Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Kansas Nerd Uses Net To Shake Up Political Fundraising

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the will-it-still-work-once-everybody-is-doing-it dept.

Government 179

ghostlibrary sends a note about Sean Tevis, an information architect in Kansas, who is running for state representative with the help of an xkcd lookalike cartoon and grassroots Net-based fundraising. Tevis had garnered more than 6,000 contributions, most of them small, from around the country, far out-fundraising his opponent. Major news outlets have picked up the story as a harbinger of 21st-century Net-based political campaigning. Reader ghostlibrary adds, "As a bonus, Tevis cites xkcd intentionally (rather than just ripping it off without crediting it) and, well, it's actually funny."

cancel ×

179 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Results of the election (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24627769)

"Strangely, he won the election with a +5, Insightful."

BIG BLACK COCK (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24627963)

Yes, big black cock. I mean really, you can't beat that. Hmm actually yes you can. Yes you can.

Re:Results of the election (3, Funny)

Tolkien (664315) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629297)

Note to voters: go to his ralleys with signs that say "+5, Insightful" and "+5, Informative"!

How about some links? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24627789)

How about some links to the guy?

Tevis' website [seantevis.com] and the comic in question [seantevis.com] should get most people started.

Saw this last week... (4, Insightful)

fitten (521191) | more than 6 years ago | (#24627795)

and donated even though I don't live in his state and I typically don't vote Democrat (don't vote Republican, either). We need new blood in political office... people who are a little more 'in' with technology, etc.

Re:Saw this last week... (4, Funny)

dattaway (3088) | more than 6 years ago | (#24627909)

I live next to State Line Road on the Missouri side. Kansas needs all the help they can get! I donated to keep the grass greener over there!

Re:Saw this last week... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24628485)

I should donate money to Missouri so that when I drive over state line I don't fall into the giant pot hole that is the Missouri road system.

Re:Saw this last week... (5, Funny)

mhall119 (1035984) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628249)

We need new blood in political office... people who are a little more 'in' with technology, etc.

Great, then we'll just have them wasting time filibustering measure to declare Vi better than Emacs, or KDE better than Gnome.

Re:Saw this last week... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24628627)

Oh get real. What kind of an idiot would put someone in office who uses Vi or KDE? I mean give me a break.

Re:Saw this last week... (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629359)

To mods: Whoosh.

To AC: I fully support a filibuster to kill Emacs and GNOME.

Re:Saw this last week... (1)

mhall119 (1035984) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629817)

I can see Linus and Theo drafting legislation that would cure all disease, end hunger and create world peace, but then being unable to pass it because they can't agree on what license to release it under.

Re:Saw this last week... (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628783)

Strom Thurmond still holds the record for longest filibuster (24 hours 18 minutes). I'd always heard that he did this by reading the names from the DC phonebook (though some cursory searching indicates that Al D'Amato might've used that trick when he got the second longest record, just under 24 hours). I'd like to see someone step up to the mike on the Senate floor, and start reading the source code for gcc, or the Linux kernel, or maybe something truly monstrous like OpenOffice.org. That would be one for the record books!

Re:Saw this last week... (3, Insightful)

fugue (4373) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629515)

...or just as alien from the usual content of the Senate meetings--and just as opaque--the actual laws that the senators vote on...

Re:Saw this last week... (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629305)

We need new blood in political office... people who are a little more 'in' with technology, etc.

"Intelligent Design" Kansas more than anyone.

He's got my $8.34.

Re:Saw this last week... (2, Interesting)

Mahjub Sa'aden (1100387) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629609)

I live in Canada... and I donated $10.00. Hell, I don't care where this guy is getting elected: If I can help influence an election by my tiny donation toward a tech-literate progressive, I'll do it.

Re:Saw this last week... (1)

Alsn (911813) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629755)

I live in Sweden and was thinking the same thing, unfortunately according to his webpage only US-citizen donated money is legal to use in your campaign. :|

Black Hat Man for Office! (3, Funny)

Xenographic (557057) | more than 6 years ago | (#24627799)

Dammit. And here I was hoping we could elect BHM...

Although, I guess BHO is only one letter off. Or two, depending on your metric.

breaking news! (-1, Troll)

geekd (14774) | more than 6 years ago | (#24627803)

Once again, /. is right there, breaking news, reprinting from Digg 3 weeks late.

Seriously, this is a month old. I gave him $10 back in July.

Re:breaking news! (2, Interesting)

Jrabbit05 (943335) | more than 6 years ago | (#24627829)

The news is he's picking up national news media. Which is a great followup. As a Kansan, I hope he wins he's got some cool transparency ideas that everyone can benefit from.

Re:breaking news! (5, Insightful)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 6 years ago | (#24627857)

Once again, /. is right there, breaking news, reprinting from Digg 3 weeks late.

Seriously, this is a month old. I gave him $10 back in July.

Anybody who comes to /. for the "scoop" is an idiot. What you come here for is the discussion with fellow geeks.

You must be new h- *checks UID of parent* -you really ought to know better by now.

Re:breaking news! (2, Insightful)

JustOK (667959) | more than 6 years ago | (#24627921)

what have you done for him lately?

Why? (4, Insightful)

xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D (1160707) | more than 6 years ago | (#24627875)

I still have no idea why anyone would give this guy money or vote for him. Is it just because he's a nerd?

