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!

Congressional Elections - Who's Good for IT Folks?

Cliff posted more than 9 years ago | from the techies-as-a-voting-bloc dept.

CDA 117

rlp asks: "Most of the articles appearing in Slashdot's new political section pertain to the U.S. Presidential election. However, most of the political issues facing American IT people are issues that are dealt with (or more often caused by) Congress. Therefore, my question is: who are the heroes and villains (for U.S. IT people) in Congress that are running for office this year? How does your local Congresscritter (or the person running against them) feel about copyrights, privacy, data security, H1-B, outsourcing, software patents, Open Source, tech education, R&D funding, anti-trust, etc?"

cancel ×

117 comments

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

They haven't a clue... (0)

cheeseSource (605209) | more than 9 years ago | (#10373578)

Ted Kennedy and John Kerry - neither seem to be very good for IT - certainly better than the likes of Orrin Hatch, but they don't seem to mind catering to big business either.

They all suck (1)

BoomerSooner (308737) | more than 9 years ago | (#10374272)

I'm a democrat and the reality is all the politicians are owned by the corporate PAC's and donors. Kerry is better than Bush in my opinion but not by much.

Enjoy the land of freedom or what little of it remains. For the Inc, by the Inc, of the Inc.

Re:They all suck (1)

caseydk (203763) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376218)


Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, the DMCA, COPA, and every copyright extension that has come along while he's been in office.

If he's elected, is he going to continue in this direction or radically change?

Re:They haven't a clue... (3, Informative)

saden1 (581102) | more than 9 years ago | (#10374492)

Just visit <a href="http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm">Issue s 2000 (2004)</a> and checkout how candidates voted on technology issues.

Re:They haven't a clue... (2, Informative)

saden1 (581102) | more than 9 years ago | (#10374633)

damn it...Here is the link. [issues2000.org]

Hatch will likely stay (1)

ElForesto (763160) | more than 9 years ago | (#10375794)

Hatch is Mormon. Utah is mostly Mormon. You do the math. It's about as polarized as votes along racial lines, to be honest. Of course, I'm Mormon and I think the guy is a putz, but I don't live in Utah either (nor would I ever). Maybe some of you Utah geeks need to get off your duffs and do something about Hatch. Maybe even run against him.

Don't laugh (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10373614)

But Carol Mosley Braun and Sheila Jackson Lee have been great promoters of software freedom as well as the rolling back of property rights.

Dancin Santa

property rights? (2, Interesting)

crow (16139) | more than 9 years ago | (#10373678)

Do you mean intellectual property rights? Or just property rights? (Or both?)

Liberals tend to value the needs of society above those of the individual, and hence, sacrifice property rights for environmental protection. (Often this is good; sometimes it goes too far without compensation for property owners, but that's another debate.) Perhaps that's an angle that we can use in lobbying our Congressmen on the Democratic side--emphasize the societal benefit of looser IP laws.

Re:property rights? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10373931)

but when you have organizations like the MPAA / RIAA lobbying, the Democratic side of the spectrum drops to their knees just the same.

Re:property rights? (1)

mbrod (19122) | more than 9 years ago | (#10374006)

Liberals tend to value the needs of society above those of the individual, and hence, sacrifice property rights for environmental protection.

I think it has more to do with greed.

You can set aside and manage natural resources for many things including making money on them. Problem comes when a small group or an individual wants to use them and exploits them to the point of destroying them.

I have no problem with mining, logging, whatever, but to do it to the point of completely destroying it for that use so that no wildlife or people can still enjoy it and use it is just greed and stupidity in my opinion. Not just conservative and liberal. I know many conservative, pro gun, hunters that go and use excellent public lands all the time and would do about anything to ensure they are kept useable. It is just common sense.

Re:property rights? (2, Interesting)

max born (739948) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376160)

Liberals tend to value the needs of society above those of the individual.

Apparently not when it comes to pushing legislation in exchange for campaign contributions.

It was senior Democrats like Diane Feinstein who helped pass the DMCA. During the period the DMCA was up for debate, the Democtrats actually received more financial contributions from the entertainment industry than the Republicans. Checkout open secrets [opensecrets.org] for details.

I think it mostly comes down to who contributes the gratest amount gets their pet legislation favored more.

Please provide references to back up those claims (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10375001)

Thank you.

Re:Don't laugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10376943)

Sheila Jackson Lee is also one of the cosponsors of H.R. 163 (the bill to bring back the draft)

There isn't a pro or anti IT party (4, Interesting)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 9 years ago | (#10373661)

Doesn't really matter, because IT has become such a neccessity, and such a commodity, that it's silly to say "who should I vote for? who will support IT the most?". It's a non-issue. It's like saying "gee, which party will support accountants more?" or "which party supports telephone use?". It just isn't one of those economic sectors thats on one side of the spectrum politically, like trial lawyers.

Re:There isn't a pro or anti IT party (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10373998)

One side of the spectrum politically, like trial lawyers.


19 Million for Kerry [opensecrets.org]


10 Million for Bush [opensecrets.org]

Re:There isn't a pro or anti IT party (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 9 years ago | (#10374070)

Thats not true, accountants lobby heavily to get certain laws pass. Either way some congresscitters support laws that regulate and hinder the IT industry adversly, while some support laws in the other direct. It is an issue.

Re:There isn't a pro or anti IT party (5, Funny)

orthogonal (588627) | more than 9 years ago | (#10374127)

Doesn't really matter, because IT has become such a neccessity [sic], and such a commodity, that it's silly to say "who should I vote for? who will support IT the most?". It's a non-issue. It's like saying "gee, which party will support accountants more?" or "which party supports telephone use?". It just isn't one of those economic sectors that[']s on one side of the spectrum politically, like trial lawyers.

Oh, so much I am agreeing with you sir!

Very truly, do not be bothering yourself about your politicians' votes, sir!

IT is being a necessity, yes, indeed, as necessary as a bowl of curry when you are hungry!

Please to keep ignoring it and calling it to be a non-issue, sir, and I will be being happy to do your job for ten percent of your pay!

So much I thank you for ensuring my economic future by throwing away your heritage as a citizen of a democracy!

Soon you will not have to worry about the IT sector at all sir! And I would be glad to teach the rudiments of selling apples on the street for five cents each, or begging for alms in the hot Calcutta slums!

