well-informed and able specialists may be unreasonable or have an overall negative effect on the population as a whole. Surely legislators must take this into account when deciding w
Re: (Score:2)
Read the fine print. (Score:3, Interesting)
3. Prohibit Internet gambling. This isn't really a tech vote. This is a moral socio-economic vote. c|net wanted Senators to vote to allow (not to prohibit) Internet gambling... because it's on the Internet?!
5. Increasing paperwork for Internet Sellers. What's the amendment that c|net wanted a no vote against? "To require persons selling tangible personal property via the Internet to disclose to purchasers that they may be subject to State and local sales and use taxes on the purchases." That's it. Simply inform the buyer that he or she may have to pay taxes in other districts. You see, when you buy in meatspace, this part of the transaction is automagic. Not so in virtual space. Again, I don't see it as being a major technological issue vote.
11. Free Trade Bill. No, seriously. If you voted for free trade, you demonstrated your prowess as a technologist? Give me a freaking break.
12. Over-ruling state anti-SPAM with the CAN-SPAM. Now, you might not think that the legislation is tough enough, but I think it is fair to say that the pro-technology approach to Internet regulation is to not have 50 different sets of regulations within the United States.
16. For curbs on class-action lawsuits. Again, WTF? This isn't a technology issue per se. This is a judicial process issue. To put it in this list is asinine.
But, what wasn't on this list?
* Judicial approvals
* Regulatory approvals (think FCC, et al)
* Committee membership
* Interaction with lobbyists and money acceptance from PACs.
It's a dumb list, at least on the Senate side. I didn't even bother to check out the House side.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Offline gambling is legal. Banning online gambling is discriminatory. I suspect that was c|net's reasoning.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's another dumb list, because CNet commits the error of confusing an enabling technology with the activities that it enables. Gambling is a dumb thing that adults are allowed to enjoy, internet gambling just gives adults another way to access this activity. Gambling activities are best covered by amending or writing gambling laws, not technology laws. Same for most other online activities. The signif
Decisions... (Score:2)
Or, to put it another way:
Would you rather be robbed by a guy armed with a gun that knows how to use it and expertly aim it, or an idiot with a gun who doesn't realize that pulling the tr
Re: (Score:2)
Diebold and sex offenders (Score:2)
Funding for eVoting. Check
Funding to track every sex offender real time, 24/7 everywhere on Earth forever and ever. Check
We're good to go.
Re: (Score:2)
Senator Allen (R-VA) (Score:3, Interesting)
Those of us from Virginia aren't surprised either. Senator Allen used to be our Governor where he spent consider energy and resources courting high tech companies and trying to bring legislation to the table that made us an attractive option for technology companies in search of a headquarters. As Governor, his approval rating was pretty damn high.
That said, as a Senator, he has not fared so well in the polls. He may be friendly to technology interests (apparently 78% friendly?) which is expected given his history on the subject, but he's even friendly to President Bush (apparently 96% friendly?) and that doesn't sit well with a nation or a state that isn't interested in more of the same right now.
I guess what I'm driving at here is that while our pet interest might be in technology, we can't let that drive our vote. It's an important issue category, but it's only one of many and on many other counts these people may be doing quite a poor job. I'd argue that voting so closely with President Bush's interests (seriously 96% is A LOT!) shows me that a great governor does not necessarily make a good senator. I suspect he is just courting the RNC because there has been talk of him being a serious presidential contender in the near future. I know you have to sell a little of your soul to get anywhere in politics nowadays, but I can't in good conscience vote for someone who does it so thoroughly and so blatantly...even if he is good on technology.
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/ [digitalelite.com]
Re: (Score:2)
What I'm getting from your statement is that you don't like Bush, and because Allen voted with Bush so much, you therefore don't like Allen. That doesn't make him a bad senator; that makes him a senator whose votes you don't like.
I really liked Allen as governor, I thought he did an amazing job with Virginia's economy. I don't have serious issue
Re: (Score:2)
He's made some decisions as senator that I vehemently disagree with. I'm not exactly excited about Webb (who is?) but I think he'll be marginally better than what we have now. I wish I could be more positive about our senatorial cho
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not so sure. Not from a lack of trying, but I don't know a lot about Webb. His website is horrid, giving sound bites instead of clear and concise visions of what he will and won't vote for. The bits that he does have statements about, favoring windfall taxes on oil company profits for instance, are exactly what I *don't* want
Senator Allen (R-VA) Hates Consumers (Score:2)
I wrote to him a few years ago about the SSSCA (acronym misspell?), and he write back a polite letter to the effect of "screw you, my consultants say I should vote for it," but thank you for your letter.
Nice. He has absolutely no concept of the consumer side of IP rights, and would mandate DRM and outlaw fair use if he even got a whiff of a chance.
Yes, I'm voting for Jim Webb. He can't be any worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bull Spit (Score:2)
These report cards that measure the quality of legislators based on their floor votes really don't give the big picture and don't really mean much.