Let's look at his education policy [seantevis.com] . Apparently his entire platform on education is "we should have the best schools". How would he go about making that happen, you ask? Why it's simple! By making sure they're the best, of course!

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 6 years ago | (#24627923)

I assume that based on his other platforms, he's going to increase the quality of schools by setting performance standards for teachers and ensuring they aren't squandering the funding they're getting.

You hear that Sean? I have an education policy for you, and it'll only cost you a cup of coffee.

Re:Why? (3, Interesting)

Thaddeaus (777809) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628693)

And how do you set the standard? Are you going to go by the whole "X at Y level" where X is the subject and Y is the grade? What if a 5th grade teacher has five kids who come into their class and can't read beyond a second grade level? Should she just ignore them and make sure the rest of the kids are at at least 5th grade? Or devote a lot of her time to helping the five kids at the suffering of the other 22? And what if the majority of the class doesn't even get to the fifth grade level, only the fourth? Even if that's a 100% increase, it would still be failing. Should we blame the teachers for helping kids to the best of theirs and hers abilities? And before you ask, no, kids do not get held back for something as simple as not being able to read.

Oh, what's that you say? We should send them to the special education room? Which one, the underfunded, thus understaffed and overworked one? I'm sure that's going to do wonders for those kids. But let's face it, the parents of the "normal" kids don't want to pay for some "special" kids to get "special treatment" just because they're not as smart as little Jimmy Normal.

I think the better idea is to simply fail the schools and take away all their money and then have the district pay to send all the kids to another school district. You know, pay with all that money that's rolling in from the magical fairy elves who love education. You know the ones, they're imaginary.

And about your standards, I'm guessing you want some sort of test for this standard? You know what will NEVER happen, each state definitely won't have their own standard for each grade and therefore each state definitely won't have their version of the test. That will NEVER happen. And since that will NEVER happen, we shouldn't go and set a nationwide standard or anything, because that would be TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT and that would be BADDDDDDDD. Instead, if anything like the above happens we should simply ignore it and move on. Oh and take their money away. Because after all, the kids must be learning something, right? Right? Aren't they?



All of this comes from a teacher of 30 years who is really sick and tired of all of this shit. Seriously, if I have to teach another kid how to JUST pass a test and nothing more, I'll probably %!$*%& [NO CARRIER]

Re:Why? (1)

wellingj (1030460) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628795)

Maybe you should recognize that the onus of learning isn't on the teacher, but on the student. We should put the performance standards on the students. But I agree that the funds are probably being squandered either way. You don't need much more than a library/internet and the right mindset to get a PHD, no matter how bad or good your teacher is.

Re:Why? (1)

wellingj (1030460) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628809)

I guess I meant to say an equivalent education to a PHD.

Re:Why? (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629499)

As the parent you responded to, I completely agree with you. As an auto didactic individual who finds the areas he's weak in, and educated himself accordingly, I find that making the subject matter available at no charge would be a huge leap forward (a la Wikipedia style). At that point, your major expense would be qualified teachers teaching the material, and programs to reinforce the importance of education with parents.

Re:Why? (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628805)

Not to be partisan, but he's a Democrat. Which means I find it difficult to believe he would be able/willing to go up against teachers' unions and install performance based standards.

Re:Why? (1)

LordZardoz (155141) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629789)

Since he is not taking cash directly from the unions, I do not see why he would have a problem with going up against them.

END COMMUNICATION

Re:Why? (5, Interesting)

Meshugga (581651) | more than 6 years ago | (#24627969)

Exactly.

Also, an eye-opener was, that that same guy originally had some weird attitude about immigrants, a la "american jobs only for american people", which he switched, when a huge cryout from the /. rolled over him...

And I really think he already was mentioned on /. some time (weeks-months) ago, at least I recall a particular cartoon, that with the 20$ thing.

Please chaps, please think twice before giving a guy money just because he is "from the internets".

And please stop political advertising on /., it really sucks, no matter who it is.

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

ShadeOfBlue (851882) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628069)

While I haven't donated, I say give the guy a chance. Has he thought everything through? Probably not, but our political system is filled with the merely ignorant to the truly cretinous caricatures or corruption. If he wins I'll be interested in following his story, see how an outsider does.

Or to put it another way, do we have good reason to put much faith in this guy? No, but we have a whole lot of reasons to not put any faith in the other guys.

Re:Why? (3, Interesting)

Meshugga (581651) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628133)

Well, while there is nothing wrong with having a good technology policy and so earning the election and funding bonus for (almost) being a nerd, there is something wrong with getting money through it AND indulging in policies about topics like immigration in the way he did. Irritating that he didn't leave neither his original policy ("american jobs for american people"), nor his reaction to the community ("ok, now i see my primary source of funding (the internets) doesn't like that, so i revert and remove it from my programme").

At least, there is something wrong with people giving him money without being informed about his *other* policies (or his general mindset, that is).

I'm sorry to say this, but he plays you guys like sock puppets.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24628997)

Twitter would be proud.

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24629005)

Wow. Your entire post is one big capitulation to mediocrity. It boils down to "sure he's not good, but neither is anyone else, so why demand better?" I guess we get the elected officials we deserve.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24628095)

What? A representative changed his mind due to popular opinion? Scandal!