--Yours most sincerely,
Apu Babu Singh Mahadressi
Mumbai, India

Re:There isn't a pro or anti IT party (3, Interesting)

Otter (3800) | more than 9 years ago | (#10375188)

It's not news that the "outsourcing" issue draws heavily on thinly-veiled racial scapegoating. But I'm not sure who is making less of an attempt to conceal it: you or this idiot [slashdot.org] .

Re:There isn't a pro or anti IT party (3, Interesting)

orthogonal (588627) | more than 9 years ago | (#10375454)

It's not news that the "outsourcing" issue draws heavily on thinly-veiled racial scapegoating. But I'm not sure who is making less of an attempt to conceal it: you or this idiot.

I think you missed my point, friend.

I'm not scapegoating the Indian worker: he's making a rational decision to take a better job so he can better feed his family, and you or I would do the same in his place.

My point was to demonstrate that -- whether the issue is outsourcing of the IT sector, or John Ashcroft's cavalier (roundhead?) attitude toward civil liberties, or the DMCA, or anything else -- those who blithely ignore politics quickly sooner or later find themselves at the mercy of those who do pay attention.

Many of us in the "tech sector" pretend to disdain politics -- it's a luxury when can just barely afford to get away with as the "American Century" draws to a close.

But one way or another, the butcher's bill comes due, either at Omaha Beach or at Tarawa or Concord or Lexington, or to mix metaphors, in a bread line.

Re:There isn't a pro or anti IT party (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 9 years ago | (#10375915)

First, unless you're auditioning for Dennis Miller's old Monday Night Football position, randomly mentioning Different Things You've Heard Of contributes nothing but pretentiousness.

Second, I wasn't addressing your (uncontroversial, if banal) point, but rather the caricature and ridicule with which it was expressed.

HTH. HAND.

Re:There isn't a pro or anti IT party (1)

NateTech (50881) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376804)

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Re:There isn't a pro or anti IT party (1)

bckrispi (725257) | more than 9 years ago | (#10377872)

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Racist! Racist! Racist!

If everyone else can shout it for stoopid reasons, why can't I??

Re:There isn't a pro or anti IT party (1)

NateTech (50881) | more than 9 years ago | (#10378897)

LOL! Good one!

Re:There isn't a pro or anti IT party (1)

HeghmoH (13204) | more than 9 years ago | (#10375223)

You gotta love it. In any other context, this example of blatant racism would be moderated into the ground and rightfully ignored. But it's a jab at outsourcing, so it gets modded +5. Hooray!

Re:There isn't a pro or anti IT party (2, Interesting)

NoMoreNicksLeft (516230) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376065)

I don't know why people like yourself are so happy to racebait everyone. If they were lily-white blonde Indians taking the jobs from us, it would hurt every bit as much. Mentioning that they're from India is a reference to which country is benefiting from outsourcing, that they have a different skin-color is incidental.

Duh.

Re:There isn't a pro or anti IT party (1)

HeghmoH (13204) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376989)

So comments like this are just "incidental"?

And I would be glad to teach the rudiments of selling apples on the street for five cents each, or begging for alms in the hot Calcutta slums!

Not to mention the crappy English, which is obviously saying "Indians speak funny English".

I don't hear anybody complaining when they lose their job because somebody in Alabama is willing to do it cheaper. But as soon as they leave the country, all of the racist foreigner stereotypes get trotted out.

If they were lily-white blonde Indians taking the jobs from us, you can bet there would be just as much racism. Just look at all the fun people are having with France. That might not strictly qualify as "racism", but it's the same deal.

Re:There isn't a pro or anti IT party (1)

Frizzle Fry (149026) | more than 9 years ago | (#10377353)

When I got halfway through your post I was going to respond to say how ridiculuous it is, but by the time I got to the end I realized that you just have no idea what racism is.
If they were lily-white blonde Indians taking the jobs from us, you can bet there would be just as much racism.

No it wouldn't. In that case, race would be a complete non-factor. It would have absolutely nothing to do with racism.

Just look at all the fun people are having with France. That might not strictly qualify as "racism",

It doesn't strictly qualify because it's not racism at all. That doesn't make it okay. But calling everything bad in the world "racism" is not productive. If the Republicans wanted to pass a Constitutional amendment to repeal woman's suffrage that would be ridiculous and we would condemn it. But if you called the amendment "racist," as you apparently would, that would still be idiotic.

Re:There isn't a pro or anti IT party (1)

HeghmoH (13204) | more than 9 years ago | (#10377850)

Ok, so making fun of French people by using vulgar stereotypes is not racist, I agree with that. (I merely said it was the same kind of thing, not that it was actually racism.) But then you go on to say that because doing it to the French isn't racist, doing it to the Indians isn't either? You can bet your ass that a post like this would get called racist:

You got dat right, massuh.

Don't you worry yoself none about these votes, massuh.

IT be needed like a bowl of gumbo when a brotha be hungry. ...

Some Black Guy


(Yeah, I can't do the dialect worth a damn. But you get the idea.)

So anyway, if beating up on Indians by using racial stereotypes is not racism, what is? You say I have no idea of what racism is; educate me!

Re:There isn't a pro or anti IT party (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 9 years ago | (#10379007)

So anyway, if beating up on Indians by using racial stereotypes is not racism, what is?

Is beating up on someone because of cultural/national differences necessarily racist? You say no for the French, but you say yes for Indians.

Re:There isn't a pro or anti IT party (1)

OreoCookie (814421) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376031)

It's hilarious to see the free-software, free-love types on Slashdot go all protectionist when it's their livelyhood at stake.
"Microsoft is evil for protecting it's marketshare against cheaper and better alternatives."
"The US government is evil for NOT protecting my job from cheaper and better developers overseas."

Re:There isn't a pro or anti IT party (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10374706)

Just remember, past trial lawyers also brought you the Do not call list. Also many trivial lawsuits are fored by large corporations (and many of those insurance companies).

The real evil is the insurance companies.

Who to vote for? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10373670)

You want a job? Vote Republican.

I know that's hard for liberal slashdot to swallow, but it's the truth.

Re:Who to vote for? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10373897)

How do you come to that conclusion?

Re:Who to vote for? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10373937)

OK, but how do I register with the Republican party so I can get my QUID PRO QUO job. Do I have to work for Halliburton?

