Slashdot Mirror
The "Techie" Vote?
Ironica writes "This Los Angeles Times article discusses a compelling trend: techies are making their collective voice heard in politics. Quote from the article: "After years as political agnostics, the programmers and engineers who orchestrated the technological revolution of the 1990s are trying to reboot government...They have money, earned during the boom. They have time, found since the bust. And they are using their technological savvy to recruit even casual Internet users to their causes." Perhaps instead of "boxers or briefs," our next presidential candidate will have to answer "POP3 or IMAP?""
This reminds me of a recent article about an internet millionaire who is sueing the government regarding privacy issues while flying. I think it is great that we techies are finally getting a voice in the government. Hopefully some of the issues we have been worried about, (patents, trademark, copyright, privacy, etc.) will begin to change.
Visualize the world of wine
Nothing like being patronised by the mainstream media to make people feel relevant.
This is not a big news story. The internet has given everyone a voice, but those who know how to speak are genreally understood more readily.
So we have this huge inter-connected network which spans the globe, now what do we do with it?
Hey! Let's talk to each other!
About what?
Politics...
The techie votes are/
Emacs or VI
Gnome or KDE
Linux or BSD
Gimp or Photoshop
Slashdot or Fark.
Its good being apart of a group of people who can get in contact with each other alot faster than the non computer user. Allows us to rally, colaberate and plan things quicker better and more effectively.
/. or FARK and the names just roll in. :P
As well if we ever need to get names for a petition we just post in on
"I am a kernel in the linux army"
the average techie, is lazy, speaking as an average techie myself.
Perhaps instead of "boxers or briefs," our next presidential candidate will have to answer "POP3 or IMAP?
Considering some of the candidates, perhaps a more appropriate question would be "spit or swallow?"
Techies, Politics Now Click
The 'geeks' who once shunned activism amid the digital revolution are using their money and savvy to influence public policy.
By Joseph Menn ~ Times Staff Writer
August 11, 2003
The first call came before 9 a.m.
For the next eight hours, they kept coming: call after call at the rate of 20 per second, crippling the telephone systems of several U.S. senators.
The geeks were speaking -- in opposition to the imminent war in Iraq.
After years as political agnostics, the programmers and engineers who orchestrated the technological revolution of the 1990s are trying to reboot government. Top technology executives such as Bill Gates found their public voice years ago. Now, the tens of thousands of technology workers who toiled in cubicles writing software and creating gadgets are making their influence felt.
They have money, earned during the boom. They have time, found since the bust. And they are using their technological savvy to recruit even casual Internet users to their causes.
They want to make sure civil liberties aren't trampled in the push for greater security. They want privacy respected. And they want the media and the political conversation in general to be freed from the dominance of a small number of powerful groups and corporations. Otherwise, they are hard to place on the political spectrum.
One of the leaders of this loose-knit movement is Wes Boyd, a 42-year-old computer programmer who works out of a book-lined home office in a leafy section of Berkeley.
He made his money selling computer games and screen savers -- those flying toasters that became an early icon of high-tech chic. Then, disgusted by what he saw as the political grandstanding surrounding the impeachment of President Clinton in 1998, Boyd posted a Web site to vent.
MoveOn.org fielded 500 hits its first day, 7,000 the second. Within a few months, more than 250,000 visitors had signed an electronic petition calling for Congress to censure Clinton and "move on." Those early visitors formed the core of a group that now claims more than 1.3 million U.S. followers.
MoveOn members pay no dues but agree to receive e-mail notices of new positions and calls for action. Many pass on the information they get, becoming volunteer recruiters. MoveOn takes stands on a variety of issues, but describes itself primarily as a catalyst for grass-roots action -- on whatever its members think is important.
The group helped persuade more than 100,000 people to join an antiwar march in San Francisco in February, the largest such demonstration in the U.S.
It generated 150,000 electronic complaints to the Federal Communications Commission about its plan to let big media companies get even bigger, a policy change now under assault in Congress. And hundreds of thousands of MoveOn supporters took part in the February phone blitz of U.S. senators over their support of the Iraq war.
