Ask Slashdot: Which Candidates For Geek Issues? 792
Okian Warrior writes "An oft-repeated sentiment on Slashdot is that we should change the situation by voting in better officials. An opinion that appears in nearly every political thread is: 'we're to blame because we elected these people.' On the eve of the first primary (in New Hampshire), I have to wonder: how can we tell the candidates apart? Ron Paul is an obvious exception, and I am not discounting him, but otherwise it seems that no candidate has made a stand on any issue. Consider the candidates (all of them, of any party) as a set. What issue can I use to divide them into two groups, such that one group is 'for' something and the other is 'against'?"
Who uses technology versus who talks about it (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm much more inclined to look at a candidate that uses or has used technology versus those who just like to talk about it.
In that sense, Obama came into his position while using a Blackberry to keep connected. Presumably this allowed him to use the business features of the device to make his work more efficient. As a user, he would be affected by changes to the law that might restrict what he could do if companies now stop things that they've been doing in practice.
A candidate who talks about technology without actually putting it into practice is not necessarily a good candidate, in that their understanding doesn't come to a practical level and the could think they understand issues that they don't, and since they don't even use the tech, making a bad decision wouldn't even impact them.
Run away from candidates who are proud of their provincial, luddite behavior. That's perfectly fine in any random person, but is unacceptable in someone who will be expected to make decisions that affect millions of people but can't be bothered to get informed.
"Those Internets" -George W. Bush
"The Internet is a great way to get on the Net" -Bob Dole
John Huntsman (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Who uses technology versus who talks about it (Score:4, Interesting)
"We do have to make sure that there are computers in a computer age inside classrooms, and that they work and that there’s Internets that are actually -- there are Internet connections that actually function." - Obama
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/06/president-obama-internets_n_891781.html
Re:Geek issues? (Score:4, Interesting)
Geeks don't agree, but geeks don't literally come down as on only one side of each of several issues with another group of geeks coming down on exactly the opposite side of the set of issues either. A politician who knows the issues and can actually talk about them with some kind of insight is the kind of person we would ultimately want, even if not everyone agrees with everything they stand for all of the time.
My wife is an MIT alum and is really active in her alumni group, so I know A LOT of extreme übergeeks. They fall all over the place as far as opinions on the political responsibilities and ramifications of technology, yet they all would agree that generally understanding and employing technology and being able to look at the results of its usage is essential in the further progression of society. After all, Technology is what differentiates human beings from all of the other animals on this planet. We are the only species that engages in any sort of high level manufacturing beyond a little bit of the use of found objects in a few other mammals.
Re:choosing between 2 parties (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:same old same old (Score:5, Interesting)
That's one way to look at it....I see things a slightly different:
*Republicans believe that nothing should hold back an individual or group from achieving success and happiness provided that it is done in a way that is not that harmful to society or others - also, that ideally all individuals and families should be positive role models. Furthermore, republicans generally believe that each section of society has a proper role and size where the family is responsible for giving kids a good start in life and being the primary resource for handling emergencies and major events, that the individual is responsible for what he achieves and his health, that religion and churches should look after the moral health of society and also be the venue through which most general welfare and charitable activities be handled, that government be limited to providing basic infrastructure and a neutral safe ground for everyone to interact, and lastly that when decisions in government be made that it be at the level closest to those impacted (e.g. local control of schools rather than state/federal).
*Democrats believe the republican "traditional approach" has failed or otherwise lets too many people out in the cold. Their arguments are more from the emotional side (e.g. everyone has a right to good health, it is better that we all have the same standard of living than that some do too much better than others, that too many people are not capable of governing their own life and we should use government to ensure they are both cared for and that their actions be for the general good).
Both approaches have their pluses and minuses.....I see the sensible middle ground being that for society to succeed long term it must blend both, enough of the republican approach to have wealth, and enough of the democrat approach for everyone to feel they've had a fair chance at life and not rebel.
Politics is more intense now simply because the USA is at the start or middle of an economic decline and there are two approaches being discussed. Republicans want to do everything possible to recover growth and wealth (no matter how painful it will be). Democrats are more fatalistic and believe that we should be directing our attention towards managing the decline in such a way that no one group gets hurt too bad, and that if any group must be hurt -- it should be at the higher end. Unfortunately, these two approaches are somewhat the opposite of each other...
Re:Ron Paul! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:same old same old (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a lot more complicated than that. In each party you have different groups coming together - like monacle-wearing big-bussiness types teaming up with social conservatives in the GOP, or big labor teaming up with environmentalists in the DP. Sometimes one group may even believe things which conflict with the party's platform, but a key issue forces them back to the table - like religious types who like the social policies of the DP but stick with the GOP because of abortion, or blue collar workers who like the social conservatism or 'tough on crime' stance of the GOP.
