Pete Ashdown on his Run at the Hill

adamdrayer writes "Wired recently conducted an interview with Pete Ashdown, the tech-minded ISP owner who is hoping for a major upset in the race for Utah's Senate seat against long-time incumbent Orin Hatch. Ashdown hopes to help pave the way for better decision-making on the Hill regarding technology. Hatch is among the more conservative politicians on the issues of 'digital privacy' and 'fair use,' while one of Ashdown's main objectives is to reform the Digital Millennium Copyright Act."

Comments

Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[panaceaa]

Polling data: Utah U.S. Senate: Hatch 62%, Ashdown 25%

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseacti on/viewItem/itemID/13412

While I agree with Ashdown's position a lot more than Orrin's, the incumbent is looking pretty strong.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Anonymous Coward]

Incumbents are almost always strong, especially midterm elections, when even less people care than the normal low amount.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Aadain2001]

Yet more proof that your average American voter is no more intelligent in their voting patterns than a trained chimp. I wish I could say "I'm moving someplace better", but so far the US is the better place compared to the rest of the world. Oh well, time to learn how to train chimps >:).

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[hansonc]

It also doesn't help that no one knows who he is. I'm in Utah, actually knew he was running and yet I have barely heard a word about him. Its too bad that the DNC says they want to take the house and senate but completely ignore races such as this one. Hatch is just about unbeatable but it'd be nice if they at least pretended they cared about us out here.

-CH

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, if he wants a shot at beating a long-time incumbent like Hatch, he:

a) needs more financial support from the Democratic party
b) needs to get dirty and start an ad campaign showing what Hatch is doing wrong to this country (not that difficult - just dig up some of his voting record)

If you don't have a name for yourself like the incumbent, then your best shot is to get people so pissed off at the incumbent that they'll vote for *anyone* else.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it IS Utah afterall... Highest Bush/war approval ratings, etc, etc. DNC prolly figures their money is better spent in a battleground state.

That said, I'm voting for Pete.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Bios_Hakr]

The reason States keep electing jackasses like Hatch and Stevens is simple: Power.

If your state has a powerful incumbent, it is in your best interest to keep him/her. Sure, you get fucked over and party-line voting, but that would happen no matter what. Dems and Repubs will *always* vote the party line on things like DMCA, USAPATRIOT, Mickey Mouse Copyright, etc. Just because you hire somebody new does not mean he'll abandon the line.

Powerful incumbents are good for your state. They have a name and can work the game in DC to get things done. Hatch and Stevens (and Kennedy and Clinton) may seem like jackasses to the other 49 States. But they bring home a lot of pork. And that means money and jobs for their State.

One way or another, your Senator *will* fuck you over. Even if the new guy promises blowjobs, hookers, and beer for everyone, does not mean he can deliver. DC will corrupt him within a few months. If they can't corrupt him, then they will turn powerful lobbyists (AARP, NRA, **AA, etc) against him; He'll soon be jobless or embroiled in a scandal.

Stop thinking you can actually change anything under the current system; you can't. How can you really push for change?

1. Term limits for House and Senate.
2. Force reps to disclose *everything* they do on a daily basis under the penalty of perjury if they lie. Meeting attendees and minutes should be published within 24 hours of a meeting on a web site available to all registered voters.
3. Force people to vote. Make voting days a Federal holiday and force employers to pay employees for that day. Count it as the cost of doing business in the USA.
4. Force campaign promises to be carried out. If a politician promises to repeal/enact $LAW, hold him to it as an impeachable offense.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Firehed]

Well, not everyone even knows about stuff like the DMCA and all of it's joys, much less do they actually care about it. I think that it's incredibly stupid to ignore such a thing in this Digital Millenium(TM,C,R). For obvious reasons, abortion really just isn't that much of an issue with slashdot readers, even if the rest of the world cares.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[ral8158]

1. Kind of agree, it'll never happen though.
2. Violation of plenty of rights. If you want your rights, give your politicians theirs.
3. Forcing people to vote would make them make even worse decisions. Forcing people to vote would be even WORSE than whatever the house and senate can cook up. That kind of moot-ifies your point, because if employers have to give out holidays.... who is really going to vote on that holiday that would not vote normally?
4. Campaign promises are far too generic and non-specific to be legally argued about. "I promise to get more jobs" can mean a wide variety of things, and it can have many degrees. (Exactly how many "more" jobs?)