Re:Who to vote for? (2, Funny)

orthogonal (588627) | more than 9 years ago | (#10374215)

OK, but how do I register with the Republican party so I can get my QUID PRO QUO job. Do I have to work for Halliburton?

I'm afraid the good paying Halliburton jobs are taken, at least until Ayman al-Zawahri creates a few new openings -- in the necks on the next two unfortunate contractors who couldn't find a safe state-side job in Bush's economy.

But the way things are going, the Republican party will ensure you a job if you GO ARMY! [goarmy.com]

Re:Who to vote for? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10375372)

But the way things are going, the Republican party will ensure you a job if you GO ARMY!
At least you some choice in the matter. The democrats want to force you to GO ARMY!

Re: Troll Feeding (3, Informative)

Karma Farmer (595141) | more than 9 years ago | (#10373944)

You want a job? Vote Republican. I know that's hard for liberal slashdot to swallow, but it's the truth.

No, it isn't [forbes.com] .

In fact, we're better with neither [ucsdguardian.org] .

Re: Troll Feeding (1)

foistboinder (99286) | more than 9 years ago | (#10374106)

I don't remember who said this:

If you want to live like a Republican, vote Democratic.

Re: Troll Feeding (2, Insightful)

Keebler71 (520908) | more than 9 years ago | (#10375853)

That is ridiculous. First off, your link assumes that current economic prosperity is somehow causally linked to who the president currently is. I think it would be more realistic to speculate that economic change has a lot of inertia and attibute econimic prosperity to previous administrations/congresses. What that time constant is I have no idea. Along those lines, I would much rather see the same data correlated to who is control of the congress, state legislatures and governors,... all of who probably have more of a real impact on the economy than a sitting president.

Re:Who to vote for? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10373961)

Given the actions of the current administration, that's a complete falsehood.

Three things (1, Offtopic)

Otter (3800) | more than 9 years ago | (#10373752)

1) Like a lot of people, I live in a heavily gerrymandered district. My Congressional election is essentially over, with the Democratic incumbent (who didn't bother campaigning in the primary) running against some no-name Republican and whatever Randroid has decided to take the Libertarian plunge this year. What I'd really like to see is some Iowa-style restrictions on districting that make House races meaningful.

2) While there are heroes and villains in government, routinely talking about elections in those terms is part of why the US political process is so psycho nowadays.

3) Saying "Congresscritter" wasn't even funny when it was new, and now it's just completely stupid.

Gerrymandering (2, Interesting)

dpilot (134227) | more than 9 years ago | (#10374368)

I'd really love to see some sort of mathematics applied to Gerrymandering. Something to the tune of limiting the perimeter of a district to 3 or 4 times the square root of its area. Some sort of allowances would need to be made for irregular state borders and natural features like rivers or mountains. For that matter, I'm not that hung up over the number 3 or 4, just some reasonable limit.

It would be really fun to look at some Congressional districts and find their Gerrymander-Factor=perimeter/sqrt(area).

Re:Gerrymandering (2, Informative)

Otter (3800) | more than 9 years ago | (#10374666)

Here's the Iowa policy [state.ia.us] , which tries to limit perimeter and to encourage existing borders rather than arbitrary ones. I'm sure there are arguments to be made against some of it, but the overall thrust seems very sensible. I used to live in the 33rd District in California [calvoter.org] in that little neck connecting the main, heavily-black part in the west with the Latino region on the east, and know what it's like to have your neighborhood simply not count.

Re:Gerrymandering (1)

TykeClone (668449) | more than 9 years ago | (#10375378)

The way we do it in Iowa makes sense, but it still can be used to gerrymander a bit. I think that the legislature rejected the first two attempts at redrawing the districts this year because they (not sure if it was the "independent board" drawing the districts or the legislature) were trying to get a bit creative.

This basically forces nicely shaped districts. Of course the large tracts of rural areas with a few population centers helps too.

I have the honor (2, Interesting)

captnitro (160231) | more than 9 years ago | (#10373755)

I have the honor of living in the district of Rep. [cdfreaks.com] Rick [slashdot.org] Boucher [house.gov]

It feels odd to have to feel "lucky" that my congressional representative's The Real Thing. Frankly, I don't like guys that run for congress because they think it's a good gig.

Re:I have the honor (1)

kooshvt (86122) | more than 9 years ago | (#10380226)

I too live in Boucher's district.

Unfortunatly he may have some competition this year. You are aware that his opponent, I don't remember his name, used to work for NASCAR. That seems to be the only thing that what's his name seems to be promoting. I saw a commercial for his opponent the other day. He was inanely babbling something while images of NASCAR were on the screen.

I just hope that the NASCAR fans in this district aren't the mindless sheep he seems to think they are.

Rick Boucher (4, Informative)

waldoj (8229) | more than 9 years ago | (#10373760)

There is no bigger geek rockstar in the House than my representative, Rep. Rick Boucher (VA-09). The guy advocates the protection of Fair Use, a Digital Milennium Consumers' Rights Act, opposes the DOJ's anti-P2P work, proposed a great anti-spam act in 2003 (it didn't pass; that crappy CAN-SPAM did, instead), he sponsored the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act, and he testifies before various House committees all the time, representing, effectively, Slashdot. :) See the Internet section of his House site [house.gov] for more information. Alternately, you could see any of the Slashdot stories about him from over the years, including Slashdot | Rep. Boucher Outlines 'Fair Use' Fight [slashdot.org] , Boucher's Anti-DMCA Bill Gets High Profile Allies [slashdot.org] , Anti Spamming Act 2001 Proposed [slashdot.org] , and Webcasting and the DMCA [slashdot.org] .

Hell, Boucher guest blogged for Larry Lessig [lessig.org] a few weeks ago, and the stuff that he wrote about is like a Slashdotter's wet dream. :)

He doesn't talk about these things in his campaign literature -- much of the very-rural, poor population of southwest Virginia just wouldn't care. Read over his campaign website [boucherforcongress.com] and you'll find more about the tobacco buyout, healthcare and tourism than technology. :)

And everybody else in the House sucks. ;)

-Waldo Jaquith

There is one Rep (1)

nelsonal (549144) | more than 9 years ago | (#10373779)

There is a democratic representative who has consistently supported similar positions to the average /.er. I cannot remember his name, but he has been featured on /. YRO articles before. I really cannot think of any presidential candidate who has a real position on IT.