"You wish these things would be taken care of by other people," said Boyd, who founded MoveOn with his wife, Silicon Valley entrepreneur Joan Blades, after spending most of his life on the political sidelines. "But it turns out that if we don't play, if we don't work to make a difference, no one's going to do it. We just discovered that we couldn't look away anymore."
The organization raised $3.5 million to give to candidates who ran for federal office last year. In April, it said it was dedicating itself to unseating President Bush in 2004, though it has not come out in support of a candidate to replace him.
"We've been trying to engage people in other things, and almost always the answer comes back, 'Why bother? It's not going to matter if we don't get rid of Bush,' " Boyd said.
Dislodging a well-funded president might be beyond its reach. But some analysts see MoveOn and similar groups as a potent political force.
"I don't know of any group that has 1.3 million members who are as motivated to act when asked to,
Regarding the pointing out that the next president would need to answer "POP3 or IMAP?" --
I hope that these "requirements" will span out to the judicial and legislative branches as well. It's great to have tech knowledge in the executive area; however, with all the (sorry for the cliche) checks and balances in place, this knowledge is moot without the knowledge in the judicial and legislative branches. For example, we're seeing many IP-related trials right now; while this knowledge could help bring about some of the changes we're hoping for in the TM/patent/IP fields, it will not help unless the knowledge is spanned out into ALL areas. We, as constituents, should not ONLY be lobbying the executive branch. We should be lobbying the others as well.
Without the good of the others, there's really no point in the good of one.
www.sitetronics.com/wordpress
This reminds me of a question that a kid popped Al Gore in the last election - Mac or PC. Gore dodged the question. Kinda funny seeing he's now elected to Apple's board
Anyway, as for a techie vote, ha! Trying to get techs to agree on anything is always a challenge. How many flavours of Linux are there? And talking of flavour, how do we spell it again?
-- james
As any large and economically important collective, "Techies" have an influence in politics. As their experience, wealth, and age grows, so does their influence and interest in politics. Those important in Techie industry in the 1990s are now reaching an age where politics becomes atractive.
America: where liberty is a statue and patriotism is trusting the government.
Yes, a little bit here, a little bit there, perhaps. Most techies don't talk directly about politics--they speak in code. Most have the drive to get involved, but when it comes right down to it, they act like mice. But they do monitor current trends, though. And when politicians make them angry, it does get filed in their memory, which is a key point to make here. Political shenanigans are a source of frustration for techies as well. Maybe it's time for techies to compile a list of good candidates that would be compatible with their viewpoints.
There is a school of thought that recognises corporatism as a means of influencing public policy (be careful when googling, this is _NOT_ about the role of corporations but the role of interest groups in public policy) by giving interest groups a role to play in the determination of public policy. An alternative view is the pluralist view that takes interest groups as combatants with the public policy makers trying to "win" concessions to their particular interest.
It is clear that the techie vote will rise as the status quo proceeds to piss us off more and more (the size of the electorate in question is really pretty vast). But whilst that is interesting, it is reactionary, and by that very nature limited in what it can really achieve.
What is interesting is the idea that bodies made up from within the technically educated will form and be _consulted_ about the formulation of public policy. In the US this is made more problematic by the nature of your "democracy" but in places like Europe, more and more more input from more and more credible tech groups (EFF, FSF for example) will only increase the likelihood that when it comes time to look at the next idiot DMCA debacle, these groups will be sounded out _before_ the policy is drafted.
A good day indeed. Probably 5 - 10 years away unless some event occurs to precipitate the problem.
"The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
But that would insinuate we care enough to leave our homes and go to the polls! Wait, online voting systems are coming down the pipe!
Err...wait, online polling systems aren't secure. I know! We can hack the polling systems to accomplish our goals!
Pinky, are you thinking what I'm thinking?
I think so Brain, but how you going to get Larry Flynt to strip for you at 2 a.m. on such short notice?