Nice try.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[SpaceLifeForm]

Hey! That's not fair to the chimp.

At least if a chimp flips a coin,
they appear intelligent.

If a whole lot of chimps flip coins,
why, the voting pattern would actually
appear human-like.

At least in most races.

In this case, apparently 25% have a clue.

Do you know what the difference is between
a chimp voter and a human voter?

The chimp doesn't pay attention to TV.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[T-Ranger]

As they say in Cape Breton (Canada): let us vote the day after, so we can get it right.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have any clue on why the U.S allows people from Utah to vote. They don't let criminals vote, they don't let children vote, why the FUCK do they let mormons vote?

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Millenniumman]

Force people to vote.

That is a bad idea. If they don't care enough to vote without being forced to, they shouldn't be voting anyway.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, 62-25% is actually not all that bad for a Democratic challenger in Utah. Seriously. In some contexts it would be a wipeout, but if 25% of Utah residents are contemplating voting Democratic...

Hmm, yeah, that's really not bad at all. Things could get interesting next Tuesday if the Republicans have fallen that far from grace.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way our system will ever be fair is the elimination of private fund raising and just have all candidates publicly funded. This will get rid of those political TV ads that do more damage than good and force politicians to talk about the issues. Of course I'm sure Libertarians would have a fit about this but ironically it would be the only way they would ever get elected.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[nmb3000]

I'm living in Utah right now going to school, and while I'm not registered to vote here, that doesn't stop me from jumping into political discussions.

The biggest problems Ashdown has are his stance on abortion (for it), the death penalty (against it), and term limits (against them). In Utah the first one is a significant deterrent, though many religious people will simply try and ignore it because they either hate Hatch or blindly vote a straight party ticket. The other two issues are not as "hot", though it does seem there are few people who want to completely eradicate the death penalty.

1. Term limits for House and Senate

I like all four of your suggestions, however term limits are something I'm not sure about. I think enacting them right now would be a great idea because if nothing else, it would start a process to remove the corrupt career politicians from Washington. In the long term however, it seems that if a person is doing a great job for their state, why shouldn't the people be able to keep him in office? It might seem idealistic that somebody can stay in Washington for more than a term or two without succumbing to the influence/desire of power/politics, but the idea still remains.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Dhalka226]

who is really going to vote on that holiday that would not vote normally?

Presumably if he is advocating forcing people to vote, and giving the day off as a national holiday, he's supporting some kind of penalties for those who do not. I'm pretty sure that Australia, for example, hands out fines for those who do not vote.

Campaign promises are far too generic and non-specific to be legally argued about.

You're right (and that's deliberate), but I think you overlooked the more simple point: Who is to blame if a campaign promise does not come through? If Bush, hypothetically, had promised tax cuts but the House shot him down, did he break his campaign promise? Do we really punish people for failing at something only marginally within their control? It seems to me that trying to enforce something like this would make politicians say even LESS about what they stand for and what they think about issues than they do now, and that would make things worse rather than better.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish I could say "I'm moving someplace better", but so far the US is the better place compared to the rest of the world.

And exactly how much research did you put into the standard of living and democracy in Lichtenstein before you made that broad generalisation?

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Profane MuthaFucka]

You're in Utah. Nobody's going to beat Hatch. The only reason a Democrat is running there at all is because of Dean's 50 state strategy. The reasoning is that you can't win a race that you don't run in, plus you make your opponent spend money defending what would have been a completely safe seat.

The reason for running a Dem in Utah is not to win Utah. It's strategic, meant to divert Republican energy, money, and time to keep Hatch safe. That money might have been used somewhere else to defeat a Democrat in, say, Massachusets.