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

Meshugga (581651) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628153)

Nah. He is like "I don't have a policy on immigration, so give me money for my policy on technology." - but indeed, he HAD and very probably still has a policy on immigrantion. But where can I read about it?

After all, the whole guy goes into office, not just the part of him with the cool technology policy and the comic.

Re:Why? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24628817)

Nah. He is like "I don't have a policy on immigration, so give me money for my policy on technology." - but indeed, he HAD and very probably still has a policy on immigrantion. But where can I read about it?

Quibble. He probably has an opinion on immigration.

There's a qualitative difference between having an opinion and having a policy.

Re:Why? (1)

initialE (758110) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628739)

What would be interesting is if somebody bothered to get the opinions of everyone before going out and stating their position on an issue. Would that be so hard to do?

Re:Why? (2, Funny)

corbettw (214229) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628811)

And please stop political advertising on /., it really sucks, no matter who it is.

I couldn't agree more, I hate that shit.

Wait, you're telling me... (5, Insightful)

Legion_SB (1300215) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628187)

... someone running for a state representative spot isn't posturing as having the answer to every single problem?

This is a problem with politics. What we need in government are people who know a lot about certain fields, who are willing to listen to others who know a lot about other fields.

Instead, as the parent post so painfully illustrates, what we as voters do is vote for the people who claim to have ALL the answers. And guess what? The ones who claim to know the answers to everything are the ones who don't know crap about anything.

Re:Wait, you're telling me... (2, Insightful)

xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D (1160707) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628331)

It's a good point. Arguably, this is the reason for having political parties. He could say "well I don't have a detailed policy on that issue, but I like what my colleague has".

More to the point, though, the job requires being able to make decisions on pretty much everything. It would be nice to able to say "you don't have to know everything", but, well...you're only going to be able to do part of your job then, aren't you?

Re:Wait, you're telling me... (3, Insightful)

Thaddeaus (777809) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628741)

Yeah, what I can't believe is how in the comment discussion about the food tax, he replies back that he's going to put his full plan online

after a couple of economists have taken a look at it.

Apparently he's doesn't know enough and is going to have some experts help him! Can you believe the nerve of that guy?

Re:Wait, you're telling me... (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629933)

This is a problem with politics. What we need in government are people who know a lot about certain fields, who are willing to listen to others who know a lot about other fields.
.

The successful politician knows what is important to the voters in his home district. The problem for the geek is in making his issues compelling and a priority to the voters in any district.

The retiree in New York is thinking about how the devil he is going to pay his winter heating bills and the chance that he might loss his home in foreclosure.

The geek who talks up net neutrality and copyright reform while downloading The Dark Knight is Marvin the Martian -
incomprehensibly trivial, alien and irrelevant.

Re:Why? (3, Informative)

greg1104 (461138) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628205)

Well, look at his opponent's issues page [arlensiegfreid.com] and you'll find even less than that. According to vote smart [votesmart.org] , the incumbent has voted in line with the Kansas Association of School Boards only 10% of the time in 2006, despite his claims of supporting "Quality Education". It's hard to imagine Sean doing worse.

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628387)

Well, look at his opponent's issues page [arlensiegfreid.com] and you'll find even less than that. According to vote smart [votesmart.org] , the incumbent has voted in line with the Kansas Association of School Boards only 10% of the time in 2006, despite his claims of supporting "Quality Education". It's hard to imagine Sean doing worse.

So, let's see if I understand your thinking. Our schools stink. This politician says he is for Quality Education, but he disagrees with the people who run our schools (which stink), therefor he must not really be for Quality Education.
As a general rule, if you think the schools need fixing, it is probably a good idea to vote for a politician who is not in the pocket of the School Boards. If you want to improve the schools, then, most of the time, you want to vote against the guy who is endorsed by the Association of School Boards or the Teachers' Unions. Both of these organizations have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, neither organization has a particular interest in actually improving the schools.

Re:Why? (1)

Thaddeaus (777809) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628933)

Besides what Attila said, it would seem that the Kansas Association of School Boards are the ones who don't seem to "get" evolution. So it would probably be good if he was going against them.

And no, I can't be bothered to go and look up his voting record to see what that says about any of this, fuck research.

Re:Why? (2, Informative)

Tadghe (18215) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628237)

Yup, this is exactly why I donated to his opponent.

Why should a guy get elected just because he happens to be a geek? How about electing someone who has a clue about getting things done.

Re:Why? (1)

StrawberryFrog (67065) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628375)

I still have no idea why anyone would give this guy money or vote for him

he doesn't have to be perfect, he just has to be better than his opponent. Read the comic [seantevis.com] already. Panel 1 should do it.

Re:Why? (1)

chicocarlucci (1345953) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629195)

Let's look at his education policy [seantevis.com] . Apparently his entire platform on education is "we should have the best schools". How would he go about making that happen, you ask? Why it's simple! By making sure they're the best, of course!

While I completely agree with you, usually our elections come down to choice of two, equally ambiguously-intentioned candidates.