It doesn't matter (2, Interesting)

solman (121604) | more than 9 years ago | (#10373905)

There are only about 30 seats with even a remote chance of changing hands. Realistically, there are about 15 competitive races, and five of these were created by the retaliatory Republican gerrymandering of Texas.

Thanks to a combination of Gerrymandering, Entrenched incumbents, and the McCain-Feingold legislation (which prevents parties from using soft money to neutralize the advantage of entrenched incumbents) congressional races are entirely uncompetitive. Charlie Cook today says that there is virtually no chance of the house changing hands.

So who cares where the candidates stand on the issues when only a very few people actually have the oppotunity to cast a meaningful vote.

Re:It doesn't matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10374195)

There are only about 30 seats with even a remote chance of changing hands.

When the USSR was still in one piece, their Politburo had a greater turnover then the US Congress. Kind of makes you wonder if we really do have a democracy.

Re:It doesn't matter (2, Interesting)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 9 years ago | (#10375030)

Kind of makes you wonder if we really do have a democracy.

G*d I am so sick of people saying that.

1) we dont have a democracy, we have a Federal Republic which elects its leaders
2) Just because people dont vote the way you would like (high turnover) does not mean the power does not reside in tehir hands.
3) In 1994 The republicans shocked everyon by capturing a huge number of seats from incumbant democrats in the house, and a decent number in the senate. So yes people can and have made major changes in the seating arrangements for members of congress.

Re:It doesn't matter (1)

invenustus (56481) | more than 9 years ago | (#10380265)

Almost 90 percent of incumbent Representatives running for re-election still won in 1994. There were a lot of people vacating seats that year.

Re:It doesn't matter (1)

bmetzler (12546) | more than 9 years ago | (#10374259)

McCain-Feingold legislation (which prevents parties from using soft money to neutralize the advantage of entrenched incumbents)

I thought we were supposed to be against money affecting campaigns. Oh, that's right, it's Tuesday...

-Brent

Russ Feingold for WI (4, Interesting)

Joe Tennies (564856) | more than 9 years ago | (#10373914)

Let's just say he's the only guy in Congress to vote AGAINST the Patriot Act. From his website (russfeingold.org): Senator Feingold supported 90% of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act, but too many provisions were deeply troubling. Certain provisions may infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens, while doing little protect our country against terrorists. If he ever runs for President, he's got my vote.

Re:Russ Feingold for WI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10375038)

I'm very Libertarian, but am voting for Feingold for the very reason's you mention.

Re:Russ Feingold for WI (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 9 years ago | (#10375975)

Feingold was the only *senator* to vote against the PATRIOT act. There were 66 representatives who voted against it as well.

Re:Russ Feingold for WI (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376312)

And this has to do with IT how?

Re:Russ Feingold for WI (1)

caseydk (203763) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376314)


Except for McCain-Feingold which somehow trumped the First Amendment without actuallly amending the Constitution...

Nah, protecting political speech isn't important anyway, right?

Past performance is no guarantee of future results (3, Insightful)

ubiquitin (28396) | more than 9 years ago | (#10373958)

But it might help get an idea of where people stand:

www.vote-smart.org [vote-smart.org] lets you look up the voting records of Concresscritters.

Nobody to vote for (-1, Flamebait)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10374018)

In my district we have the choice between Goli Ameri and David Wu. Neither were born in the COUNTRY, let alone the DISTRICT. In other words, we're outsourcing congress itself to people who are naturalized citizens, but are basically here to take jobs from natural born citizens.

Sound familiar? It does to me, after meeting several hundred high tech people who were "inshored". Nope, if you live in District 1 Oregon, you've got NOBODY who is geek friendly to vote for AT ALL.

Re:Nobody to vote for (2, Insightful)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 9 years ago | (#10374271)

Naturalised citizens are here because they chose to be, people born here are here because of accident of birth and either never had the ambition, means, or desire to go anywhere else.

WHat does this have to do with being "geek friendly"? Nothing at all.

Is there something wrong with people who have come to our country from somewhere else and found enough love for the place to go through the process and take the oath to become a citizen?

If the country and even the district is now their home, why should they not involve themselves in the government there. It is their home. Or do we lose all right to participate (which is more than the vast majority of peopl ein the district do I imagine, born there or not) in the community and the government?

Should they just be dowtrodden outsiders, taking it as its given to them and liking it?

-Steve

Re:Nobody to vote for (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10374727)

WHat does this have to do with being "geek friendly"? Nothing at all.

You may not have realized this because it hasn't touched you personally- but for the past 4 years, the high tech job market has been a depression, and at the rate things are going, it's not likely one we're going to pull out of EVER.

Is there something wrong with people who have come to our country from somewhere else and found enough love for the place to go through the process and take the oath to become a citizen?

There is when they want to be a representative of the population, but in action only serve a narrow industrial/ethnic community.

If the country and even the district is now their home, why should they not involve themselves in the government there. It is their home. Or do we lose all right to participate (which is more than the vast majority of peopl ein the district do I imagine, born there or not) in the community and the government?

I'd say those who have a family tie to the land and community ought to get first dibs on any such position- if for nothing else, because they KNOW the greater community, and thus are going to be less likely to be selective about their representation.

Should they just be dowtrodden outsiders, taking it as its given to them and liking it?

As long as what is given to them is no more than what is given to anybody else, why not? If they don't like it, they can go back where they came from.

Now I'll admit right now, I've got Native American blood in me, and despite my few European ancestors, I do feel that we'd have been better off in Oregon if white man had never come. The fact that large numbers of other tribes were directly killed to clear land for the settlers here is a part of that. I see NO difference whatsoever with Middle Eastern (Goli is from Iran) and Chinese (Wu) people being elected to local REPRESENTATIVE positions, illegal aliens from Mexico who refuse to even learn Standard American (we don't speak English in Oregon, we speak Standard American, a distinctly different dialect), or the white man who came to force their culture on us in the 1830s. They're all basically foreign invaders.

Naturalized Citizens are not the problem... (2, Interesting)

nlinecomputers (602059) | more than 9 years ago | (#10374746)

American Corporations use H-1B, L-1 visas to bring in "guest workers" to undercut the American Job Market. Once a person becomes a NC he is no longer a cheap commodity labor. He's part of the expensive American Labor force.

