Slashdot Mirror
Hardball Tactics For The Geek Lobby
sfjoe writes: "The San Francisco Chronicle has this story on how to effectively make the point about online freedom of speech. In a nutshell, until a legislator gets slapped around (electorally-speaking) for kowtowing to the narrow corporate interests, nobody in Congress will take online civil liberties seriously. On the other hand if, for example, Senator Disney gets his balls whacked (electorally-speaking), monstrosities like the DMCA will start getting bottled up in congressional committees. The NRA has been doing this for years and it works."
That's the essence of the NRA, their membership votes guns, so the question is are there enough people to vote geek? (and pay a real membership fee)
Chris
Co-Editor, Open Sources
Open Source Program Manager, Google, Inc.
Read the manifesto here..
/.ing for starters...
Vote with your
Paper Pusher
They do talk about providing money to candidtates that help. But, there is more than just money.
People can question the bad candidates about their position and publically humiliate them.
People can use the web to expose the i>bad candidates.
And the carrot would be the publicity and assitance for the good candidtates. Money helps, but it takes more.
Fight Spammers!
What makes you think that you have some inherent right to "online privacy" or "online freedom"? I don't see that in the bill of rights or the constitution itself, do you?
Yes, I do. Go back and re-read your US Constitution. Pay particular attention to 9th Amendment. The right to privacy has long been understood to be one of the unenumerated rights.
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
There's a chicken/egg situation here. A politician that kowtows to corporate interest gets access to a nice fat warchest. With which they can go out and purchase expensive television ads that allow them to spin their record appropriately (as defenders of the economy, friends of the artist, warriors against crime, etc.) Public perception costs money.
... please let's not call it the "Geek Lobby". Even if we use the term amongst ourselves, it just won't fly for the general public.
Miko O'Sullivan
because the government watching everything we do we free us from 'terror' right? i'm not willing to give up any privacy, online or otherwise. The world will never be free of terror because humans, in general, are far from civilized. Human beings killing ourselves is not something the government can control through the spying on people on the Internet or through any other means.
Especially when other terms like "Tech Lobby" are so readily available and better understood by the general public. When an average person thinks "geek" they likely think either "pimply-faced kid who sits around all day playing either Diablo 2 or Dungeons & Dragons" or if they're too old to think that they think "carnival freak who bites the heads off chickens."
Now "technology" on the other hand is a word whose meaning is mostly understood by the general public (even if the technology itself usually isn't...).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
What in hell are you talking about? This article is talking about geeks being more active in political issues that concern geeks, esp. with regard to raising support against politicians who act contrary to geek interests.
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
If even 5% of the geeks who are appalled by the SSSCA/CBDTPA sent a small check to Disney's opponent, we could turn the election. If we include a quick note explaining the contribution, our message will be loud and clear. Formal lobbying groups, public education campaigns, and all the other trappings are nice to have, but the fundamental force comes from lots of people putting their money where their hearts are.
I think one key, however, is that Hollings must be vulnerable. If he has a token opponent, we should focus on someone else - key word being "one". Sending money to the opposing party, or to several candidates won't cut it at our level. Our pockets aren't deep enough, and we don't have enough of them.
Still, I think this guy underestimates how easy/cheap it would be. I'd donate a few bucks to such a PAC, but I'm not rich. And if we all banded together somehow, and wanted to votefuck Hollings when he's up for re-election, could we win? Imagine that we somehow come up with enough cash to mount a decent tv ad campaign. We'd still be the new guys, and they would retaliate. Does anyone believe they are somehow above lying and namecalling?
"These hippy anarchists, aren't even from your district. Yet they want to dictate to the good people of N. Carolina who you should vote for. They want to allow dirty thieves to steal movies and games from struggling artists, bankrupting them, and stealing from you in the long run. We can't tell you to do anything illegal, but by god, if we ever see them on the street alone at night..."
Remember folks, if you pick on one of Hollywood's bought and paid for politicians, you are **picking on Hollywood**. There is no way that we could ever do political ads that are as slick, as decietful, and unfortunately, as effective as they could. They'd have Cher saying how she supports Senator Asswad, and we'd have some finnish geek saying something that Joe Sixpack doesn't understand, in an accent that annoys him.