Last point - all politics are local. Don't cry about how the DNC doesn't like Utah. They aren't in Utah, but you are. If nobody's heard about your candidate, no matter what party you are, you need to do something yourself to get their name out there.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[killjoe]

It's utah. If god ran as a democrat against satan as a republican god would lose. People in utah would rather cut their heads off then vote for a democrat.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Bios_Hakr]

Then you'll have 700 people running for every office just to milk the funds provided.

Instead of offering to fund the campaign, do this instead:

1. Public airwaves should be free for campaigning. Every candidate gets a 60-second spot every night during prime time.
2. Cap the spending for campaigns at something like $100,000 for State and $1,000,000 for Federal.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[LindseyJ]

b) needs to get dirty and start an ad campaign showing what Hatch is doing wrong to this country (not that difficult - just dig up some of his voting record)

It is sad to me that trying to educate voters about someone they could be voting for using facts is now considered 'dirty'. Have we fallen so far that baseless, mindless mudslinging is now considered Normal Politics?

Now that I think about it... Looking at history even as far back as the founding fathers, 'fallen so far' might not be accurate.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Anonymous Coward]

Then limit it to two concurrent terms. That way they'll have to leave office for at least a temporary period of time, losing their seniority in the process.

The seniority system supports most of the problems and corruption in Congress.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[LindseyJ]

however, it seems that if a person is doing a great job for their state, why shouldn't the people be able to keep him in office?

I, too, agree with all four of his points, but I've been playing around with something like quasi-term limits: If the limit is, say, two consecutive terms in office, then on the 'third-term' ballot, you will be listed. But you need a certain percentage of the vote to remain in office. This percentage would increase marginally every term after the third that you are in office.

Also on the ballot (where applicable), people would be able to vote for two cantidates: The 'third-term' incumbant (if they wish), and the person they would like to see in the office if the incumbant does not reach the percentage threshold. With this system people can, in effect, say "We like what you are doing, so keep up the good work, but you better keep doing a great job up there or you're out," while not 'throwing away' their vote, as people tend to think they are doing when not voting for the incumbant.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Anonymous Coward]

guess again, dean didnt put him up to this, dean didnt pay him to do this, hes doing it because it should be done. DNC paid zip to this campaign

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[pashdown]

guess again, dean didnt put him up to this, dean didnt pay him to do this, hes doing it because it should be done. DNC paid zip to this campaign

Actually Dean did do something. He shook my hand twice over the course of the past 18 months, then promptly forgot all about me.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Anonymous Coward]

But can it really get any worse than it already is?

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[pashdown]

Which is why the gubernatorial Democratic candidate got 42% of the vote in 2004.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Heir Of The Mess]

You might be trolling, but I'll bite.

According to http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0778562.html/ the UN ranks 9 other countries above the US on the livability scale. Although frankly for the most part I think that life is pretty much what you make of it. I've seen people living in what we would call bad or primitive conditions, and yet they didn't seem to fussed about it.

Those countries in the UN list from 1-9 are Norway, Iceland, Australia, Luxembourg, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Ireland and Belgium. Except for Australia, it would be a bit cold in those countries for people who like tropical climates. Depends on taste and philosophical issues, like what is the best movie? So maybe the US is the better place for you, but you'll probably have people who would like to differ with your opinion as you've stated it such that the US is the better place for everyone.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[pashdown]

You really need to take a look at what I'm pledging. I think term limits are a good short term solution, but the real problem is incumbent advantage. Eliminate that and if you have a level playing field for elections, voters really are the term limits.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Dun Malg]

2. Cap the spending for campaigns at something like $100,000 for State and $1,000,000 for Federal.

Then instead you'll get a giant shitload of non-candidate-specific ads by the parties just generically saying "vote Democrat", or "vote Republican". We already see a little of this from McCain-Feingold. When you get right down to it, the 1st Amendment says you can't stop 500 "independent party supporters" from each buying a local market TV ad saying "Republicans rule! Wooo!"