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
I'm going to be helping this former IT geek with his campaign:
http://www.EmmonsForCongress.com:81
this guy spent 18 years in the biz, only to have to train his 'less expensive' replacements.
I'm sure I'll be in the same boat sooner than later, however, I refuse train anyone. If upper-manglement wants to replace me with some cheap labor, THEY can figure my code out.
At least that's what our Australian Federal Government is doing.
And our tech minister (Richard Alston) is about as technically advanced as stoneage man. His idea of a reboot, is to kick his press secretary. His latest faux-pas is to deny responsibility for his own official website which cost megabucks.
At least some techie is making money out of him somewhere but chances are, it isn't an Aussie. Dammit.
-- it must be true, it's on the internet.
This makes me think that maybe the techies/geeks SHOULD band together (with groups like the EFF) to shape tech legislation and stop this government from taking away our personal freedoms, like routers, NAT, firewalls, and encryption.
Just a thought I've had for a while now.
> Perhaps instead of "boxers or briefs," our next presidential candidate will have to answer "POP3 or IMAP?"
No, the difference will show up when some sexual indiscretion is discovered, and the usual "Who?" will be replaced by a geeky "How?"
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
No way. We need to resolve the whole "vi" vs "emacs" issue first. After that, "tabs" vs "spaces", then the whole issue of placement of braces (not to mention brace-less languages like Python). After all thats settled then maybe we'll be ready for email transport preferences if the browser wars don't flare up again first.
The tech community is a fractious bunch and thus completely useless as a political group. Why? Because "Speciality in IT" != Any political agenda. The camps of liberal, conservative, and libertarian thinking are wide and diverse. Hell, look at any thread on the RIAA. Probably the only platform all tech folks are for is rational copyright law (i.e. showing SCO who's the daddy). But other than that, there is no cohesion.
There's a reason why police unions, the AFL-CIO, and the Christian Right are all strong forces: they have a complete package of beliefs that they can get a large body of voters to agree on. Religion? Government? Taxes? The tech community could never get such a gestalt.
I think it is one of the great tech-urban legends that IT is a uniformly liberal RMS-style social group or ever was.
What is music when you despise all sound?
The suits trying to steal the internet (after letting it get away from them ) and our computers know full well the people who actually have a grip on this technology are few and far between.
The sheep-like consumer who they are trying to lock into a TV-like, owned by the few, push technology state and who make up all the numbers, won't care.
Things are going to get worst before they get better, if they get better at all.
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
Then again, it might not.
I'm one of the older generation of techies who did get involved in politics as far back as the 1960s. In the 1970s I joined the now gone L5 Society because I thought space had a real role to play in human affairs. It still could.
But it would be helpful if today's political activists learned a bit from our mistakes. Practically all L5ers were political neophytes. We took up our cause with enthusiasm. For awhile we gathered some attention. So why aren't we all living in space colonies now? Here are some reasons I can think of:
These are just a few thoughts early in the morning. Others will probably be able to think of others.
Summing up, try to learn from our mistakes -- and from our successes. Politics isn't as neat and orderly like technology.
"Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- B. Franklin
It's safe to assume that having millions puts you in a better position to influence government.
Though P2P and GPL seem to be the battle cry, it's worth considering the potential of those systems to generate a new round of millionares who can, in turn, influence government.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
But more importantly, techies need to be more aware of politics than they are as well. Politics are about more than just the RIAA.
US slashdotters: Show of hands for everyone who saw the Democratic debate last night. Watch the upcoming forums, and be sure you register to vote.
As a registered voter, it is my right and resposibility to involve myself in the politcal process. I have every right to gripe, moan and complain about my government, my taxes and the Addiction World going up down the steet, two blocks down from...and Addiction World.
Check one, two. I have that right and privilege as long as I protect it. Not with guns and violence, but by electing competent individuals as representatives. Not voting only makes it easier for the person you do not want to be elected. I have no idea how valid a comment that is, but if it gets more people voting, I will scream it from the mountain tops.
