Slashdot Mirror
Political Issues of the Tech Community?
DonJefe68 asks: "I'm planning to create a website which lists the political positions that US House and Senate candidates here in North Carolina have on issues of concern to the tech community. There are obvious issues like the DMCA and Fritz Hollings' CBDTPA as well as issues such as the effect of the economy on the tech sector and the USA PATRIOT Act's privacy concerns. What national issues other than intellectual property, privacy and jobs are we interested in?" Are there other sites that track politician votes, on technical issues, for other US States or on a national level? For those readers who do not live in the US, please feel free to speak your mind on this topic or on political issues that affect you as well.
I think it's great that you want to be more active. God knows that was my goal when I put together poliglut a couple years ago.
I started out with more of a tech angle, but decided that the problem with the country was a more general lack of education. The people who would seek out your site regarding DMCA and it's ilk are probably going to find out what's going on anyway. So you will be putting out a lot of effort for not so much return.
I would instead encourage you to find a way to put the word out about the importance of those issues in a mainstream web site. This effort is less likely to be wasted as there is an almost total vacuum outside of a few in the tech community concerning tech issues. (which makes sense of course or the legislation wouldn't be written in the first place).
And, of course, you are welcome to write stuff, or republish stuff at poliglut.
Thanks dubya, I didn't know you were a ./ reader.
If this is dubya, or even if not, you're an ass.
<OPINION>
Personally, I'd like to see the H1-B visa program eliminated, and anyone currently holding (or applying for) a H1-B upgraded to a full greencard. Anyone allowed to work in this country at all should not be restricted to just certain jobs under certain conditions. H1-B's allow an employer extra leverage over the employee; leaving a job for better pay/conditions elsewhere just isn't possible. I'd predict that once employers are deprived of this leverage, they'll start thinking twice about whether hiring a foreign worker is a financially sound thing to do.
</OPINION>
Am I off my rocker?
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Upon further consideration, this can't be dubya because he can't read. Sorry for the confusion.
And a good thing you did.
Isn't it amazing how many people who would scream their lungs out if an American tried to tell them how to run their country think that they have a God-given right to object to domestic policy initiatives here?
NEWSFLASH: the US president is responsible to the Constitution and the People of the United States. He is not responsible to make the Europeans feel important, the UN feel relevant, or the assembled dictators of the third world feel appeased.
Rather than random invective, perhaps you can present a rational argument (any rational argument) why we would possibly consider the opinions of people in other countries in deciding what to do within the US?
Can you?
You should use a database (MySQL would be a good choice for this). Your data model could have issues, politicians, politican_issue_position, and issue_groups.
As for what issues, gosh there's a bunch:
1) Crazy software patents
2) Crazy business process patents
3) DMCA
4) DRM
5) Spam (mandatory "ADV:" for unsoliticted commercial email)
6) Government developed software using open source licencing
7) UCITA / non-enforcability of shrinkwraps
8) Reverse engineering of software
9) Privacy: opt-in vs opt-out
10) Governement use of open standards / file formats in software
11) Spyware
12) Government procurement policty encouraging/requiring open source
13) Legislation setting special penalties for violating open source licencing
14) Tolerating innovation in peer-to-peer tech
15) Privacy: strong encryption for citizens
16) Privacy: right to surf anonymously
17) Digital Television: fair use rights
18) Right to modify hardware you own
Rather than random invective, perhaps you can present a rational argument (any rational argument) why we would possibly consider the opinions of people in other countries in deciding what to do within the US?
How about: because this planet isn't all that large, because we have to live with the rest of the world and because our actions affect the rest of the world and theirs affect us?
Note that "considering the opinions" of someone is not the same as "taking orders" from them.
Actively seeking to understand the world's view of us and our policies and trying to choose courses of action that will allow us to live harmoniously with the rest of the world, where possible, is good policy. And it doesn't preclude us deciding to do something no one else likes -- it just keeps us aware of the implications of those one-sided decisions.
After all, the best, and most rational approach to taking care of your own includes serious consideration of how others will react to your actions. My kids may think it would be really nice to have a swimming pool, and robbing a bank would be a quick and easy route to raising the money, but I'd be well-advised to consider the opinions of a few others before I go do it...
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The original poster asked for insight on issues for a website.
He wasn't offering seats in the Senate for "foreigners".
He just wanted opinions and information.
This anti-everybody-but-the-US mindset will be our downfall.
You know, many of us have spouses or sons and daughters living abroad.
It's not the closed world you want it to be. We all interact and influence each
other on a global level. The US seems to want this influence to work in one
direction only, by force if needed.
I would certainly hope that you do not rob the bank because you believe that robbery is wrong of itself, and not because you don't want to hurt the bank teller's feelings...
At any rate, this doesn't give any answer as to why you would ask the bank teller's opinion before putting up curtains within your home, now does it? That is what we're talking about here, after all, the hubris of those in other countries who feel that their opinion is reason enough to derail actions within the US which the American people want and the American Constitution provide for.