First, it assumes that each bill can be rated as either 'good' or 'bad' in some key respect. This is an extremely subjective position and with the low number of tech bills that regularly go through the congress it is hard to say.
Second, it assumes that the legislation is single-issue. The legislative process is one of compromise. Something which may be a fant
AMEN (Score:2)
If the Electronic Privacy Association, the Electronic Fronteir Foundation and the RIAA were to rate congressmen on their "tech friendlieness", they'd each come up with different rankings.
George Allen ranked the highest Senator? (Score:2)
Utterly Ridiculous, Fantastically reductive (Score:2)
The article is lean on the science and heavy on the fluff, but apparently their methodology involved assuming what they believed to be the technology-friendly stance on each of these issues, and then scoring Congress according to whether or not a member voted for a bill that supported
"A Series of Tubes!" -- ranking is deeply flawed (Score:2)
This has to be flawed -- the man got quoted as saying this in a debate:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that the statement would be true, if I'd prepended, "Assuming a normal distribution," which the human population is. Arguing that the Senate is "normal" is a separate matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Average can be the mean, mode or median, from definition 1a:
a single value (as a mean, mode, or median) that summarizes or represents the general significance of a set of unequal values
And probably an even better definition is 2b:
a level (as of intelligence) typical of a group, class, or series
-dave
What about Congressladies? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the word you are looking for is Congresschicks.
-Grey [wellingtongrey.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Who Rates the Raters? (Score:3, Insightful)
And many other ways in which Congress games the system to make laws and influence policies also make such an oversimplified rating as this one nearly useless.
Did the raters rate those 20 bills on which Congress voted on overall "tech-friendliness"? Does voting against a tech-unfriendly bill score the same as voting for tech-friendly ones? Should it, if one is much more un/friendly? How many unfriendly votes can't be counted, and how much worse are they?
How many tech-friendly bills couldn't be voted on because the majority party prevented the vote from even getting to the floor? The raters didn't rate the committees, all of which are controlled by even a bare majority party, but where practically all of the bills are killed or pushed to a floor vote.
And who's so sure that "H1B visas" and other issues are "tech-friendly", and not just "tech corporation friendly", working against the interests of American tech workers, consumers, and perhaps the technology itself?
20 votes across over a decade, to determine a career's rating? Where's CNet's history of producing political ratings, to get some kind of track record for accuracy and insight?
The Tech Law Journal published a scorecard for the 1998 Congress [techlawjournal.com], part of their central mission to cover these issues. I'd be interested in an IEEE or ACM scorecard, but not so much in a Communication Workers of America or American Association of Manufacturers scorecard, unless some wizard could somehow combine them in a model that was simple enough for most people to understand and agree. Impossible, really.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Foreign labor from many countries unfairly competes against American labor with lower labor costs subsidized by foreign conditions not required to be as good or expensive as in Amer
Just too complicated (Score:2)
For one thing, it includes lots of non-technology things. If you say H1-B visas are a technology issue because they impact technology companies, then EVERYTHING is a technology issue. Taxes, minimum wage, anything with financial impact. Perhaps CNET did not have a clear idea of what they wanted the purpose of the article to be. THese votes don't indicate how technolo
Where are the blogs and forums? (Score:2)
Surprise Surprise (Score:2)
where?? (Score:2)
I'd much rather just read the list myself than to read some long winded article about it.
Rick Boucher (D-VA) isn't at the Top of the List? (Score:3, Interesting)
They included votes on Free Trade and Class Action Law Suits, but not Net Neutrality? No wonder the R's scored higher than the D's on that one. Good grief - if you're going to score on a subject, at least limit the scope to the subject at hand.
Re: (Score:2)
"tech friendly" means benefiting tech companies, dummy.
How do they rate? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably not well. While he did push for funding for what became the Internet, he was also big on preventing the people from using encryption unless the government had a key for it too.
Ironically, the most tech. friendly doesn't work.. (Score:2, Informative)
I'm using Firefox on OS X and I'm just trying to click the giant PLAY button on his site.
Sheesh, what happened to standards?
What a crock... (Score:3, Insightful)
Gordon Smith has voted in committee against Net Neutrality. Ron Wyden has continually voiced his support for it. Now there isn't a specific vote they could use to quantify that for all senators, but what is wrong with including such an important issue on their list?
This list is as meaningless as a random number generator.
Z.
Mark Foley (Score:2)
Cuckoo for cocoa puffs (Score:2)
That about sums it up.
Seriously, Rep Boucher, the House's paragon of Internet consumer rights issues scored a "50%".
Microsoft's Rep is very anti-tech (Score:2)
Tech friendliness != Pro-tech. (Score:2)
Then they take 20 votes? Are these really the best 20, especially when the top candidates only voted in around half of them in the senate? Or are these the top 20 that Cnet agrees with? The methodo
Ron Paul's essays (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/06/11/02/1957252.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Technology is a BUSINESS? (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, if you voted "yea" for a bill that allows a two-tiered Internet, with toll-booths manned by AT&T, you wouldn't really be voting "FOR" technology, now would you?