Either way we shouldn't be robbing the world of valued labor to feed our greedy corporations. How bout we(USA) stop supporting dictators that run their countries so bad that the people flee them.

Or how bout we stop raising our National Debt so freeking high that our Dollar has more buying power overseas then it has here.

Re:Naturalized Citizens are not the problem... (1)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 9 years ago | (#10377141)

And I am neither saying any of this is good or bad.

The simple fact is this giuy is a citizen. He already moved here, he already became a citizen. He is just as much a citizen as anyone who has been here... this is his HOME now.

He wants to run for office, more power to him. I have lived here all my life and never got off my ass and tried to get elected to office. I imagine the same is true of you too. The litmus test is the will of the people...

if the people vote for him and put him in office, its because they think he is competent to do the job. Whether he was born there or not is not relevant if the people elect him. End of story.

How he got here or where he is from have little bearing now. Thats the past. If its what people want to vote on, thats their perogative, but to cast a wary eye on him or suggest that something i swrong with him because he is an immigrant is, I think, unconsionable.

-Steve

Re:Naturalized Citizens are not the problem... (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10377705)

To me- to be an immigrant is to become homeless, cut off from your roots and family. It's less true now- but at least two branches of the European side of my family tree can't be traced beyond landing in this country at all.

This will always be a hole for me- and it's three generations back. How can we expect *any* immigrant to this land to understand enough to be in power over us? And from the actions of Wu (and to a lesser extent Ameri- she was in state government before this race) neither of these people get the idea of America being just like any other country and needing to protect it's intellectual property and borders.

Re:Naturalized Citizens are not the problem... (1)

nlinecomputers (602059) | more than 9 years ago | (#10378785)

The founding fathers disagree with you

Article I Sec. 2 Par 2
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.

Article I Sec 3 Par 2
No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.

Article II Sec 1 Par 5
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

Note that no immigrant can be President of the US(sorry Arnold!) but living someplace 7 years is long enough to represent the area. I don't find that unreasonable.

And from the actions of Wu (and to a lesser extent Ameri- she was in state government before this race) neither of these people get the idea of America being just like any other country and needing to protect it's intellectual property and borders.


And how is this any different then the hundreds of other congressmen that ARE natural born citizens? I'll buy your argument when you show me facts otherwise you are simply demonstrating racism.

Re:Naturalized Citizens are not the problem... (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10378847)

A pair of examples:

Wu voted for the H-1b extension, which disporportionately increased the number of Chinese and Indian non-imigrant visa holders.

Ameri voted for the Immigration Status Gag Order, which prevents state, county, and city workers in Oregon from inquiring as to citizenship status at all- in 2002, after the 9-11 attack, preventing Oregon Law Enforcement from working with The Department of Homeland Security, which worked in favor for her mosque.

If it's racism- it's on their side.

Re:Naturalized Citizens are not the problem... (1)

nlinecomputers (602059) | more than 9 years ago | (#10379206)

Oh Bullshit. So what did every other Congressman suddenly become Chinese? They didn't vote alone on this. What motivated all the natives to betray the country?

Re:Nobody to vote for (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10374319)

You're right. We should concentrate immigrants in camps. It's clear that immigrants are destroying our strong american values, and should be segregated from us good folk.

Also, I'm pretty sure that Poland presents an imminent threat to our homeland security. We should probably pre-emptively attack, for our own protection.

Re:Nobody to vote for (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10375121)

:-) Nice try, but I recognize a Nazi reference when I see one- I'm not going to argue with you on that.

shhhhhhhh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10374331)

Seriously dude, you don't have to comment on EVERY SINGLE friggin thread. Please take a week off from slashdot or something.

Re:shhhhhhhh (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10375868)

I take every weekend off- try just foe'ing me if you can't stand a look at things from a different angle.

Now you're just being xenophobic (1)

BSDevil (301159) | more than 9 years ago | (#10374840)

As you flat-out say in one of your later posts, you have a small amount of European blood in you. So why can't someone who's entirely Native go and call you a dirty forgeiner? Ameri's been in this country for about 35 years, Wu about 45 - what's the difference between them and the local people you say that these jobs should be reserved for? In my books, living in a country for 35 or 45 years makes you count as a local.

From you post it makes it sounds like you'd like some sort of caste system, where "foreigners" (a term you don't really define) are second class citizens - unless they've been here as long as you, in which case they get to criticize new foreigners. Which, by my reading, kinda goes against the American Dream. Ohm and what about Arhhhhhhnod - does he still count as "contracting out" the governorship of California?

As for who to vote for (taking aside their races), I would vote for Wu. He's a nice guy, a former small businessman, and has more experience than Ameri.

Re:Now you're just being xenophobic (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#10375041)

As you flat-out say in one of your later posts, you have a small amount of European blood in you. So why can't someone who's entirely Native go and call you a dirty forgeiner?

They have- and I have to admit, they were RIGHT! It took until I lost my job to an H-1b before I was worried about it- but that only proves that I'm human and don't worry about things until they affect me personally.

Ameri's been in this country for about 35 years, Wu about 45 - what's the difference between them and the local people you say that these jobs should be reserved for? In my books, living in a country for 35 or 45 years makes you count as a local.

And yet both are for continuing to import guest workers in the Silicon Forest- despite the fact that we're running into a serious depopulation problem because nobody can find any jobs here.

From you post it makes it sounds like you'd like some sort of caste system, where "foreigners" (a term you don't really define) are second class citizens - unless they've been here as long as you, in which case they get to criticize new foreigners. Which, by my reading, kinda goes against the American Dream. Ohm and what about Arhhhhhhnod - does he still count as "contracting out" the governorship of California?

Absolutely- but Californicators have always been strange beings, and if I was Governor I would have closed the southern border of Oregon long ago.

As for who to vote for (taking aside their races), I would vote for Wu. He's a nice guy, a former small businessman, and has more experience than Ameri.

It really doesn't matter which one wins- the multinational corporations are paying for both campaigns, and both campaigns support the cheap labor movement.

Answer: Anyone Who Supports Free Markets (1)

reporter (666905) | more than 9 years ago | (#10374111)

The best politician for information technology or the rest of the economy is a politician who supports genuine free markets. A free market is one where market forces are allowed to operate normally except for certain caveats: government intervention to protect the environment, worker's rights, etc.