Because I may have the right and privilege to complain about my government, but do I have any point of reference if I do not even bother voting?
The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
The problem with generalizations like that in this article is that techies like most other groups in society don't speak with one voice. For every John Gilmore spending their millions to protest government policies there are others actively spending theirs to support conservative causes. To act like it's a single hidden group now exerting political influence is pure nonsense, IMHO...
I was trying to figure out the significance of this all. I know ever since I started checking Slashdot every day I've become a bit more vocal and interested in politics. I asked myself why. I've got a little experience with the military, I've got a pretty decent education, but why did I wait?
I don't really think it's an issue of "techies", but more of "techies that care". Not just any clock-punching techie is going to be vocal on Slashdot (or any other "organization") and be interested in how this legislation will affect that privacy, how this bill will help Company A and screw Company B and how it all affects us and our economy. This transcends all groups though, not just techies. Your random worker at Kmart may care about gun laws a bit, but it's the member of the NRA that will follow the bills and legislations and try to have their voices heard. Same with your random citizen watching the war on TV as compared to someone with a family member in service...they've got more interest and thus are more apt to be vocal and take part in politics.
I think the techies are getting more coverage now though because it's finally socially acceptable to be a geek and know how to configure mom's computer after a crash. Computers are such a part of modern society and not just for the geeks anymore. It's easier to let it all out, speak your mind, and not be shunned.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
We want jobs, dammit! ;-)
Any nitwit sluggish enough to prefer POP mail isn't fit to serve as president of a POS Ford Pinto, nevermind be POTUS & technocrat leader of the free world.
A better question in a similar vein could involve SMTP: does the candidate in question recognize that spam is a legitimate problem to 'net users, and what efforts would she sponsor to address the problem? The answer to such a question could be a fascinating insight into how she feels societal problems should be addressed: should we try to legislate the problem away, knowing that spam transmitted from other jurisdictions (Asia, Africa, etc) would continue regardless of US law, or should we find a way to let the markets correct the problem? If the markets won't fix themselves, as so far they have failed to do, then can we stimulate a technological solution? Would the candidate be willing to invest R&D into coming up to a successor to SMTP & related protocols? Or would the candidate take a more laissez faire approach, and not see spam as a problem in the first place? Any technically savvy candidate could have a wide variety of insightful commentaries in this vein.
POP or IMAP though, that's just dumb. What kind of moron doesn't prefer IMAP? :-)
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
Your state at least one candidate I really like.
;)
Georgina Russell, who is a software consultant, is running for governor in the recall race. I learned this thanks to this BBC article.
A quick google search found her campaign site here, along with a few Linux mailing list posts.
She appears to be one l33t Linux chick. She has even compiled test kernels before... Now I am all hot and bothered
Even though "Ahhhhnold" supposedly has this election already wrapped up, I can appreciate her efforts!
Buford "Mad Dog" Tannen
The one big thing I can see a large technie presence in the government doing is updating processes. Everything is still based on oration and a verbose written process. A lot of fairly trivial things require an enormous amount of paperwork, and where that paperwork has been replaced by electronic versions, that's literally all it is: a scanned or Word version of the same written document.
An intelligent and powerful technical presence in the government could allow more technical processes to find their way into government processes. On the technical and scientific side, we're already using better voting techniques to allow systems to handle their own little elections autonomously. We have markup languages that could make legislation sensical to machines. We have technologies that could allow representatives to represent their constituents from places other than the congress.
Technology has the potential to streamline processes significantly, and there are fewer processes less streamlined than these fundamental processes within our governments.
My thoughts at least.
I'm one techie who's not voting for *anything* unless there's a CowboyNeal option.
* Please do not read my signature.
In my opinion, it all comes down to what you said, "responsibility" in the political process.
I get into rant-fests with people from time to time about, "The Government is corrupt! Get these bums out of there!", and I can only reply, "the Government is YOU. It starts with YOU, and ENDS WITH YOU."