The system is broken, and can't fix itself. No matter how much we help it from the inside.
Both the article as well as the slashdot poster hit the nail on the head.
Do It ! Please !
You would be amazed how good political muscle can work if applied this way.
Just take someone and (politically) string him up! And don't take Hollings - as much tempting he is as a target he's far east of seventy and probably doesn't need (or even maybe doesnt seek) another term in the Senate. Take one of his allies instead. Get one who's prominent enough to be associated with Hollings' legislation, one who is young enough to loose something when booted out of Congress (The Never Come Back), but too old already to just shrug it off and do something else. Preferably have him (or her) squeal all over the place.
In short, inflict maximum pain. Make the guy (or the lady) an example.
It's an old principle of Germanic Law: Justice has to be seen.
The NRA has been doing this for years and it works."
Perhaps this is the key.
Under some circumstances, exported computers are classified as munitions. Can't we simply apply the Second Amendment to assure our freedom to use computers as we see fit?
Will the person who is going to write "send real letters through the mail... do not email... do not fax... yadda, yadda" please shut up.
Insert obvious anthrax analysis here.
There, now that all of that is out of the way, please continue with other more lucid points.
-Rothfuss
Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska.
They are the highest profile supporters of SSSCA who are facing election in 2002.
Please, please, can i spend all my karma to get this post at a score:10?
"Geek" is just not a good word to describe this. Slashdot users use that word so often they forget *it means something totally different in the real world*. On slashdot, "geek" means "a person of an intellectual bent who is interested in science or computer esoterica, and open to internet subculture." That's JUST to slashdotters. To EVERYONE ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE, geek means "geek". You know, a perjorative term for a person who thinks they're really intelligent but has no social skills.
This is a problem becuase the point of a geek lobby, or of the GeekPAC that they had those stories on a couple weeks ago, is to communicate to people who don't read slashdot and don't know what "source code" is and don't know what the slashdot definition of "geek" is. Thus, if a geek lobby cannot figure out how to communicate with "the norms" in their own language, it becomes absolutely pointless. Can ANYONE come up with a better name for this? Even "open source lobby" would be better, even though it doesn't quite cover the issues at hand, because it doesn't sound so.. geeky.
"Open Computing Lobby"?
"Computer End-user Forum"?
"Copyright Fair Use PAC"?
"Americans for Consumer Freedom"?
It doesn't matter. All i know is that in my dictionary, "geek" is defined as "a carnival performer often billed as a wild man whose act usually includes biting the head off a live chicken or snake". This is not how i want my political views being presented to society at large.
I was just say'en that I this artical made me think about how the courts could become so clogged with DMCA cases that the law itself could become impotent. the DMCA is not a that the government can't enforce because they can't catch the us, but rather they can't enforce it because the culture is such that there isn't enought court dockets to hold all of the violators on trial. I am etreamely interested in what politician are doing, and I thought that the two comments has something to do with each other.
:)
Sorry
It takes a fundamental shift in ideology by the masses, not a "whistlestop tour" of geeks going from one gathering to another where maybe 50 people at most will show up, for anything to take effect. People have to change their minds about capitalism and how it does not necessarily equate democracy, not just about the evils of the DMCA or [insert hated law here]. Otherwise, the RIAA and MPAA will simply invoke the "they're stealing our stuff" BS rhetoric because most Americans are convinced that intellectual property equates physical property in terms of stealing.
Until the bigger issues are addressed, these concerns are always going to crop up in a public that has been taught to buy into the unexamined idea of corporate priviledge since birth.
"Anonymous Coward" is for whistleblowers, not unpopular opinions.
Everyone and their brother has free speech as an issue.
What "geeks" need right now is to know how to make a point about the fact that:
Seastead this.
Is the NRA is a properly run orginization that all the members are active in permoting it and following through with the beliefs and goals of the org.
There is NO WAY IN HELL you can get geeks,dweebs,nerds and spaz's to agree on anything. Hell when it comes down to the wire the bulk of us are too damned lazy to even write a letter to our congressperson or a letter to the editor, let alone become an activist.
and then you try and get geeks to pay dues... Hell they wont pay for a slashdot subscription (Me included) what makes anyone believe that anyone would pay the $150.00 a year dues that would be required?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I know that we're all supposed to be for reform and all, but didn't Senator McCain just make this tatic illegal?