Presenting: The Other Guy's Issue List [arlensiegfreid.com]

Copied and pasted here in it's entirety

Serving District 15 for 6 years... Arlen Siegfreid supports: * Quality Education * Economic Development * Control of Government Growth & Taxes * Public Safety & Security * Family Values Arlen has also issues a white paper on Reappraisal Reform. Stay tuned for a more detailed outline of Arlen's platform and positions.

Re:Why? (3, Funny)

B3ryllium (571199) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629251)

Great, just what we need. OOP.

Objective-Oriented Politics.

$KansasSchools = new SchoolSystem( 'Kansas' );
$KansasSchools->setBest( true );
$KansasSchools->save();

Re:Why? (1)

Alsee (515537) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629433)

I still have no idea why anyone would give this guy money or vote for him.

Why?

The very fist panel here [seantevis.com] is almost enough to make me wish I lived in Kansas just so I could vote for him. And an excellent title - It's Like A Flamewar with a Forum Troll, but with an Eventual Winner. Apparently a LOT of people are willing to donate $8.34 (or more) to downmod a Troll out of office.

I looked over the rest of his site, which only reaffirmed that first impression. He seems like a smart funny reasonable... and yes sci&tech savvy guy trying to a troglodyte out of office. Then I skimmed his opponent's site (which has even less info), which does nothing to diminish that first impression.

-

Internet is the Great Equalizer the Next Evolution (-1, Troll)

FromTheAir (938543) | more than 6 years ago | (#24627913)

Internet is the Great Equalizer leading to Collective Control Individual Sovereignty

Just like the Gun and Gun powered transformed humanity and the balance of power then and brute force was replaced with economic force. The new force and kid on the block is collective intelligence and collective intent. The Internet is ushering in a new mind age the next phase of evolution.

Collective Control with individual sovereignty made possible by flash communication and the crème rising to the top by word of link and a mouse click.

I am not a communist, socialist, or capitalist.

I am a Universalist.

The aforementioned systems eventually create imbalance because of their inherent flaws. All of them allow a few to have a disproportionate advantage and to usurp wealth from others without making a genuine value contribution. They are plagued by ego impediment which stifles efficiency and evolution. All three can be used to disguise an oligarchy and create the appearance or illusion of a government for the people by the people.

Universalism is what some might label or describe a hybrid of the above systems. It is unique in that the systems design has engineered the ego impediments out of the system and allows for an integrated perspective, policy, and effort.

The source disconnected ego is like a plague and cancer in a social system especially when inadvertently given power. One of the primary features of the Universal System is that it helps to create a source connection.

The main disadvantage to the Universal System of Government is that it requires advanced technology and communications. This is why in planetary societal development the other systems arise first as part of the evolution and they often work fitting for the level of consciousness, much actually depends on the individuals empowered to run them. and assigned to represent the various interests. The effects of the flaws in these systems actually provide the impetus to evolve them into the universal system when the level of technology becomes advanced enough which it now has.

The Universal Government is really a bunch of independents working as one and doesn't require party divisions although there can be group affiliations with specific intentions or specializing in special areas of focus.

One of the outstanding attributes of Universalism is that it does not maintain self dividing labels; the only labels that it uses are those that define relationships not those used to divide.

There are parties in this form of government, social gatherings for social intercourse.

Your mission as a constituent is to vote in source connected ego and replace source disconnected ego.

How does one discern?

The source "disconnected" ego has a trunk full of beliefs and subscribes to many fictions; it tends to see itself as separate and competing with the world and therefore uses divisive labels. It tends to respond to the Illusions failing to see beyond the appearances and it supports the fictions and rewards those that help support them.

The source "connected" ego has few if any beliefs but speaks of knowing through direct experience, possibility and probability. It will not use divisive labels and it lives the truth. It tends to see itself as part of the world and collaborates with it. It tends to see the reality behind any illusions and responds to that and not the illusion.

The winning candidate knows that every time they use a divisive label they cancel votes for their self. They know that by not using any divisive labels they retain or gain all votes.

The losing candidate engages in the use of divisive labels, which may have worked in a world dominated by ignorance and a successfully divided constituency if they played the numbers right, but in a world fresh with a new awareness and a new consciousness of unity, it fails.

http://oneclickrevolution.com/ [oneclickrevolution.com]

Universal Self Government Systems (-1, Troll)

FromTheAir (938543) | more than 6 years ago | (#24627949)

Universal Self Government Systems

New Consciousness Government

Collective control with individual sovereignty Wisdom council stop gap for collective ignorance Liberty and truth watchdog group to preserve individual sovereignty and freedom.

We have most of the elements in place what is missing is a measured and authenticated voice of the people. An element when properly executed would have more power than any lobby or special interest. A representative then only needs to look at the sum total of the intent of their constituents and use this as a reason to decline the requests of political favor and know without question how they should represent the will of the people.

So we have the conservative perspective (wisdom) and the liberal perspective (freedom) combined to create an integrated perspective with balance.

Note that the term "conservative" now is actually being used by those that lacking wisdom and wishing to maintain the status quo that provides them a disproportionate advantage. The result is that conservatives by resisting change, thwart the evolution of mankind and the nation.

Another fundamental component of this evolved system of government is a public forum for Open Socratic Dialog. This allows for all perspectives to be heard. When we integrate two polarities we get a whole perspective which l4eads to balance and all needs not necessarily wants are met. When we base implementation on one or the other polarity we get imbalance.