In all cases, both parties are manipulated and controlled by politicians. Some have entered politics for noble causes, some for personal gain, and some for a feeling of importance or entitlement.
Both parties seem to favor some form of big business nowadays - possibly because big business is how things get done in America. Big business manufactures the products, hires the workers, and organizes us into something that has increased our standard of living(while having many, many obvious negative effects - I'm not getting into that).
If you can't vote for actual socialists, nobody? (Score:5, Interesting)
A conservative should be against disruption, and a progressive should be in favour of, well, progress.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Democratic politicians are not unlikely to be in the back pocket of Big Coal, Big Oil, and Big Content, where they try not to notice the Republicans in there with them. At least Republicans hate solar, we can at least distinguish the two on one tech issue.
Frankly, I think ALL the available politicians are "conservative" about disruptive technologies, since new companies are still poor and unable to bribe\\\\\\ contribute to their campaigns, and the existing Powers That Be are able to ensure that any disruptions are thwarted, or at least slowed down.
I think that Canada's NDP ("New Democratic Party" - based on the British Labour Party - no longer actual socialists, but as far as we go in that direction) does show what a genuinely progressive party would be like in the States. They don't take corporate contributions. And here's the most anti-DRM piece I've ever read from a national politician - from an NDP Member of Parliament, last month in the Huffington Post, protesting our Conservative Party's new "C11" bill:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/romeo-saganash/copyright-canada-reform-bill-c-11_b_1143332.html [huffingtonpost.ca]
Excerpt:
"Most nations with modern copyright laws do not criminalize bypassing digital locks for non-commercial use. They allow people to burn a CD from music purchased on an iPod. They let you copy a new DVD to your laptop. They don't prevent someone who is visually impaired from using software to read ebooks aloud. They don't stop teachers from referencing other media to illustrate a lesson. Under Bill C-11, all of these acts are crimes."
Re:Who uses technology versus who talks about it (Score:4, Interesting)
Let me put it this way: sit Bush and Obama down. Give each one a motherboard, hard drive, and all the other makings of a PC. I'd bet decent odds that Bush would have the thing working first.
(Note: I am not asserting that either man is smarter than the other, just that Bush is more experienced with, and more likely to be comfortable with, dealing with technology shorn of its user-friendly trappings. Sending emails on a Blackberry doesn't qualify).
Re:same old same old (Score:5, Interesting)
No. Because his "reasoned and well written opinion" is not backed up by the policies actually supported by Democratic legislatures and presidents, which have also enriched a lot of people "at the top." What he ascribes to the Republicans is actually a fairly universal consensus in both parties: called, variously, "neoliberalism," the "American consensus," etc. The Democrats are comfortable with a concentration of wealth in the top of the financial services sector, in the top of various cultural industries and "brand" firms, in all the things that make up the tertiary economy. Now, that happens to coincide with the interests of some other groups: generally, those economies prosper when there is more retail activity - that is, when the market is spread out wide. This is especially true for IT, culture/entertainment, and retail sectors. Policies which "dislodge" a bit of the wealth are useful to those sectors, but not ones which encourage saving. The Republicans' interest bloc thrives more with B2B; labor costs reduce the dynamism of B2B economics, and so they are less likely to want to increase the minimum wage, are a bit more interested in keeping the pressure on the worker so that they don't take too much of their employers' revenues, etc. But ultimately, they are both serving the interests of the (different) elites who fund them, back them, hang out with them, etc.
Re:choosing between 2 parties (Score:3, Interesting)
Duverger's law [wikipedia.org] explains that we only have two viable parties because we use an antiquated voting system that encourages tactical voting. If you don't vote for one of the top two candidates, you're basically "throwing your vote away."
I would think that IRV (Instant-Runoff Voting) would abolish such foolishness otherwise known as a political duopoly.
Re:Ron Paul (Score:3, Interesting)
and can out-democrat the liberals on issues of civil liberties
Yes, he has that perfect civil liberties stance of being against gay marriage.
And no, I don't believe the idea that he's against government in all marriage. Get him to introduce a bill that removes recognition of straight marriage from the federal government, and then maybe I'll think about him.
And with his "let the states decide!" bullshit, how would conservatives like it if states were to decide whether or not you could have guns?