Or if a GOP congressman voted "yea" for a bill that requires all music to contain DRM, after getting a fat envelope from, say, Sony N.A., he would in fact be voting "for" the technology of DRM, but wouldn't be voti
Re: (Score:2)
I'd prefer that people just paid more attention to specific candidates' stances, and not rely on cherry-picked numbers taken by special interests (or bad journalists), but it seems that these kinds of "report cards" are solidly entrenched in our electoral... thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it makes sense to evaluate specific candidat
Liberals (Score:2)
It's an impressive achievement. After all, what is the opposite of "Liberal"? Not "Conservative", but presumably "Illiberal", i.e. somebody who wants to prevent pe
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I think liberals did it to themselves. Clearly liberals have fought for good and meaningful changes in society in the past. Unfortunately many liberals seem to live in that past, when businesses treated their employees like slaves and the employees had no recourse, when living conditions for most of the population were miserable and infrastructure was non-existent, when educ
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid not. Liberal and conservative are both terms used to describe distribution of something. Haven't you ever heard something like "apply liberally to affected region" or "caution: may burn; apply conservatively?" From the very meaning of the words you can hopefully see that these are both about economics in relation to government. Both
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Offhand, I would not say that Dems are stellar with Business, but Republicans are actually not that great. Only to the large lobbying type business are they good with. I wonder what that says about morality and all?
Correction... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I will agree with you on that, It just bothered me the parents post was equating right wingers with slavery... which is factually incorrect...
Now you're trying to equate "right winger" with Republican, so you're wrong again.
It is entirely factually correct. Slavery is entirely a right-wing thing. It's about as purely right wing an idea as it's possible to have.
The problem is that you don't actually know what any of these words mean and so you come across as pretty silly when you try to correct others.
"Right
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So your equating Republicans with extremist right wingers, odd, that sounds familiar....
No, I'm specifying that the *current* Congressional Republicans are extremist right wingers. This doesn not equate "Republican" and "right-winger" in all situations and most especially not in a historical context which is what is being discussed.
The OP was the one equating Republicans with the right wing and slavery, of which i find no indications of slavery being part of the right wing politics platform
http://en.wikiped [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That party doesn't exist anymore for all intents and purposes. In fact, if you look at the people who supported the dixiecrats, you would find that they are considered conservative now.
The GP was getting pretty tro
Re: (Score:2)
The Republicans did have David Duke (KKK) in their ranks. However, the party repudiated him on a national and state level. They even urged voters to vote for Democrats opposing him. The Dems have yet to shun Robt. Byrd.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, he voted against [house.gov] that resolution. The CNet article was incredibly unclear in how checks and X's were assigned to the votes, but as the sibling to this post suggests, the check mark indicates that they voted in the tech-friendly way, which wasn't necessarily "yes".
Re: (Score:2)
I dismiss this entire study outright on that alone.
Re: (Score:2)
You see, congress is like an iceberg full of penguins...
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, I'm not sure why limiting class action lawsuits is pro-technology, as opposed to pro-insurance industry, but I assume that CNET has top analysts who research and fully understand these issues, and come t
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not because he's bad at explaining it. It's just an opportunity to bash Kerry. I can't think of one single intelligent person who holds that line against Kerry.
It's like the Al Gore "invented" misquote; if you can't say anything good about Bush then you have no choic
Re: (Score:2)
Two years ago, Kerry's supporters were potraing their party and candidate as the smart and well-educated bunch — contrasting Kerry's unknown-but-presumed-excellent academic achievements with the publicized mediocre ones by Bush. Kerry would not release his own records...
Several months later — in the summer of 2005 — Kerry's records were released and turned out to be worse than Bush's [sfgate.com]. Ker
Re:Survery them on outsourcing and H1-B visa incre (Score:2)
So are they doing their part to protect the middle class? Only to the extent that middle class people invest in tech companies.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we're supposed to read it as sarcasm. His sig would certainly suggest that.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm... let me think... an internet tax would hamper efforts of internet marketing which would put a big damper on new tech begin sold to said marketers and it would also cause a slowdown in internet use.
Is it so hard for you to understand that the movers and shakers on the internet have largely been those who are doing it f
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately the reason we don't have more people like this is because people keep looking for the little (D)(R)(I) tags beside the candidate name instead of investing time at looking at the candidate. As long as we continue to play "party politics" we're going to be the ones losing... Sure, the (R)s may lose a few seats this election... they'll gain them back in 4,6 or 8 years... The (D)s will be up to the same antics... the cycle will continue be
Re: (Score:2)
I grew up in the 60's, there is a famous incident where protesters started chanting "the whole world is watching" to the TV news cameras (the live moon landing really did have that feeling). Everyone (well those on a bit more than $1/day) can get there own "TV station/newspaper" now, but who can get "the whole world to watch" these days?
OTOH: I want to see the net free and flourishing (with due respect to victims of crimes and the assumption of innocence). P