A socratic dialog not only serves to create an integrated and balanced perspective it brings in the power of collective intelligence to eliminate the fictions and falsity. Fictions that would divide us while we debate the which fiction is most true while missing the truth that would resolve the conflict. The other benefit of Socratic Dialog is collective wisdom and insight.

Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism have not worked to produce a world providing everyone a life worth living even in their own individual domains, due to ego impediment, the fiction of separation and the suppression of individual freedom and the use of force.

Rather than the specific government system it has more to do with the level of consciousness and so we seek first to raise this and from this will result a new system that will work.

One would be building a new system government facilitated by the Universal Information System, having collective control with individual sovereignty. Current management and leadership that fail to evolve would be relieved of their positions naturally without force based on a measured performance in supporting the intentions and will of the people. Where the current controlling groups have used economic devices to replace armies and brute force; one will use communications and technology to replace the use of economic force. Where money was used as the currency of power this next evolution will use the truth and collective intent as the currency of power and money to direct the energy.

This Georgian conflict is bringing some insight as to the political and government system flaws and "illusions" or fictions that manifest the conflict and there are a lot of dynamics at play here and many different players far away from the conflict itself. Politics being how various needs and wants are expressed and met or obtained how combined efforts are implemented and what joint ventures are formed and funded.

Since one is working on the new Universal Self Government Systems Design and the truth based shifts in perception and perspective that are required for

"EveryOne a life worth living"

It is bringing to light some of the new system design requirements and questions to be answered.

Here we have a big game being played. Let's touch on the players and their motivations, the reality and the illusions.

We have a small group of men in Russia and a small group of men in Georgia the so called leadership or management. We will call these the "main" Chess players. We have the citizens of Russia and the citizens of Georgia, then we have these artificial boundaries drawn up by who based on what, something arbitrary perhaps? Then we have the citizens of this small region in question. We will call the citizens the pawns in the game being played by the chess players. There are other players here as well, the bankers, the insurance industry, the arms dealers and defense industry.

The chess players claim to be representing the interests of the pawns and actually to be serving them. I would venture to say that the interests of the pawns are second to the interests of the Chess players. In fact the pawns are the first to be sacrificed. Those making the war moves are far removed from the conflict, the sacrifice, and the horror.

In this situation we have the people of this region in question currently under the control of the Georgia chess players unhappy and wishing to be aligned with the Russian chess players. No doubt this region has tangible assets aside from the people simply living there which the chess player in Georgia does not want to lose.

From a humanistic perspective the citizens of this region should be allowed to decide their alignment and joint venture agreement. Of course here we must ask the question though is this desire to be a part of the Russian Federation the want of the "whole" of the citizens of this small region or is it the desire of a few of them that will obtain some disproportionate advantage by instigating the new joint venture with the new party?

How do we ensure that the needs of the pawns are put first over the wants of the Chess players? Collective control and decision making would work but how do we balance some of the disadvantages of collective control that might prove to be true? Where an individual agent would be much more efficient and timely in making decisions? Can we overcome these disadvantages using technology? Can the two be integrated? How does the collective ensure that the individual agent's intentions remain in alignment with the intentions of the collective? Transparency is one way.

What of the artificial divisions created by labels, and the artificial boundaries created by lines on a map? Are they not the true source of conflict that by design destroys unity? Would we not erase them from our minds so we can live as one in harmony?

The new way of setting boundaries is by joint venture and in the New World boundaries would be defined by joint venture.

(Universal) Platform & Framework Part 1 (-1, Troll)

FromTheAir (938543) | more than 6 years ago | (#24627979)

(Universal) Platform & Framework Part 1

One's vision of a new universal integrated platform is the implementation of a global framework that allows for natural leadership, self empowered management, and individual service providers that are properly compensated for value created; a framework for balanced integrated systems that facilitate the evolution of products and services designed from a holistic perspective. For example new biochemical enhancement protocols and understanding true disease prevention, if they are applied system wide, health care cost burdens will decrease 75% for both corporations and government.

The focus would be on generating value for other economic system participants, whether this is a group of individuals (Corporation), individual contractors or some hybrid joint venture between a number of entity types. If the value exchange system is properly evolved and managed the wealth will flow naturally, proportionate to the amount of genuine value actually created and will be enforced with their choice of where the energy (money) flows or does not.

In this new system of collective intent and intelligence the need for government regulation and oversight will be minimal, the consumer, customer, client and shareholder will directly influence the policy and decision making process.

With a reduced dependency on the public sector, each individual is assuming a portion of this collective task creating greater efficiency, tax burdens are reduced.

Technology enhanced real time collaboration will accelerate the speed of which deliverables are manifested and joint venture will leverage resources and assets to maximize their utilization and return on shared investment.

These new systems will be self regulating and somewhat autonomous, creating even more energy efficiency with leaders not so much being chosen as they will be simply happening.

Thanks to advances in technology the people of this planet do not need to work as much to support the essential economy, food, shelter, health, education, transportation and energy. The future is 20% work, 20% education, and 60% travel, exploration, creative endeavors, rest and relaxation.

A creative solution to feed the hungry, resulting from collective intelligence entails Amaranth and Surface Soil Remineralization.