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[XanC]

If that's the case, what happened to Indiana? Lugar's running unopposed, isn't he?

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Axe]

And that is about a maximum for a sane politician in Utah.

Utah has Moab and Zion. Everything north of freeway 70 should be sanitized and repopulated. :)

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[pashdown]

I'm in Utah, actually knew he was running and yet I have barely heard a word about him.

Do you read the paper or watch TV? That's OK, you can catch up at my media page.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Shihar]

I think it is pointless to argue if the US is the "best" country in the world to live in. I am sure by some standards it is the best and by others it is not. A lot of it is simply taste. If you want to be an artist, you might find France with public funding of the arts to be a nicer place. If are into the highest tech gadgets and food in a pretty package, cost be damned, Japan might seem like a paradise.

You also need to realize that simply by living a place you taint your ability to enjoy other places. It is found that some traditional tribal folks living in a stone age culture in the middle of nowhere tend rate themselves as happier then your average cosmopolitan Joe. That might be true, but I can promise you that your average cosmopolitan Joe would be murderous to get back to his "hellish" city after spending a couple of weeks without toilet paper, Starbucks, and dentist. So, maybe the people of Norway are happy being in Norway, but that doesn't mean that you would be.

I think the larger point is this; if you live in the US, you live in a damn good place. Maybe it is or is not the best for you, but chance are if I closed my eyes and pointed to another spot and sent you there, you would be miserable. Further, a lot of human misery comes from a loss of perspective. Nothing sends me into a murderous rage more then someone wallowing in their own self pity over the trite challenges that they face in their life. Yeah, your six grade girlfriend dumping you was traumatic and all, but get a grip and stop listening to whinny music reminding you of that black day. Better one girl in 3 billion dump you then living your life in what Americans would consider a glorified sewer, suffering war, experiencing violent cultural and political oppression, or any of the other horrors regularly visited upon many people in this world.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to change the place you live in for the better and looking to other cultures for examples of how to do this, but don't lose perspective. If you are reading this post, chances are you are living in some place that isn't so bad. The challenges and the trails that you face are unlikely to kill you, and even if they are (who knows, maybe you have cancer) you are probably in one of the better places of this world to face them.

Make the world a better place, but remember that the place you currently have is well worth appreciating despite whatever faults it might have.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Bios_Hakr]

If you forced people to make a decision, than maybe some of them would put more thought into it.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Bios_Hakr]

>>voters really are the term limits

Do you think the President should be allowed to run for 3+ terms?

If not, then why should you (or Hatch) be any different?

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Shihar]

This is a no functional suggestion. Even if you declared that you couldn't spend a cent on campaign ads, you would still have the airways filled with ads and politicians would be doing the whatever they damn well could to get that money. So long as it is legal for a third party to broadcast an advertisement for a politician, political position, or party, they are going to do it. The only way you could possibly prevent this from happening is if you literally repeal the 1st amendment. The chances of anyone proposing the repeal of the 1st amendment in the US hover somewhere around zero.

The simple fact of the matter is that money can amplify speech. In some (most) forms of media limiting the amount of money you can spend limits your speech. Even in something as benign as a political blog needs to pay the bandwidth bills. You can't take out all the money. You can't set limits on what an organization is spending without trampling on free speech. As soon as you leave an organization untouched by regulation, they suddenly become the campaign power houses as we saw with the last round of "campaign finance reform" where money didn't vanish, it simply moved.

The closest thing there is to a "solution" is one that is not political, but technological. The Internet has allowed people to reach a massive audience without spending piles of money. It still takes money, but it takes much less money. If the 'voices' that people listen to continue to decentralize and the importance of add campaigns begins to shrink, you will see money become less of an issue. That said, even in my most idealist utopian fantasies I fully expect big media and big money to play large roles in campaigns if for no other reason then to reach the masses that will not read a political blog to save their life, but watch Sunday night football every week.