Typically, I these people I argue with are not voters. The usual response to a question about why they don't vote is, "Because it doesn't matter." or something equally insane.
My prime focus right now is, and I hate to use this, but, "Getting out the vote".
I don't care who a person votes for, that's their business. All I care about is that people VOTE. Vote for Bush, Vote for Gore, vote for your Aunt Milly, I don't care. Just Vote.
Come to think about it, that's exactly what the Bush team is doing. Taking away health care and welfare from the poor, and giving it to the rich through tax returns.
So it works both ways, I suppose. But there again, I might be another clueless rabid commie zealot...
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
So? First off, what's to keep us from forming several different special interest groups based on our diverse political leanings? Each with a geek focus, of course. Secondly I believe there are more things than 'rational copyright law' which cross the geek political spectrum; for example privacy issues.
/. has also clearly shown, on the balance geeks tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative -- with a wide streak of 'leave me the hell alone' onryness. Generally that would describe a Libertarian, except that I think most of us consider the Libertarians idiots who we would rather not associate with.
Besides, as
So what is to keep us from building a geek political coalition around these shared values, while ignoring or compromising on the differences? In many ways existing organizations like the EFF are already doing this. And that is certainly no different than the 'police unions, the AFL-CIO, and the Christian Right' you mention. Do you think they started out as monolithic political blocks? Do you think they really are such now, even if their dollars end up lobbying on single issues?
Our (geeks) biggest problem isn't that we have too diverse a group to reach cohesion, it is that we tend to be individualists who prefer not to act in groups. Overcome that and we geeks are a force to be reckoned with...
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
And what if he answers "CowboyNeal"?
John
If you want someone to represent the little guy, vote for Gary Coleman for governor.
.. what are some of the "extremist ideas that reek of communism" that are "frequently explored" on Slashdot? From my experience on Slashdot, there are just as many right-wing zealots here as there are left-wing zealots. For every person espousing (for example) a completely public government health care system, there's another person arguing (for example) that we ought to end income taxes and all entitlement programs. It all goes back to the original point: the "tech community" has no coherent political agenda.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
There are a couple myths about this stuff that we need to dispel.
The first myth is that the troubles we're having organizing are not the sole province of engineers, who supposedly don't understand people or politics all that well. It's a problem with any group of people you're trying to organize. Even lawyers, who you would think are really excellent at that sort of thing, bicker forever trying to get anything organized.
The second myth is that you have to have complete unanimity of opinion for an activist group to work. No organized group of humans in the world is a monolith. There are factions within everything. Saying that techies could never get their acts together because there are the BSD vs. Linux factions, the vi vs. emacs factions, or the debian vs. suse factions makes about as much sense as saying that the Sierra Club could never exist because there are the back-to-the-land, vegetarian, vegan, organic food, naturalist, and activist anti-corporate factions within it. The thing to remember that all an organization needs to do is capture enough overlap between all the factions in a given area.
The third myth is that we can't make a difference because we're all just average folks without the ear of the government. If we're not billionaires, the thinking goes, then how could we possibly get officials and representatives to listen to us? The answer is, numbers and time and a little effort more than make up for lack of billions of dollars. Do you think that the folks involved in the Civil Rights movement were wealthy? How about all the poor and untouchables marching with Gandhi? Did they have oodles of coin? The truth is, the Civil Rights movement, Feminist Movement, anti-Vietnam War movement, and all the others most of us have been weaned to think were incredibly huge and amazing and all-encompassing were tiny compared to the internet-organized and inspired protests and movements that have sprung up in the past year alone. And we made those happen.
Yes, some might say, but what difference have those really made? Bush is still in office, we're mired in the quagmire of Iraq anyway, the economy still sucks, and the *AA's are still stripping us of civil liberties with impugnity. But under the media pastiche the powers that be are running scared. Why do you think they're doing what they're doing to take away our rights and shackle our minds? Because we are the ones who really have the power, and they know it. They know they're on the brink of being swept aside, and that's why they're fighting like hell to keep us, the rabble, down.