Get the special interest groups out of Washington!
If GeekPAC were to target a single Senator for removal with political adverstising, like the columnist suggests, it would violate the 60-day rule in the new laws.
Maybe those anti-Campaign Finance Reform people whining about free speech had a point after all. How does it feel to be a special interest?
Warning: this post is seeping with my political views, many of which are controversial. I'm using them as an example, not to try to convert folks or pick a fight.
I'm from Senator Disney's home state. Hollings is a Democrat, so voting against him means voting for a Republican. In other states, this might not be a problem -- there are a lot of moderate Republicans in the Senate that I respect, even if I disagree with some of their opinions. Unfortunately, they aren't on the ballot in South Carolina. Republican politicians in the South are fucking scary. If anyone doubts this, think about Strom Thurmond (segregationist), Jesse Helms (well-known racist), and Trent Lott (pork-barelling thug). I don't know if I can vote for a Southern-style Republican after seeing what damage out-of-control conservativism has done to the South.
In effect, saying "no" to Hollings is saying "yes" to the religious right, "yes" to corporate welfare, "yes" to the war on drugs, "yes" to irresponsible military expenditures (that, unlike much government spending, do nothing to grow the economy), "yes" to wiretapping the Internet, "yes" to mandatory censorware in libraries and schools, and the list goes on. It means saying "no" a woman's right to an abortion, "no" to affirmative action, "no" to spending money on public education, "no" to space research, "no" to any and all liberal social programs. You may not have a problem with all of these issues, but if any one of them is dear to your heart, you've got a real dilemma.
I'm a CS student, and I hope to work in software development one day, but frankly, if I never saw another computer again, or never bought another CD, I could live a happy and rewarding life doing something else. However, I don't think I could, in good conscience, advance a destructive conservative agenda just so I can use Linux instead of Windows, or use a traditional, uncrippled PC. I'm not saying you shouldn't, I'm just saying that I can't, and that many people won't. Technology issues are important, but is it worth abandoning everything else that I believe in just to vote a few (OK, a lot of) crooked Democrats out of office? Sadly, I don't think so.
We have a couple of choices, in my view. We can lobby in the traditional manner -- attempting to purchase influence via campaign donations. This is very expensive, and we'll get spanked by Microsoft and Disney, but maybe it will work if we generate enough public awareness. Barring that, we could just leave. I question whether other countries are still scrambling for computer programmers, but frankly, I'd go to Scandinavia or the Netherlands in a heartbeat if I could.
I hate that this sounds so negative, but I'm pretty demoralized about the whole thing -- it would be interesting to see if someone comes up with a solution.
Steve
That's damn right. From 1997 to 2002, she raised $22,750 from Disney (4th contributor) and $18,100 from AOLTW (7th contributor). I think GeekPAC can raise much more than that. And throwing that money on his opponent would be a good complement to grassroot actions (grin). I don't like senators to be for sale, but so it is. Then why not just buy them ?
disclaimer: I sent my check to GeekPAC two days ago, and I'm not even an american citizen. So what are you waiting for ?
So OK Manufacturers, code writers, divy up. At the risk sounding droll, cliche and all that stuff, "Put yer money where yer mouth is"
Scare came along to make our elected representatives afraid to open mail from their constituents
at the very time their kneejerk reaction would be to attack our liberties in the name of National Security?
--
Fight Wide Posts! Put in your own line breaks. The <br> tag is your friend.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
Does anyone keep just lists of the Bills, voting records, etc. on these issues? Opensecrets.org does this for their issues, and Common Cause publicizes voting record for their issues, but I haven't seen anything like this for Geek issues.
Perhaps the EFF would do something like this, but I didn't find it on their Web site. Well, they are probably open to suggestions, especially with a contribution in the envelope!
He's not representing the interests of SC. When I think "entertainment", SC doesn't come to mind first . Based on the money he's received and the interests he's put forward, he's more suited to represent CA.
Perhaps he should move there and represent them.