Re:same old same old (Score:5, Interesting)
I have never had any objection to people being wealthy, even ridiculously wealthy, and most Democrats that I've talked to on this matter do not have a problem with this either. The problem is in shirking responsibilities. No legal document founding this country makes any guarantee of being wealthy, or any respect for it.
If you want to talk about what wealth disparity does, look at the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. ALL had large elements of a super-rich, corrupt elite who wouldn't return to society some of the fruits of their success that they benefitted from society. When income and resource inequality gets too far out of whack, revolution happens.
I am not going to get into a debate about affirmative action right now, the issues of generations of racial discrimination and the ramifications of it are far too far reaching to get in to depth on in this forum. On the other hand, I don't see anyone forcing a social conservative to have a gay marriage. I don't see anyone forcing a social conservative to participate in a blow job, or in birth control, or in sex for pleasure, or in sex in anything other than the missionary position (I'm pointing directly at Santorum here), nor is anyone forcing them to have premarital sex or extramarital affairs. The point in this is that Democrats generally want to not prohibit activities between consenting adults. I do, however, see Republicans arguing that their social restrictions on who can have sex with who when everyone involved are consenting adults, and I find that more disgusting than any of the sexual practices that they seek to render illegal between those consenting adults.
I was referring to the elected officials, not to the public. Terri Schiavo comes to mind. In my opinion, Democrats should have removed the filibuster from the Senate's rules of order and rammed single-payer-with-optout (ie, if you opt out, no one is required to care for you if you can't pay), end of DADT, appointment of judges, cabinet post and agency director positions, and a whole host of other legislation down Republicans' throats just as the Republicans did when they managed to gain majorities in both chambers.
I know, you're libertarian, so you don't like many of my ideas, but if you want roads, clean air, clean water, postal delivery, the ability to purchase things that require loans, someone to deal with the results of your rights being violated, someone to put out fires, and much, much more, you'll need some form of organizing body, and that is called Government.
Re:SOPA is a good one to decide between candidates (Score:4, Interesting)
In short appealing to an extremely small minority...
21.4% for third place in Iowa is not "extremely small" when the leading two got only ~24.5% each. Yet another attempt to marginalize Paul and his supporters.
The establishment would be afraid of him if he wasn't appealing to such a tiny demographic
See above. And if you're calling the overwhelming support from military personnel "a tiny demographic," then perhaps you should enlist and put your ass on the line. I hear Iran's pretty nice this time of year.
if people would vote for the candidate that best represents their point of view we wouldn't be having the sorts of problems that we're having.
A moronic and naive statement given the state of American politics. Obama, for example. Where's all that hope and change he promised? How do we know a candidate will work in our best interests based just on what they say? What about the other republican crackpots?
Also, this is a false dilemma...
No, believing that one should vote only for an establishment candidate on either side of the fence is a false dillemma, one that's been utterly ruinous to our country. If Ron Paul is elected, two things could happen: The first is that Ron Paul will spectacularly betray us like Obama did. Okay, fair enough, people start either fleeing the country or picking up their guns. Maybe Ron Paul will be elected but be powerless to do anything. That's fine, because at least some progress was made and the message was sent. Same if Ron Paul didn't win, but got at least a third of the votes.
Geek interest? Start with science. (Score:5, Interesting)
Other than John Huntsman, the GOP candidates have serious issue with basic science.
As in, they all claim to believe at least part of this list:
- Creationism is a valid theory. (Nevermind fossils or the definition of scientific "theory".)
- Global warming is a hoax or not something that should be addressed. (Nevermind the data and the >98% concurrence among climatologists.)
- Vaccines cause retardation (Nevermind... facts)
- Abstinence education is effective. (Nevermind the data that show how high pregnancy rates are when it's all that's available.)
- Abortion is pretty much never a medical necessity. (That's from the ACTUAL PHYSICIAN candidate, too.)
- Being gay is a mental disease/lifestyle choice/bad decision/horrible influence on children (Nevermind that the AMA and American Psychiatric association recognize it as normal variation, and studies show gay parents are fine.)
- Sex is only for man-woman-marriage-baby-making. (Nevermind reality. And Newt Gingrich.)
It's quite evocative of that famous Asimov quote: Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'
So yeah, I'd say Huntsman at least doesn't try to play "who is the most sincere anti-intellectual for their Deity" by denying science. As a geek, that's something I like in a candidate.
I wish sanity were something that was a little easier to parlay into support, but the Primaries are the Crazy Olympics, and it's all about who can out-God and out-blue-collar the next.
I want to like a party that espouses fiscal and personal responsibility. I want to embrace the idea of less intrusive government. I just don't think it should come at the cost of science.