In the end, it is the people, not the campaigns that are broken. The campaigns are just playing by whatever rules are set for them in an effort to influence the masses. The masses are made up of many politically uneducated people with little or no curiosity in the workings of their government. Even within the minority that make up people with interest in the workings of the government, many of them hold views that are closer to faith (both on the left and right) then they are to any real intellectual thinking. So long as the masses are the ones that pick the government, campaigns will try and appeal to them in whatever way they can. So long as the masses are swayed by shallow ads and sound bites, we are going to live in a world where the guy with the most advertising has a distinct (though certainly not insurmountable) advantage.

The people are the broken cogs in the machine. All this campaign finance reform is doing is just trying to find a way to work around them.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[pashdown]

If anyone is able to run for President, regardless of money, then yes, I think they should be able to run for 3+ terms.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[sustik]

I find most of your points insightful. However:

> 3. Force people to vote.

is not the solution. The election system needs to be overhauled. My favourite idea is to use the skating system: voters rank the candidates, then 50%+1 first places mean victory; if no such candidate emerged, then consider the 1-2 rankings if that reaches 50%+1 etc.

A great advantage of the system is that if you rank a less favoured candidate first, it does not mean automatically that your vote is thrown away, since your second choice may well effect the result.

The method has mathematically proven nice properties.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[hendersj]

What Pete didn't mention is that the mayors of both Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County are democrats. Most of the SLC City Council is also democratic, as I recall.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[mOdQuArK!]

I don't trust _any_ candidate to provide useful information, with or without public funding.

I'd much prefer that public funding be used to _thoroughly_ investigate every candidate, build a nice dossier of every single bit of public information that is available about them (especially their voting records, any news articles, any court records, etc) & make it available for public consumption.

Fat chance of any politician allowing that much transparency about themselves though - they're much more comfortable raping the privacy of the common citizen & hiding behind facades than having a bright light shining down on themselves.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[killjoe]

Like most of the inland west utah is a vast republican stronghold with the university town the small democratic outpost. In utah it's SLC in Idaho it's Boise, in Montana it's Missoula, etc.

The democrats need to keep together I guess because the inland west is packing serious firepower.

Anyway SLC is in no way, shape, or form representative of the whole state. Not even close.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[bit01]

That is a bad idea. If they don't care enough to vote without being forced to, they shouldn't be voting anyway.

There's no such thing as being forced to vote, just being forced to turn up to the polling station.

On balance it's a good thing because voters get presented with "how to vote" advertising at the polling station and the resulting vote, while not terribly well informed, is at least a little more representative. Certainly you don't seem to get as many minority pressure groups and polarized politics as you do in the US.

---

You communist! Breathing shared air!

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Eivind Eklund]

Contrary to popular opinion, money seems to make relatively little difference as to who wins US elections. Check out Freakonomics for background.

IMO, the major problem with the US election system is "winner takes all" by area, rather than a proportional system. This leads to a two-party system, with the parties being very similar in a lot of areas and strongly different in some core areas. Ie, you take the largest common area, extract the core ideas from that as the base for both parties, and then you take the two largest subgroups of opinion (after having removed the variation due to the core ideas), and create two parties based on the combination.

Other election systems lead to more varied parties *and* the availability of moderate parties, because being large (or being at all) matter *even if you don't have any chance of winning outright*. The winner-takes-all mess up this dynamic, disenfranchise voters, and add noise to the already noisy field of politics.

BTW: Nice to see politicans actually posting on /., nevertheless :)

Eivind.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[lthown]

Hey there Pete, I just wanted to let you know that *I* am going to be voting for you. Every opportunity I get, I explain to people that thanks to Orrin it's illegal for them to make a backup copy of their Monsters, Inc. DVD so that WHEN their kids break the disc they still have the original. I have to members of my family with broken originals of Monsters, Inc.

Former Employee - Chris B.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Anonymous Coward]

Have we fallen so far that baseless, mindless mudslinging is now considered Normal Politics?