It appears that right now they can only accept pledges, You can do that http://www.thelinuxshow.com/otc.htm
Funny, I was just watching TV when I came accross that post. The AIPAC is dining and wining Washington's political elite at the Hilton tonight and various pols are brownnosing their generous sponsor so hard they are growing warts on their nose.
(Note for non-US readers: AIPAC is the pro-Israel lobby dropping millions of soft-money every year onto grateful Congresscritters to influence the US foreign policy.)
The AIPAC is one of the most efficient lobbies in the world. I think we geeks should find inspiration in its mode of operation:
And you know what? It WORKS. Nobody in their right mind ever speaks against AIPAC in Washington.
Carrots and big sticks. That's the way to deal with Congress. Collateral damages include democracy and ethics, but nobody said politics was pretty.
If we want to nip the SSSCA insanity in the bud, we geeks have to forget about the artificial political divisions and make sure Mickey Hollings gets his testicles shoved up his big mouth at the next election. Whether his adversary is Ralph Nader or Rush Limbaugh is irrelevant, Hollings has to get his fat ass kicked and painted with "who's next?" in day-glow paint.
If we don't do that, we developers might as well try to find a job as a data entry clerk at the MPAA's headquaters, because life as a software creator is going to suck.
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
Consortium
Visit the GeekPac homepage on the Linux Show. Right now it appears they can only accept pledges, as they are not yet legally setup to solict funds. They have both memberships and donations.
From the website:
GeekPAC is the second proposed entity and is intended as a funding channel to directly affect the outcome of elections and legislation. The actions of GeekPAC will include (but not be limited to) the purchase of political advertising that may impact the outcome of elections or legislation and direct lobbying to congress, including the hiring of lobbyists to represent members. Further actions may include contributing directly to political campaigns of people seeking local, state or national office. GeekPAC will be a registered Political Action Committee (PAC). Under McCann-Feingold, GeekPAC will not be able to accept donations from businesses or foreign nationals. Contributions will not be tax-deductible.
I totally agree. Why not vote republican though. Not to get in a mud slining thing, but of all republicans I can think of In office except one or two, who are really wolfs in sheeps clothing, they atleast stand for something, not just for money, and at least work for the people who voted them into office... not just collect monies for possible relections all the time.
But, Don't vote for the party, don't vote for some idiot's political ambition. Vote for what is right, for what is good, not just for your self, but for us all.
Dianne Feinstein was up for re-election in 2000. Despite being from San Francisco, she's probably one of the least friendly congresspeople towards technology and the internet. Her opponent was Tom Campbell, an imminently sensible pro-technology Republican. He got his clock cleaned.
Since Feinstein's up in 2006, I'd volunteer Boxer in 2004. There's plenty of time, she's in favor of the Hollings bill, and she's a perrenially weak candidate. If the California Republicans would re-run Campbell, or someone else similar from Silicon Valley, it's be a great way of getting our voices heard.
Is there a similarly weak Republican?
Why can't you vote for another Democrat for the senate? It doesn't have to be a party issue. (Or is there something I'm forgetting about senator races vs. president races?)
Zodiac Survey
And then came along the 1994 Crime bill. In case you don't remember this bill, this was the infamous bill that banned "assualt weapons" without a good definition of what an assualt weapon was and banned gun magazines over 10 rounds. It barely passed, but passed nonetheless.
Jack Brooks onveniently forgot who brought him to the dance and who kept him there. He voted against the bill, even though many of his constituents were either directly NRA members or sympathetic to the cause. He did not serve another term. Though no one directly said it, it was considered general knowledge that his vote on the crime bill was the critical issue.
-------------------------------------------------
the best i could find with a quick google has the VPC (violence policy center, basically and anti-NRA group) saying this:
(eddie eagle program is the NRA's gun safety project for children, or as the VPC calls it, "Joe Camel with feathers")
Which makes it seem that the NRA claims to not accept donations from the gun industry at all (although i can't find an NRA quote to that effect). That actually makes sense since the NRA's hard-line stance on gun regulation actually puts it up against gun manufacturers who would like to reach a compromise with the government in order to preserve their contracts with the biggest weapon buyer of them all, the US government.
I wonder what the operating budget of the NRA is. Anybody have an idea?
this:
--
Benjamin Coates
The author is right-right-right-right-right.