Because, again, at the end of the day, we are a democratic republic, and that means that the opinion of our own people will be the deciding factor in our decisions, not the opinions of European appeasers or third world kleptocrats.
If you make posts like this.
Grow a litlle. Expand your horizons. You will be a better person and the world might be a better place.
Redneck Reference: Jeff Foxworthy, comedian. Redneck Jokes
I would certainly hope that you do not rob the bank because you believe that robbery is wrong of itself, and not because you don't want to hurt the bank teller's feelings...
Morality-based decisions are much less obvious in the world of international politics, so that's a poor extension of my analogy.
At any rate, this doesn't give any answer as to why you would ask the bank teller's opinion before putting up curtains within your home, now does it?
And another poor extension (maybe it wasn't such a great analogy). Anyway, you're implying here that the decision in question has absolutely no impact on the teller. If that's the case, then fine.
In fact, decisions made by the U.S. about how we choose to regulate technology *do* have impacts upon the rest of the world, and it does, therefore make sense to ask their opinions.
Further, there is the fact that the U.S. does not have any kind of a monopoly on smart people -- it would be truly amazing if we did, given the tiny percentage of the human race we comprise -- and there is every possibility that someone outside the U.S. might just come up with a really Good Idea, which we missed.
For that matter, is there any *harm* in asking the bank teller what her opinion is of your curtain ideas? She just might have some suggestions that are worthwhile. Then again, her opinion might be stupid and could be discarded. But what's wrong with asking (assuming the question isn't going to annoy her)?
That is what we're talking about here, after all, the hubris of those in other countries who feel that their opinion is reason enough to derail actions within the US which the American people want and the American Constitution provide for.
"Derail"? That's an awfully strong word, carrying overtones of violence and a great amount of force. No one is suggesting that a foreigner's opinion should be taken as the final word. For that matter, I would hope no one is suggesting that a single American's opinion should be taken as the final word.
The ability to listen to and seriously consider dissenting opinions is part of what divides rational people from fanatics.
Read that last sentence again. And again, until you understand it.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
In a word, yes. It's called `democracy'.
If you believe you have an obligation to fund it, cut a check to the Treasury of whatever government you choose. Most tax-collecting agencies have means through which citizens can say "Here, in addition to the money your laws already tell me I owe you, I'd like you to freely give you some more." Research them and pay whatever you think they deserve.
> The more tax-free money spent on the internet = less money to fund services that affect your daily life.
The more tax-free money spent on the internet, the less money to fund pork-barrel programs that don't affect your daily life.
> Taxes are always a necessary evil.
Fair enough, but who defines what level of taxation is "necessary", and how to ensure that every tax dollar collected goes towards necessary expenditures? Do you seriously believe that every dollar collected goes towards fixing potholes and protecting you from crime?
Frankly, given the number of state employees involved in $DUMB_IDEA (At the municipal level, Republicans would find "diversity initiatives" a dumb idea, Democrats would find "shutting down nightclubs due to Ecstasy scares" dumb idea, and Libertarians would find both to be dumb ideas :), I'd say the less tax money the government - any government - has to waste, the better.
The way to cut down on government waste is to starve it at the source. Anything less is like giving a 40-oz bottle of Stoli to a lifetime alcoholic every day, and expecting him to kick the habit.
the corruption of the food supply through genetic engineering (ok, some good might come of it, but terminator and roundup-ready technologies are not going to help feed the world, we already have enough food for that)... privatisation of the worlds water supply... corruption of the health of the world by the big pharma companies... George W's obsession with waging war on *sombody*... the widening divide between rich and poor...
Oh, you wanted tech issues? Sure, I have some concerns there too, but they are further down the list.
Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!
Because if you are actually convinced by
the argument, does it matter if a US citizen
made it or not?
Considered harmful.
When your car is broken, you seek the advice of a mechanic. The advice of a baker may be good, but it doesn't have the same presumption of validity.
When you want advice on what America should do, go to an American -- that's why this is a democracy.
That said, I have no problem with consideration of opinions from any source; in this you are right on. This is different from the apparent belief of many Europeans and others that they have some sort of moral high ground, and should have veto power over actions of ours which they don't agree with.
I take issue with your example, though. An
American's opinion may be uninformed, and
a non-American's very educated. A mechanic is
someone that supposedly was trained and
practices car repair. An average American
may not even vote or know much about the Consitution or issues in depth.
Considered harmful.
All of which misses the point, which is that this is a democracy, and at the end of the day, it is the American people who have to make up their mind who to elect, and by extension what the country will do.
That is why debates about what the country should do are inherently debates between Americans. Everyone else is welcome to their opinion, but as long as this is a democracy, they aren't the ones who will decide.
Well, as for "welcome to their opinion" -
:). What was the
many people don't even go that far, which,
I think, is a mistake.
But as for "they aren't the ones who decides" -
neither are most Americans
voter turnout last time?
Considered harmful.
It's been holding steady at zero for over two hundred years now -- so I guess that's not the standard you're looking for. :-)
>They have little to no influence in our internal
>affairs and their opinions don't have much use or >weight.
But an opinion + boxcutter + airline ticket...