It has the added benefit of reducing everyone's cost burdens; war and disease. Easy sell when the perfect time comes to do it.

Individual Sovereignty The Free Radical Essential (0, Troll)

FromTheAir (938543) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628123)

Individual Sovereignty Individual Freedom the Free Radical

In a system of collective control the collective wisdom is that it is the free radical, the non-conformist, the revolutionary, the eccentric, the rule breaker, the free agent that is essential to the survival of mankind.

In communism and socialism conformity is forced, and this kills invention and ingenuity.

Conformity stifles evolution and the ability to adapt. In a natural system people do not conform because of force or fear, they do so willingly because they benefit from it.

This is why individual freedom is the number one priority in a system of collective control or participatory self government.

Anarchy with autonomous control and anonymous certification and validation?

Threat to the status Quo (0, Troll)

FromTheAir (938543) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628181)

I wonder how much the status quo pays their agents to sit at /. modding down awareness creating posts that threaten the status quo.

The status quo that resists the changes that will eliminate their disproportionate advantage.

They depend on ignorance so awareness and intelligence is their arch enemy.

soliciting for money from non-consituents is wrong (1, Insightful)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628007)

It's morally bankrupt at best.

The people in these positions should represent those in their districts, not those from other places (like affluent Silicon Valley where I live).

Re:soliciting for money from non-consituents is wr (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24628085)

But you are not *voting* him in, are you? It's the people of his district who are going to do that.

I am not donating just because I am not a US citizen (though I am a permanent resident of the US), and here you are - crying foul about soliciting from non-constituent.

If you believe in a cause, don't let such callous idea prevent you from helping it.

Re:soliciting for money from non-consituents is wr (3, Insightful)

YttriumOxide (837412) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628159)

Agreed. I'm also not donating, because I'm not a US citizen (nor do I even live in the US). But, if I was ALLOWED to donate, I almost certainly would. Same applies for Barack Obama.

Now, some people reading this may ask, "why would this guy donate to a politician in a country he doesn't live in?" (or even, "a 'minor' politician in a state he's never even been to?"). The answer is actually pretty simple - the more politicians, ANYWHERE that support the same things I agree with, makes the world a better place in my eyes. Maybe one day I'll want to (or need to) visit Kansas. If I do, then in some way, the laws and policies of the place may have an effect on me. Or maybe I'll meet an American tourist over here, and become good friends - they might just happen to be from Kansas, and I'm always in favour of my friends having a better place to live!
It's a small world, and almost everything, everywhere, affects almost everything else, everywhere else.

Re:soliciting for money from non-consituents is wr (1)

Thaddeaus (777809) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629207)

What I've just realized is that these people posting that it's wrong to donate if you don't live right next to the guy, don't actually believe in anything. After all, a belief is "Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something." But they don't "believe" in supporting anything not directly connected to them (and since what happens in Kansas does (amazingly enough) effect other people, including them (even if it's just someone breathing air that would have gone to them))). To sum that up, they don't "believe" in "believing." Thus the paradox, and thus the conclusion.

They're trolls.

Re:soliciting for money from non-consituents is wr (1)

Jack9 (11421) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628127)

It's morally bankrupt at best.

The people in these positions should represent those in their districts, not those from other places (like affluent Silicon Valley where I live).

I'm not sure where the relativistic logic is in this "stance".

The moral corruption is that money is an overriding lever for political success, not the source(s). In the winner-takes-all, money-makes-the-campaign, incumbant-safety-through-populace-lethargy, there's nothing immoral about an intelligent representative gathering funds by any means necessary (that doesn't suicide on illegality). There is LESS influence on policy by a non-constituent populist micro donation system, making it the true "lesser of two evils" in campaign funding.

he should not be beholden to those outside (3, Insightful)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628235)

His district. Not even a micropayment's worth.

Let me put it this way, me and my buddies here in Silicon Valley could easy drop many thousands (hundreds of thousands if we do it as a group) on political races in Alabama, selecting candidates that represent our views, trying to make behave the way we want (pro-choice, etc.)

But that wouldn't be right. Everyone is entitled to select representatives that represent them, and not those who live thousands of miles away.

This person should be working within his community. That's where he's going to have effect anyway.

Re:he should not be beholden to those outside (2, Insightful)

Skim123 (3322) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628299)

Let me put it this way, me and my buddies here in Silicon Valley could easy drop many thousands (hundreds of thousands if we do it as a group) on political races in Alabama, selecting candidates that represent our views, trying to make behave the way we want (pro-choice, etc.) But that wouldn't be right. Everyone is entitled to select representatives that represent them, and not those who live thousands of miles away.

Last time I checked candidates were elected based on the number of votes they received, not by the size of their campaign war chest. I don't see what's wrong with external and outside fund-raising. if money is all it takes for a populace to vote in a candidate that doesn't represent their interests, then they deserve the level of representation and service they receive in such a case.

if fund-raising didn't affect elections (1)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628333)

Candidates wouldn't bother doing it.

You are incredibly naive.

And just because it might be possible to influence their elections due to their voters' foolishness, doesn't mean it's moral. As I mentioned above.

You're using the same "well, no one is stopping me so it must be okay" justifications that Enron employees did.