We already forced them to back down over the Total Information Awareness program. We've also started to be heard in congress over what the RIAA's doing. That senator who upbraided them about their scorched earth campaign against internet users spoke up because he got enough heat from you and me.
The conclusion is that we techies can and are making a difference. So don't give up, pitch in!
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
If you check out www.opensecrets.org, you'll see the big increase in donations from computer companies happened in the mid-late 90's(from something like $4 Million/year to $38/million per year in 2-4 years). It is arguable that much of the increased interest in politics on the part of technical people is because when tech managment used their newfound political muscle in ways that weren't really to the advantage others participating in the industry(i.e. buying the H-1b Visa legislation).
This was reflected in the successful effort to stop the censorship provisions of the 2001 Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, where liberal leaning geeks were able to reach Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee, while Libertarian/Conservatives pulled in just enough Republican Reps to bury it.
Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary
Like this techie is doing. "a 26-year-old high-tech programmer from Mountain View", who has already won the unofficial endorsement of Washington Post Writer Howard Kurtz, though this seems to be mostly based on her using cafepress to sell endorsed thong underwear as a fundraising tool. Regardless, she is using the net to propel her campaign to an extent that she is garnering press attention even among the strippers and pornographers and actors.
I think the Dean campaign shows that it is media access that makes the biggest difference in getting an unknown launched, and techs are the media of the 21st century.
Work for Change & GET PAID!
- Weblogs and blog software are making it easier for both geeks and non-geeks to post online
- Social networks like Friendster, Tribes.net, Ryze, etc... are making it easier to link to thousands of people very quickly. Look at how quickly flashmobs are getting organized
- A number of policies (PATRIOT Act, The Bono Act, etc...) are starting to affect us negatively
I think all those are contributing to geeks thinking a little more about the impact of politics on the net. Now that more people are aware, it's only a matter of time before they start acting.I suspect that we are going to see more and more action from geeks over the 2004 campaign.
Check out http://www.tnl.net/blog
This is the most ambiguous amendment in the U.S. Bill of Rights, and one more subject to interpretation than almost any other section in the U.S. Constitution. Many might agree with your revolutionary interpretation. Including some of the Founding Fathers. But an equally valid (and I believe more socially reasonable) interpretation is this:
The 2nd amendment was designed primarily to ensure the national security of the United States of America. In order to ensure national security, the states must maintain a well-regulated militia. Any such militia must be well-armed. In the citizen-militias most common in the early U.S., militia members will likely keep their arms with them at home, for use whenever needed to ensure the national security of the U.S. (for instance during the British invasion in the War of 1812).
By this interpretation, the following conclusion can be drawn:
I am concerned about any program, any piece of hardware, any treaty, any law that treats me as a consumer, not a citizen
...band together. I have to say I was a little bit shocked to find out that the EFF only had 8500 members. Is that the best we could do? Are there only 8500 people who care about the fate of the 'Net? And the story for free software is even more sad. How many people here run Linux or Apache or Mozilla or OpenOffice or other free software? I'd bet Slashdot is coming close to having over 50,000 comments on the SCO debacle. And yet the FSF has only ~1,000 associate members. It's almost depressing.
The US has only two parties, and they both agree with each other on every issue:
Republican: We need to reduce gun control.
Democrat: Great idea! Let's increase millitary funding, too!
Republican: I love the way you leftists think. We'll take another couple of billion out of education and knock off early for a beer.
Anyone who wants to be politically active should immigrate to Canada. Here are some of the parties that you can choose from:
Canadian Alliance: extreme right wing
Progressive Conservatives: right wing
Liberal: centrists
New Democrats: left wing
Green: extreme left wing
All parties (with the exception of the Progressive Conservatives) support proportional representation, and the current federal government is trying to make it illegal for businesses and unions to fund political parties.
The US Army: promoting democracy through unquestioned obedience
I have that right and privilege as long as I protect it. Not with guns and violence, but by ...