Note that when we combine a free market like the USA and a non-free market like Mexico, we damage the free market in the USA. For example, the influx of illegal aliens is created by horrible intervention by the Mexican government in the Mexican economy. This influx then destroys the normal market forces in the labor market for unskilled labor in the USA. Ultimately, the USA no longer has a free market.

Note that before the influx of illegal aliens, the free market worked fine in the USA. Unskilled laborers earned enough money to support their families.

Similar comments apply to H-1B workers from India, China (which includes Taiwan province and Hong Kong), etc. They destroy the normal market forces in the market for high-tech labor.

Supporting free markets means that the USA engages in trade (which includes the exchange of labor like engineers, farmers, vegetable pickers, etc.) only with other free markets like that in Canada, Europe, Japan, etc. Supporting free markets means that we defend the border against the influx of illegal aliens and canceling the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Supporting free markets means that H-1B engineers from Europe, Japan, and Canada are allowed into the USA. H-1B engineers from India and China are banned.

Supporting free markets means that we terminate unfettered trade with China and India until both societies commit to free market principles. They go hand in hand with democracy. Note the presence of Chinese soldiers in Tibet, and the large number of Taiwanese who have spied for Beijing [geocities.com] .

If you hate what is happening to our nation, the USA, then please write the following on the November ballot.

president: Bill O'Reilly [billoreilly.com]
vice-president: Tammy Bruce [tammybruce.com]

Re:Answer: Anyone Who Supports Free Markets (3, Informative)

foistboinder (99286) | more than 9 years ago | (#10374171)

president: Bill O'Reilly

This [amon-hen.com] Bill O'Reilly? Why would anyone want to vote for a clown with such skewed view of reality?

Re:Answer: Anyone Who Supports Free Markets (1)

Reducer2001 (197985) | more than 9 years ago | (#10374316)

The USA is most certainly not a free market, in the classical sense of the term. Gov't subsidies and anti-trust legislation go completely against the spirit of free market.

So does part of your post: terminate unfettered trade with China and India. A truly free market doesn't care who you trade with. All that matters is money.

Re:Answer: Anyone Who Supports Free Markets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10374432)

Any input (i.e. labor, products, etc.) into free market "A" should come from a free market.

You play the game of the Chinese bigot and the American politician. They ignore the inputs.

Re:Answer: Anyone Who Supports Free Markets (1)

Dan Ost (415913) | more than 9 years ago | (#10374897)

Properly written and enforced, anti-trust laws help protect the free market by
preventing monopoly powers from interfering with normal market forces.

Dems as anti-outsourcers (1)

wizbit (122290) | more than 9 years ago | (#10374286)

I've heard all the typical rhetoric from the DNC and Kerry campaign about "stopping the tax incentives for companies who outsource jobs." The message, if not the proposal, seems to indicate targeting those who were spurned by the dot-com bust and who are struggling in the current state of the high tech industry.

But a vote for Kerry can't be considered a vote to stop outsourcing, can it? Can we really reverse the trend of high-paying jobs outsourced to India, etc, and will that translate to better, high-paying jobs in the US? The question for me is, how exactly do you portend staving off outsourcing as a campaign plank, other than a completely transparent attempt to capture votes from disgruntled former high-tech employees?

Sure, flipping burgers sucks when you were making $100k/yr with stock options, but what exactly is the point, here? Can any candidate deliver on a promise like that?

Re:Dems as anti-outsourcers (1)

Karma Farmer (595141) | more than 9 years ago | (#10374407)

Can we really reverse the trend of high-paying jobs outsourced to India, etc,

Yes.

and will that translate to better, high-paying jobs in the US?

No.

Most respected economists believe that outsourcing has the net effect of creating jobs. You might lose your particular job, but two more opportunities will pop up. Protectionism usually has opposite the intended effect. You might save a couple of specific jobs, but at the cost of not creating more jobs. The people who already have jobs thank you, but the people out of work are screwed.

And, I really have to ask... are there really IT people who can't find work? I've taken the last two months off, and I haven't looked for a job at all. I haven't sent out a single resume or sent feelers to any of my contacts. But I'm being called by recruiters regardless. Is it more difficult in certain parts of the country right now?

Re:Dems as anti-outsourcers (1)

Mr.Dippy (613292) | more than 9 years ago | (#10375293)

Even when the economy sucks recruiters will call you. Remember they have to make a living too. Yes they are calling you because they have a job opportunity but they also called 20 other people for that same job.

Re:Dems as anti-outsourcers (1)

NoMoreNicksLeft (516230) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376337)

I have to call them. And about half of them are more akin to telemarketers than anything. The last wanted the names and numbers of all the managers I could think of at the last 3 fortune 100 companies I had contract work with... once he had that, for "reference" purposes, he had a job ready for me.

Hahaha.

Re:Dems as anti-outsourcers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10375326)

And, I really have to ask... are there really IT people who can't find work?
Yes.

Re:Dems as anti-outsourcers (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 9 years ago | (#10375076)

"stopping the tax incentives for companies who outsource jobs."

Can any candidate deliver on a promise like that?

Sure. But remember, the promise was to stop "tax incentives", not to stop outsourcing... That part was only implied.

Will stopping these unspecified tax incentives keep jobs from being outsourced? Of course not. Let's say the tax incentives are huge. That would mean companies that outsource are now getting huge tax breaks and cheap labor. If the tax breaks go away do you think they're going to give up the cheap labor? If anything they'll outsource more to make up the difference.

The tax incentives aren't really "tax incentives on outsourcing" anyway. They're tax incentives on research and development, and they don't restrict elegibility to R&D money spent in the US. Sure, you could add that restriction, and increase taxes on these businesses, but there is no scenario where increasing the cost of doing business is going to increase the number of jobs created. It just doesn't work that way.

The fact of the matter is that oursourcing is here to stay, and the fact that it's such a big issue right now is because it's new to a lot of large companies, and the jobs that are getting outsourced used to exist here. Once all those jobs are gone, nobody with an existing job here is going to get outsourced, only newly created jobs are going to be outsourced, and every US company that outsources some jobs needs to create some complementary jobs here at the same time. That keeps the more highly skilled jobs local and exports the jobs that can be done by just about anybody. Assuming you're willing to continually expand your skill set, that means outsourcing is a good thing. If you're lazy and you want to continue to pull an above average paycheck for what was high-tech yesterday, you're out of luck. If you really don't have any skills, well, you better go find yourself a socialist candidate, because capitalism is going to walk all over you.