When power is evenly split, as it is now, coalition politics come to the fore and relatively small groups -- if focused -- can make big gains.
This is where the NRA and AARP shine. They know how to focus on the issues that matter to them. As it stands today, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have demonstrated any particular warmth to digital rights issues. Carefully targetted efforts that endanger the balance of power could generate major wins.
Remember: all of those dollars that corporations spend aren't powerful because they're dollars, but because they help to generate votes, which politicians need if they are to retain power. Well-focused and well-targetted campaigns can get attention all out of proportion to the resources involved if they will be backed up by people going to the polls.
That will be the real trick, given the basic cynicism of so many in the techi spectrum.
The problem isn't the lack of the right demographic, it's still just too much of the wrong kind of money. In case you haven't noticed, Myrtle Beach is like Vegas by the Sea without the gambling- bought and and built by the entertainment industry. From the House of Blues to Broadway at the Beach, they're all there. Myrtle Beach is fast eclipsing Columbia and Charleston as SC's major metropolis. If it's not the fastest growing city in the country, it's certainly one of them. There's big, big money there, and much more on the way- and it's all enemy money.
Just vote Libertarian..
The day you here a Libertarian saying that they want a regulation is the day I find a new party..
As far as I know, the content restriction method is not developed yet (one of the huge gaping problems with the legislation).
If I recall correctly, aren't there some quarter million people who read /. daily? Many of us are computer professionals and would have no problem (at least from a financial standpoint) giving a couple hundred dollars a year or so to a responsible group who could organize and push forward with lobbying to our benefit. Assuming less one in twenty gave an average $100, you could be looking at over $1,000,000 ($100 * 10,000 people) per year. I should think this would be plenty for a small staff to maintain a single focal point where everyone concerned about their rights can keep up to date and can be informed about how to help with an organized fight to ensure our continued freedoms.
As corny as that sounds, look at what we're facing. The DMCA, the SSSCA, they exist for one reason: money. Being elected is a great way to get rich quickly, so these people will do anything they have to to ensure they're re-elected. Attacking people like Hollings with a million dollar+ annual budget would certainly make a point. The Senator from Disney would have one heck of a time getting elected if negative adds were running non-stop for the last few weeks before the next election. When you can take down the big boys, the small fish learn quickly to sit down and shut up, and do as they're told.
With all the high tech people that are out of work right now, I'm sure some must be reading this who have some sort of campaign/government experience who can set this up. Show me a responsible, organized effort to put a PAC together and I'll not only join and donate, I'll do everything I can to make sure other people do as well.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Thank you. Whenever I try to make that point, nobody ever listens!
The Ninth Amendment has to be the most underrated and most ignored by Congress (though the 10th comes close) Amendment that there is.
Laymans Terms:
Ninth Amendment: "We listed some rights explicitly. Even if we forgot to talk about the others, you've still got them."
Tenth Amendment: "If we didn't say the Feds could do something, then they can't. The States and the People can."
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
As soon as I saw the name "GeekPAC" I shuddered. It seems like geeks are cursed with an utter lack of communication skills - which means that they have never really observed how communication works. The name "GeekPAC" does not connote a benevolent, respectable organization speaking for computer professionals or users. Imagine if the NRA were called "GunPAC" or "GatPAC" or "PAC'n heat". The message is obviously targeted for internal consumption, and the founders seem unable to look at themselves from the viewpoint of a normal person.
Plotkin is right - the scheme of spraying small amounts of money around randomly is not going to work. As he points out, the winning strategy is deterrence - we make an example of one legislator, and thereby get the attention of the rest.
Ever watch a movie and find yourself wanting the bad guy to win, just because the good guy was such an ass? That's how I'm starting to feel about this "geeks vs. entertainment industry" war. I think I first felt this when geeks were protesting something (maybe the Microsoft EULA?) and a few of them showed up in Star Wars costumes. Naturally, that's what the media covered. This "GeekPAC" looks like a great way to shoot ourselves in the foot more publicly and more expensively than usual. These guys are about as competent to wage a political battle as the average lobbyist would be to admin a farm of web servers.
The core idea is sound, of course. If computing is going to survive, we have to start paying tribute to Congress. It's that simple. Doctors pay $700 a year to the AMA, essentially to ward of legislation that would destroy their profession.