Re:if fund-raising didn't affect elections (2, Insightful)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628605)

The thing is, no one is forcing the people of Kansas to vote for this guy. He just has some money to do advertising with. If you gave a guy who no one likes a million dollars to campaign with, he'd still lose because don't like him. If this guy wins, it will be because people know who he is AND they agree with him.

Re:if fund-raising didn't affect elections (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24628669)

Campaign donations are considered a form of free speech. Are you against free speech?

Re:if fund-raising didn't affect elections (2, Insightful)

Skim123 (3322) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628725)

I never said fund raising doesn't have an effect on elections. But please don't equate a causation between fundraising and election success. Sure, there may be a correlation, but a candidate is elected strictly on the number of votes she receives from her constituents.

It is amoral for a person in Silicon Valley to illegally vote in an election in Alabama. But I fail to see the amorality in contributing to a campaign.

Here's an analogy: the more (positive) air time a candidate gets on television, radio, the Internet, etc. the more likely she is to win. Therefore it is amoral for a national broadcaster to give air time to a candidate in a local election without giving equal airtime to their candidate. Or it's amoral for a non-Kansan to come to /. and submit this piece about a Kansas candidate, and it's even more amoral for the /. crew to publish it.

How about we try to stop telling people what they can and cannot do so long as their actions don't step on the fundamental rights of another human being. Donating money to a candidate in a local election is not squashing anyone's unalienable rights.

Re:if fund-raising didn't affect elections (1)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628961)

Yes, it is unfair (and essentially amoral) for a TV station to give airtime to one candidate and not another.

I have no idea what you are saying with the thing about submitting slashdot articles.

How about you stop trying to tell me I'm telling people what they can and cannot do? I said it was amoral. Did I say it should be illegal? Did I even tell anyone to not do it?

I pointed out it was amoral (in my opinion). You get to make your own decisions about whether to do it or not. I put it this way specifically because I didn't want people like you saying I'm trying to deny others the ability to make their own decisions.

A locality should be able to select their own candidates without outside interference.

Re:if fund-raising didn't affect elections (1)

Skim123 (3322) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629075)

Yes, it is unfair (and essentially amoral) for a TV station to give airtime to one candidate and not another.

How do you figure? I would think a privately owned television station would have it's own rights to blather on about whatever opponents it so chooses. E.g., Air America radio gives props to Democratic candidates, Fox talk radio to Republicans. Are these stations, radio personalities, managers, and stockholders acting amorally?

If it is amoral, why? Because they are a major media outlet? What if it's a less popular station? What if it's a blog? What if it's one guy standing on the street corner?

How about you stop trying to tell me I'm telling people what they can and cannot do? I said it was amoral. Did I say it should be illegal? Did I even tell anyone to not do it?

Fair enough. Although to be pedantic, I never told YOU to stop telling people what to do. I said: "How about we try to stop telling people what they can and cannot do..."

Re:if fund-raising didn't affect elections (1)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629285)

I can't stand Air America or Fox talk radio. Talk radio is just a breeding ground for radicalism. Even the sports fans go nutty on sports talk radio!

These stations have an agenda that I don't like. But it's pretty likely none of them are changing any minds with their programming, you don't listen unless you're already primed with the same ideas you're gonna hear.

I'm more concerned with what local stations do. Those that are supposed to be serving the community in some way (oh, such a forgotten concept). I took the word "local" out of my "local TV station" comment, because I re-read the parent post and it specifically talked about national coverage. I shouldn't have done so, because although it made my post look more on-topic, it actually changed what I was saying.

I would be more concerned in towns where there is perhaps only one or two TV stations, if the stations took sides like this. You turn on not to reinforce your political views, maybe just to see American Idol and you end up being force fed an agenda. That would be a problem. I don't like it. I don't like pastors giving out voting sheets either. Let people make up their own minds, instead of telling them how to think. And that goes for you Paulites (you know who you are) too.

Re:if fund-raising didn't affect elections (1)

Thaddeaus (777809) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629061)

How about we try to stop telling people what they can and cannot do so long as their actions don't step on the fundamental rights of another human being.

Hear hear! Common sense on /. That's got be a first.

Re:he should not be beholden to those outside (1)

I'll Provide The War (1045190) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629651)

Last time I checked candidates were elected based on the number of votes they received, not by the size of their campaign war chest.

The story states that over 93% of political campaigns are won by the person with the most money.

Re:soliciting for money from non-consituents is wr (1)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628479)

immoral != illegal

It's not illegal for him to solicit donations from out of state, but that doesn't make it moral.

There is LESS influence on policy by a non-constituent populist micro donation system, making it the true "lesser of two evils" in campaign funding.

That doesn't even make sense. According to the comic and the Pew Institute study it cites, the candidate that spends more on advertising wins. By letting this guy buy more advertising than his competitor, the external donations are directly affecting the outcome of the election.

Basically, his policies couldn't stand on their own, so he decided to cheat.

Is that a real post? (1)

Thaddeaus (777809) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629141)

I don't really understand this post but I feel like I should respond anyway...*

Apparently it's "cheating" (which is illegal BTW, that's kind of the definition of cheating, so you might want to check out your second sentence. Just saying...) to put up a webpage with a donation link and then say "Donate to me!" Maybe we should ban donation links, and webpages, and getting money, and then ban politicians, because lets face it, you know they're going to ask for money from you.