Re:Dems as anti-outsourcers (1)

cr0sh (43134) | more than 9 years ago | (#10377088)

Assuming you're willing to continually expand your skill set, that means outsourcing is a good thing. If you're lazy and you want to continue to pull an above average paycheck for what was high-tech yesterday, you're out of luck.

Tell me, what is the new "high-tech" of today, that we are supposed to be expanding our skillset into?

Since many of the jobs being outsourced are in IT, what new skills are supposed to be aquired? Where do we go from here, and how do we do it if we don't have a job (we'll have plenty of time, but no money to upgrade our education).

For instance, you might say "bioinformatics" (biotech for IT, more or less - let's ignore the fact that it can be outsourced as well) - but if I am out of work, with a family, a house payment, a car payment, numerous bills, etc - where do I find the time (if I am in a current job) and money in order to attended a university (assumming one has a degree already and can simply add some classes - if not, then what?) to get a degree in all that I would need to be good at bioinformatics? Where would the guarantee be that after all the time and money spent (at least two to four years, I would imagine) - that those skills wouldn't have been outsourced as well?

I am seriously looking for an answer to this - and so are a lot of other people. It seems whenever outsourcing is brought up, the supporters (or non nay-sayers, perhaps) always say "increase or gain better skills" - but they never say how or in what, they are virtually silent on this.

Back in the day, an auto or a textile worker had a chance to pick up IT fairly easily and cheaply - for most companies, a degree or certification *was not* necessary to get a job in computers, so these people had a better chance to get a better job, and many did. But for today's IT worker, it is a completely different story.

No one seems to have an answer, either.

Re:Dems as anti-outsourcers (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 9 years ago | (#10378019)

For startes you're so caught up in buzzwords it's no wonder you can't see where you're going.

Since many of the jobs being outsourced are in IT, what new skills are supposed to be aquired?

Whenever you're tempted to use "IT", stop for a moment and think about what you really mean. The problem with "IT" is that if a computer is involved it's called "IT". It's just like the "Intellectual Property" problem. Once you're free from the brainwashing affect of the "IT" acronym you're free to realize that the guy doing data entry and the guy designing complex systems, while both the same under the "IT" label, actually do vastly different jobs.

Now, to answer your questions that nobody has the answer to...

what new skills are supposed to be aquired?

Critical thinking skills. You need to be able to work on either design or integration of next generation technologies. You need to be able to recognize opportunities, even if they're not in line with what you typically work on. You need to learn to learn on the fly, then you won't have to worry so much about what skills you need to learn next.

Where would the guarantee be that after all the time and money spent (at least two to four years, I would imagine) - that those skills wouldn't have been outsourced as well?

There is no guarantee. The trick is to have your knowledge evolve continually. Never stop learning. That way you never come to a point where you have to stop for 2 years to learn the next thing. You already know the next thing.

Back in the day, an auto or a textile worker had a chance to pick up IT fairly easily and cheaply - for most companies, a degree or certification *was not* necessary to get a job in computers, so these people had a better chance to get a better job, and many did.

"Back in the day" people spent ungodly sums of money on warm-body hiring policies because the IPO boom was giving everybody piles of cash to roll around in. Now, all those unqualified people who were hired into technology positions are figuring out that they can't compete in those fields anymore because they didn't really belong there in the first place.

No one seems to have an answer, either.

I disagree. Nobody seems to have an answer that you like. You seem to want to go back to the days where the rest of the world didn't have the education, or the funds to compete with you. Now they do. No legislation can put the other two thirds of the world back in the third world bottle. Either you get used to continually adapting and learning, or you will have your quality of living fall back to something close to the world average.

Re:Dems as anti-outsourcers (1)

cr0sh (43134) | more than 9 years ago | (#10379353)

I am not particularly worried about where I am going, but I do know that no job is secure (though I have been at my current employer for almost 8 years now). I understand that I must have "critical thinking skills", and that I must keep my knowledge evolving. However, none of this (or little of it) can be put on a resume for someone to hire me. Some of the knowledge may be so specialized that it is only possible to gain it from educational institutions (ie, University), or employer training.

For instance, say you wanted to proceed from being a game developer to working in bioinformatics. You could read all the O'Reilly and other books you want, practice perl, download and manipulate genome datasets, etc - but you still don't have that magic piece of paper that says you studied biology, genetics, etc - so how do you move into such a job? The only way (for this example) would be to get that piece of paper (or have somebody vouch for you - which could be easy, or could be very difficult, depending on your contacts) - which might be impossible from a time/money perspective.

By the way, when I talk about "back in the day", I wasn't talking about the IPO 1990's - I was talking about the 1970s-early 1980s. For a displaced auto or textile worker, if they wanted to move into an information technology job (data entry, programming, etc), they could possibly save up around $2000 and purchase a computer from Apple or Radio Shack, and have a fighting chance at learning, then quite possibly get a job in computers. They didn't need a degree to get a programming job, they just needed the familiarity. That doesn't (and can't) cut it today.

Finally, yes - nobody does seem to have an answer - not one that I like, but just an answer, period. I am not expecting the world to go back "to the way it was". I am not even expecting to stay a coder (though that is what I love to do) for the rest of my life. I do expect that my skillsets and knowledge have to change, and I have to keep up with that change. However, no one seems to have an idea as to what comes after information technology that can't just as easily be offshored. If it involves information in any way (the skills I have is with computers, thus, information - it isn't like I can become an engineer or something overnight on my own), it can be offshored and outsourced.

Currently, I have my eye on a couple of possibilities, things that I can learn on my own with having to go through the time and expense (which I don't have the time or money) of formal education. However, I don't know if either of them are something which will have any call for in the coming years...

Re:Dems as anti-outsourcers (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 9 years ago | (#10378182)

There's something else I wanted to say there, but didn't....

if I am out of work, with a family, a house payment, a car payment, numerous bills, etc - where do I find the time

What business does anybody have getting into a situation where they have a house payment and a car payment without having a signifigant safety net of funds saved up? This debt mentality is fairly recent. It didn't used to be possible to owe so much money... Now people find themselves in debt to three or even five times their annual salaries and they wonder why they are getting themselves into trouble. If you're in a situation like that it means that you were living above your means and you are now dealing with the consequences. If people kept their lifestyles modest and refrained from excessive debt without having a year or more of payments saved up as a safety net then nobody would end up in this type of situation. Honestly, i'm not sure what lenders are thinking allowing people to get so overextended. It can't last forever.