I hope that the inevitable humiliating failure of this "GeekPAC" will not discourage geeks from seeking political representation.
What bothers me the most about this article is that it makes tremendous sense. Using the proven intimidation tactics of groups like right-wing Christians does make sense. Kicking a few carefully targeted politicians out of office would be a good way to get their colleagues' attention.
What's sad is that the bought and paid for nature of government in America is such an accepted fact nowadays. Apparently we finally woke up and smelled the coffee, but then all we did was order biscotti to go with it. Plotkin is suggesting throwing it right in some senator's face instead, and I think that's a hell of a good idea. I hope somebody at GeekPAC is listening to him.
The people who bought his votes are from California. The entertainment industry doesn't have any sort of noticeable presence in SC. There's nothing like telling the voters that their representative has been bought by a bunch of 'furriners' to make them wonder who he's working for.
I'd also say that there are a lot more IT professionals (if you include MCSEs) in SC than 5... if one goes into a small business in SC, one sees computers just like anywhere else in the USA.
Speaking as a Californian, I regard targeting Dianne Feinstein as a wonderful idea.
The problem is money in either case. I think a PAC intended for EFFECTIVE political action... one intended to turn our enemies into roadkill could get the same kind of support from both rank and file AND from manufacturers that the NRA does and gets the same kind of respect that the NRA does.
I regared single issue politics as divisive, but I think that's the price we have to pay as a nation and a high-tech community for economic survival.
We can consciously decide to play hardball or we can "fight the good fight" and get our asses kicked and those of us who manage to emigrate to where the new high-tech action is can discuss the "good old days" of American IT over a beer.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Excellent. Let me add that TechNet,the PAC for major suits is mainly a lobbying organization intended for things like making sure H1B gets renewed...
The high-tech community has a chance of turning our anger and fear into real political power. Who around here knows some of the suits that have had the joy of trying to explain why destructive regulation of technology is A BAD THING to clueless elected officials?
I think they are a logical place to start passing the hat.
Tech Public Policy stuff
True. But presumably, the Democrats would have learned their lesson and would not field an Eisner pawn against him when his term comes up. They say that politics makes strange bedfellows for a reason. If the CB??? or SSSCA or whatever they're calling it this week really really offends you then you are going to have to hold your nose and help out the other guy. At this point, I'd support an Alfred E. Neumann candidacy if it would oust Hollings, Feinstein or other scum like that.
Another poster pointed out that the NRA doesn't really vote Republican, they vote Gun. The thing we really have to be wary of is forming alliances with other causes that are ultimately detrimental. Banding with Creationists for one term to get rid of someone like Hollings is an example of the type of thing we need to be prepared to do. There is no need to band with them for all time under any circumstances.
We have many many values that are important to us. Politics will demand that we sometimes accept setbacks in one area to gain victory in another. I don't like it either but that's reality folks.
Microsoft has 21 fairly broad patents that cover among other things, integrating DRM into an OS. The worry is that an SSSCA type law would basically make a Microsoft OS or Microsoft licenced technology the only legal way to use computers in this country.
This guy has put his finger on the usual mistake that geeks have when dealing with people in power, from PHBs on up to senators. They try to use facts and reason. Skillful politicians don't view the process as one of informing anyone, its about getting what they want.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Instead, to stem the tide, GeekPAC, or some other similar organization, needs to make an example out of someone in Congress, and do it quick. When the National Rifle Association, or the Christian Coalition or Emily's List, for that matter, want action on an issue, the strategists behind those well-run groups usually pick a smart fight with one or more of their key opponents. They target their resources to just those specific races, sometimes to just one race. Rather than give 200 politicians $1,000 each, the savviest PACs instead will spend $200,000 or more kicking the bejesus out of just one single office holder.
I say Diane Feinstein. She'd be a great one to be made an example because she's thought of as such a leader in Congress on this stuff.
My Karma was at 49, then they switched to words. All that work for nothing!
A nice radio ad as outlined in the article would be great.
Checking the VPC site for NRA-info is a lot like asking Microsoft about the effectiveness of Linux. They will both lie and cheat to smear their primary enemy. Trust nothing you find at that website; they are proven liars.