...And suddenly a vision of an utopia appeared before my eyes...A land without politicians...it was so beautiful to behold....


But seriously, do you actually believe it's wrong to help out a campaign if it's not in your own district? You can't help out someone who holds your values? (I say values since this was all started by someone saying it's "immoral," whatever that means.) Are you really that insular?







*I kind of think it's just a really clever troll, but I can't tell.

Re:soliciting for money from non-consituents is wr (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24628213)

It's not so bad when you consider that most politicians get their money from special interest groups and lobbys for powerful corporate donors.

No its morally backrupted... (1)

GoofyBoy (44399) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628569)

... when $100,000 buys you a seat at the House of Representatives.

His incumbent opposition only expects to raise $35,000 and apparently money is the main factor in winning or losing the seat.

The annual salary is $169,000 plus benefits for a two year term. After five years, you get the retirement and health package as other federal employees.

And there is also that "legislative power" thing. Crazy.

Re:No its morally backrupted... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24629107)

$169,000 plus benefits for the Kansas State House of Representatives? Maybe I'm living in a different Kansas, as the Governor only makes a bit over $100,000.

Re:soliciting for money from non-consituents is wr (1)

Thaddeaus (777809) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629043)

You're right, why should anyone want to help out anyone else? I mean, if you're not neighbors with someone then they don't have an effect on your life, right?

xkcd (0, Troll)

MagdJTK (1275470) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628049)

I had no idea that Randall Munroe invented stick figures!

Re:xkcd (1)

Skim123 (3322) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628265)

Duh. Stick figures were invented by Sam Brown [explodingdog.com] .

giant pink elephant in the room (0, Offtopic)

graveyhead (210996) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628055)

Wow how *interesting* and *original*.

Or not [latimes.com] . Where do you guys think Barack Obama's money is coming from? People like me, who are donating tiny amounts.

Re:giant pink elephant in the room (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628139)

Yes, but this guy is a "nerd"! And he built his own Web site! And he has, like, "ideas"! Yupper-doodles!

Re:giant pink elephant in the room (1)

BPPG (1181851) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628165)

Maybe so, but it's definitely a lot more interesting to see a little guy who's fund raising campaign is 99% based through the Internet.

View Source (4, Interesting)

zerocool^ (112121) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628111)

View page source (on his xkcd-style ad) for a hidden message to geeks.

Re:View Source (1)

dvice_null (981029) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628505)

I would respect it more if the html (or xhtml in this case) would be actually valid. It is not even close.

54 errors:
http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fseantevis.com%2Fkansas%2F3000%2Frunning-for-office-xkcd-style%2F [w3.org]

Re:View Source (1)

Kredal (566494) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628519)

Thanks for the tip! My donation had the specified number of cents in it. (:

Re:View Source (1)

initialE (758110) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628787)

Can you actually protect a web page under any form of license? Even Creative Commons? It's as good as a shrink-wrap EULA, I didn't agree to his license before reading his site.

Re:View Source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24628819)

Wish I could afford to send him a donation with a piano attached. :-(

I wonder ... (1)

ilyam (1274976) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628129)

... just how much his fund raising will spike up now that his site has been slashdotted. Getting attention on here is probably the best thing that's ever happened to this guy's campaign.

Job title inflation. (1)

will_die (586523) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628147)

Talk about job title inflation first article calls him a web developer, second calls him a computer systems manager and finally /. calls him an information architect.
Why would we give him that horrid job title and didn't information architect just exist as one of those "we cannot give you money but will give you a neat job title" that died off with the dot com bubble?

Re:Job title inflation. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24628241)

Yes, yes Information Architect did. Nobody could possibly need the information delivered by a website to be sensibly organized and discoverable. No company would use that as a differentiator or competitive advantage. Nothing to see here, move along. Information Architects don't exist.

Re:Job title inflation. (1)

xenocide2 (231786) | more than 6 years ago | (#24629177)

He's probably the only Web guy for his company. I imagine you can negotiate whatever title you want at that point.

Step 1: Raise Money over the Internets... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24628175)

He still has to win the election. It won't matter how much money he raises from outsiders if he's not viewed as a legitimate candidate by the constituents in his district.

Re:Step 1: Raise Money over the Internets... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24628575)

What do you think that money raised will be used for? Stuff like TV, radio, print ads that should increase his exposure to his constituents. It sucks, but elections are more about popularity and name recognition than the actual issues.

In the vast majority of elections, the candidate that out-raises his or her own opponent wins.

Stick figures and witty dialogue (2, Insightful)

cerelib (903469) | more than 6 years ago | (#24628615)

Can a cartoon with stick figures and witty dialogue really be considered ripping off anything? I know, Tevis pays homage to XKCD, so there is definitely a connection here, but does every middle schooler drawing a cartoon stick figure in the corner of the pages of a spiral notebook need to give credit to XKCD? It's like how Walmart was claiming some sort of trademark on the yellow smiley face. Besides, I didn't even see a hat. Just a bunch of side-parts, a mustache, and a beard (none of which are regular on XKCD anyway).

Re:Stick figures and witty dialogue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24628827)

No, you are a revisionist. The cult of XKCD will not let your statement stand. Nobody drew stick figures before XKCD.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>