Re:Dems as anti-outsourcers (1)

cr0sh (43134) | more than 9 years ago | (#10379226)

Well, personally for me I only have two main debts - a credit card debt (that isn't very big), and my mortgage. I have no car payments anymore, and that money I was spending on car payments will go toward paying down my credit card debt.

As far as the mortgage is concerned, do you honestly think that barring some major windfall that any normal person can come up with the money in a fairly short time period to purchase a home outright for cash? If you are renting, with other bills, you probably don't have much money left over for savings - so it would take a long while to save up, assuming you can save more per year than home prices will rise. Even so, it may take you 10-15, maybe even 20 years to save up enough money to purchase that home outright (and in 20 years, you probably still wouldn't have enough saved). If you continue to pay rent, the money is just being flushed - at least with a mortgage, some portion of it goes toward the principal.

I agree with you on all other forms of debt - I will never buy a new car again - it just isn't worth it, and definitely not with a loan. Once my credit card is paid off, I will destroy it and never have another one again. These kinds of debt are crazy, and I wish someone had told me earlier in life just how evil they are. When it is gone, all of that money will go into savings.

That is my plan - but that still leaves me with a mortgage. If I followed your plan (which, as I agree, debt other than a mortgage is a bad thing - even a mortgage is bad, but how else is it possible to get a house?), I would likely never own a house, and constantly be flushing my money down the drain as rent - would that be any better?

Re:Dems as anti-outsourcers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10375301)

Sure, flipping burgers sucks when you were making $100k/yr with stock options, but what exactly is the point, here?
For what's worth, flipping burgers sucks even more if you never were making $100k/yr.

Depends.... (2, Insightful)

sfjoe (470510) | more than 9 years ago | (#10374313)

Depends on your definition of "IT folks". If you mean shareholders and senior management of technology-related companies, then anyone in their wholly-owned subsidiary known as the US Congress is good for IT folks.
If, on the other hand, you mean people who work for a living, I can't think of a single person who supports us.

Find out who's padding their pockets... (3, Insightful)

Kevin Burtch (13372) | more than 9 years ago | (#10375060)


http://www.opensecrets.org/ [opensecrets.org] is a great place to find out what organizations and industries are giving the most $$ to each candidate.

There's a lot more content than that there, check it out.

It would have been a lot more useful -- (1)

nusratt (751548) | more than 9 years ago | (#10375604)

-- instead of asking readers to anecdotally/idiosyncratically characterize the positions of various candidates, for the story to PROVIDE references where readers could FIND this info, to help their voting decisions.

Pork for IT (2, Insightful)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 9 years ago | (#10375791)

This shouldn't be about Pork for IT. It should be about common sense. Stop whining about what your congressman is going to do for your iPod, and start looking at what he or she stands for as a WHOLE. Yes, we probably all want our jobs back from Bangalore. But at any cost?

I want my congressmen to be operating under the premise that government exists solely to protect the lives, liberties and properties of its citizens, that government is the servant of the people and not its master, and that honest (and genuine) free trade is the best foreign policy. I don't expect any candidate to be perfect, but one who made the previous the foundation of his platform and could demonstrate he was serious about it, would have vote.

Re:Pork for IT (1)

Alsee (515537) | more than 9 years ago | (#10378710)

Who the hell asked for pork for IT?

I want someone who is going to vote against laws that legally mandate crippled products (from TV's to walkmen to computers). Someone who will vote for the DMCRA or BALANCE act. Someone who isn't going to vote for the fourth incarnations of the same fscking UNCONSTITIONAL law to sensor the internet that has already been struck down in court THREE FSCKING TIMES BEFORE. Someone who doesn't want to retroactively extend copyright yet another 20 years. Someone who realizes that the music industry is a piddling little $14 billion industry while IBM alone is $90 billion per year, with the tech/electronics industry as a whole being many times that. Someone who doesn't think I'm an "evil hacker" to be thrown in prison for assembling a home-brew TV and/or VCR-type device.

Sure there are important non-tech issues, but the things I listed could very well make for the deciding factor between otherwise relatively comparable candidates.

-

Arg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10378724)

Drat, I forgot to close my bold tag after $90 billion.

Re:Pork for IT (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 9 years ago | (#10379271)

You know as well as I do that single-issue voters not only exist, but might well be the most common kind of voter. There are people in the tech community who would vote for Hitler if he only promised to abolish the DMCA. Bonus points if his website ran Linux. They would even overlook Treblinka and Dachau if only who would promise to use OpenOffice and Firefox in government offices.

It doesn't matter if a candidate agrees with you on one or two of your pet bills, if his entire ideology is opposed to yours.

Hello?!?!? McFly??? (2, Informative)

Lobo (10944) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376866)

Why not vote for Badnarik [badnarik.org] for President?
Sounds like a tech person to me!

Became a Computer Programmer in 1977 for Commonwealth Edison at their nuclear power plant in Zion, Illinois; taught control room operators about computers. Was promoted to Senior Software Engineer for their Braidwood Nuclear Simulator project, which he managed from '82-'85 (his favorite job assignment, basically a $6-million "computer game" for which he was totally responsible). Moved to Montebello, CA, and held a "secret security" clearance at Northrop to work on the Stealth Bomber simulator, '85-'87. Relocated to San Luis Obispo, CA, in 1987 as a System Administrator and computer trainer at PG&E's Diablo Canyon nuclear plant; spent 10 years as a member of the Applied Technology Services Team writing software and traveling the state installing real-time data-collection servers to their remote power stations; was an instructor for hundreds of employees teaching state-of-the-art systems being installed. Moved to Austin, TX, in 1997 where he was a programmer and a trainer for Evolutionary Technologies International. He quickly became the Senior Trainer and began traveling across the U.S., and to Canada, England and Australia, as instructor, consultant and "high-tech diplomat." Became an independent computer consultant in 2001, but began to turn his attention (and talents as an instructor and communicator) to teaching his 8-hour "Introduction to the Constitution" class.
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>