---dragoness
...plotting on your little web page to overthrow politicians of our grand, glorious, and noble government. You should all be ashamed of yourself for adopting such anti-authority views and attacking such core institutions like Disney. They are a good, reputable company and if they need a little help from the government to keep entertaining our youngsters, I say give it to them!"
Draw your own conclusions.
Why bother.
The idea that knowing how the political process works if one wants to do anything with it means putting in the kind of study and intellectual labor that understanding the difference between BSD and Linux does is something that my discussion with them shows me that they just don't get.
They have the delusion that reasonable discussion with reasonable people who are focused on solving the real problems of America will get us what we need to survive as a technological economy. It's way too late for 'constructive engagement'.
This isn't a matter of taking advice from the wrong people, it's sort of obvious that they didn't have sense enough to buy any clue from anybody competent.
Since they don't have the clues they need, they need to buy them from somebody like James Carville or Richard Reed. There's a war on, guys and gals. We are losing it.
They're well intentioned idiots at best. In fact, the term "useful idiots" would probably be fair. When I say useful, I don't mean to us.
At best, they'll raise money from a few equally clueless geeks who want to "fight the good fight"... they may even be able to visit a few elected officials.
With the same impact high-tech "dog and pony" shows of the sort various high-tech megacorps gave Congresspeople before they discovered that in order to buy influence, they had to spend actual money. The "geeks" will be treated with politeness and respect just as their high-tech corporate predecessors were. And will be forgotten right after they leave.
Forget "fighting the good fight", this is a win at all costs issue. We can afford to elect a few people who'll vote right on this issue and who vote "wrong" on everything else. I'm telling my gay friends that if they have to vote for Jesse Helms (assuming he's opposing Hollings) against a Disney supporter, hold their noses and vote for him. I'm telling women and pagans to do the same.
There is a place for peace, love, and brotherhood in all this. For instance, to make this work, Microsoft has to be brought on board. If the thought of this makes you want to puke into your keyboard, get it over with.
"Only a fool fights in a burning house."
some Klingon from the original StarTrek
Hey, guys, Hollywood has set our house afire.
With money in our pockets, we can fight the people we might regret being associated with in order to win on the environent and human rights other than the ones regarding our ability to use our computers and the Net. (they screw us on CBDTPA, we can break them after we make them)
We must have effective political representation. Geekpac ain't it and in my judgement, can't be turned into an effective political force. The name itself should have been a dead giveaway to anyone thinking of participating. They do understand the issues. It's the what the hell to do about it that they don't get and probably can't.
If a viable group interested in effectively fighting Hollywood appears, I'll be happy to join and promote it. Viable means among other things, access to the checkbooks of Silicon Valley millionaires who will have to do business anywhere but the USA if they want to keep working if the "alphabet soup" bills are allowed to become law. While perhaps some would prefer having an excuse to retire, those who know what's going on are probably looking for an effective way to come out and fight.
Geekpac probably won't get a single cent out of the people we need most to make high-tech a credible political force. Tim Draper (Silicon Valley major VC player) got his own ass kicked by trying the reasonable approach with a voucher initiative. He lost $20M(estimated) and the election.
If anybody who has connections to Silicon Valley money would like to work them on behalf of our common survival in the form of a PAC/mass action political organization, my e-mail address is here, use it.
This time, I'm sure that the money is out there. Ask any of the major corporate suits who got reamed by Hollings and company in the hearings discussing SSSCA. I'm sure they'd love to get a piece of the Senators who harassed them.
That's something Geekpac isn't set up to do for them and for us and I'm certain they know it.
Geekpac has done an excellent job of defining the issues in more or less comprehensible form. The heavy lifting has got to be done by political operatives capable of simplifying their points into sound bites.
If Geekpac is really the best the high-tech community can do, figure out where Microsoft and Sun and IBM will be moving and if need be, learn the native language.
Tech Public Policy stuff
not call it the "Geek Lobby".
Whilst I support the move to reclaim the words Geek & Nerd and desensitise their insulting connotations. I've always liked the word Technocrat, it presents a very positive position of exercising power through technology the very idea we are seeking to instil.
How do people feel about the 'Technocratic Lobby' ?