Actually, this is why the right to bear arms exists. So that if the Government becomes too corrupt and evil and starts to self-perpetuate it's own power, growing uncontrollably, the people can rise up and strike the gov't down. That is the beauty of the US constitution/bill of rights. It was a government that was designed to be overthrown.
This could be extrapolated to current times. I can just see it now, a big red button in a glass case in every home with sign that says, "In case of excessive government corrupt, break glass and push button."
-Ab
Nothing fails quite like prayer.
Unfortunalty most of the candidates on the balots seem to be a choice of bad and bad. Democrate or Republican they just do not seem to care. They are only capable of ranting and raving about one or two issues to try and touch some particular segment of the public. There is very little intelegence or though about anything. The patriot act stupidity was purely reactionary and cover you ass legislation.
Money votes because money gets the name out. American citizens need to learn to listen to all the candidates. Not that that often helps but I have often voted for the little guy who seemed to want to do good in public office. They rarely get elected.
I think a general cleaning of house in in order. There is absolutly no reason a person should be in office more than 10 years. They need to get on with thier lives a citizens and come back to some understanding of what it means to work for a living.
Vote out the incumbant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm involved with the Draft Clark 2004 group, which is largely organized off the Internet in the form of websites, blogs, email lists, etc. It's related with moveon.org, meetup.com, etc. in that it's another grassroots organization using technology to benefit progressive causes.
What this article is talking about really has nothing to do with techies. It has to do with technies using their knowledge of the Internet to help bring people together who have a common interest. This isn't about bringing technology to government, nor is it really about pushing techie politic issues. It simply is an organized reaction to the overwhelming influence of special interest groups in politics.
What is interesting about this, is it's grassroots citizenry pushing for change from below. This is different from the Republican strategy of years past which involved big donors and big corporations running issue ads and subverting the media to push issues down onto the people.
So it is a change, I believe it's a change for the positive. I just don't see that it has much to do with techies other than as a tool to aid the collaboration.
Our Draft Clark meetings have had a wide range of people attending, a large number of military vets, women, people of foreign birth or with extensive world travel experience. There have been some techies, certainly. But a common sentiment has been the concern of the deterioration of Americans civil rights under the Bush administration. This has more to do with the Patriot Act than it does with the DMCA, however.
Actually, I think that deep down this is what everyone believes. We (`the good guys') should have everything we want, while people we don't like (`the bad guys') should not have anything. It's a result of the tribe mentality which causes the human brain to divide people into the categories `us' and `them'. Political ideologies are just ways of wrapping this up in civilised terminology.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Actually, this is why the right to bear arms exists. So that if the Government becomes too corrupt and evil and starts to self-perpetuate it's own power, growing uncontrollably, the people can rise up and strike the gov't down.
That was actually true at one time but not anymore. The problem is that citizens with guns (say militas) are next to useless when combating governments. At one time, that wasn't the case. A couple of hundread years ago, the difference between a soldier and an armed citizen was very small. They both used the same guns, had similar training, etc. But that isn't the case anymore.
Nowadays, the military (in any country) is just SO MUCH more powerful than armed citizens. Not only do they have better guns (automatic, more powerful, etc) but the emergence of mechanized vehicles renders citizens next to useless. Regardless of what you think, guns can't take down a tank. Forget tanks. How about APCs? You and your heavily armed family won't even scratch an APC!
You just need to look at the history of the world over the past 100 years. Even if cases where citizens are armed, they are next to useless. A good modern example is Afghanistan, where everyone is heavily armed (more so than Americans) yet they couldn't defeat either the Taliban or the US govt.
Having said all this, the emergence of the guerrila movement and asymetric warfare (eg. suicide bombings, truck bombings, sabotage, etc) can take down a govt. But governments generally label guerrila groups as terrorist and shut them down. That's why most armed groups in USA are militias and not guerrilas. Militias, needless to say, are sitting ducks and will be crushed very easily by the govt.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places