Shut your pie-hole, assclown. Mod parent down.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Talchas]

Well, Bush shouldn't be promising tax cuts - he has no control over the matter except to veto. If he still promises it, hold him to it.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[The Cydonian]

Just to say this, Pete, extremely exciting to see a Senate candidate coming down to Slashdot and giving snarky one-liners like the rest of us, instead of saccharine-sweet politically correct answers.

I'm neither from Utah, nor from the US, but rest assured, I'll try and vote for you on Election Day.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[glittalogik]

A politician capable of intelligent sarcasm, rock! \m/ For what it's worth, if I was American you'd totally have my vote.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Descalzo]

Don't forget Jim Matheson, my Congressman, a Democrat. He won last time, and I expect he'll win again.

But don't expect Pete Ashdown to win this one. Sorry.

I've done what I could to get rid of Hatch. I even went to the county convention to cast my vote where it really counts, but to no avail. If Hatch doesn't win, I'll be shocked.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Sarisar]

If they run electronic voting in Utah I think between us we could guarantee you a win...

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[ChristTrekker]

You don't really want #1. What you really want is an environment that fosters stronger third parties. With more/better options available, the ballot box itself serves as your term limiter - which is what it is intended to do. The reason we have a culture of incumbency (we reelect something like 98% of those schmucks) and a Duopoly is the electoral environment: enact a preferential voting system, remove (ballot, debate) access restrictions on third parties, get rid of campaign finance limits on individuals - then you'll have an incumbents turned out more regularly, and greater interest in politics (solving #3) besides.

The problem is that the incumbent Duopoly has no interest in opening the system to anyone else. As long as they can keep passing the ball back and forth between them, they're OK with that, all the bitter partisan rhetoric aside. The two big parties in the US are not really all that much different. They just campaign that way.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[ChristTrekker]

Ehhh, anyone who supports public financing I'd have to oppose on principle. The incumbent advantage is a problem, yes, but this is not the solution. You make a contest fair by reforming the rules of the game itself, not by forcing your opponents to help you out.

If you're open to suggestions, let me know. I've spent a good deal of time in the past 5 years thinking about it.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Penguinisto]

...well, FWIW, you got at least two votes now (the guy above me, and me).

Props and salutations from a normally conservative-leaning sysadmin living out in Sugarhouse.

/P

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[ChristTrekker]

How about just enacting a preferential voting system, so you can always rank the candidates? You can put your ideologically best choice (who doesn't have a hope of winning) as #1, and still put the "mostly OK" incumbent (or whomever) at #2, where he still beats everyone else.

Who knows, maybe you'll find that lots of other people also think that guy who had no hope of winning was actually a good idea, and he will win.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Obviously, a candidate couldn't be found, otherwise there would be one.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[dragonsomnolent]

Just change #4 to Force elected officials to do everything possible to follow through on thier promises, and I'd be all behind you. No, they shouldn't make promises that they absolutly cannot follow through on, but if they put up a good effort (bring the issue up over and over again, even after it is shot down), they at least showed good faith effort to follow through on thier promises.

also add #5 yank the golden fleece -that nifty little retirement package they get, full pension, free medical care, etc or grant it to all constituants, I don't care which. (And before I get reamed about how to impliment that solution, no I don't know how, it is possible, even if in a quantum physics-longer that the lifespan of the universe, kind of way. Maybe the easiest solution would be to just yank the golden fleece). And if you're going to ream me about "how would hurting them make you feel better?" It isn't about "hurting" anyone, it's about an even playing field. If the congress-critters actually had to live in the world they create, maybe they'd make a better one.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Ryan Amos]

Midterm elections can work for or against the incumbent. If congress has not been doing its job (like recently) people will actually show up to "vote those bums out of office." Also, there have been some rather nasty scandals in the incumbent party, which can discourage voters from showing up to vote for a candidate they don't believe in, even if they really don't like the other guy.

In a strong conservative state like Utah, however, where gay marriage, abortion and family values issues rule the day, someone running on a tech platform is a long shot. Don't worry though, Ashdown won't be the last.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[hendersj]

Did I *say* SLC was representative of the whole state?

OBTW, I have been to Boise, guessing you haven't, because Boise is pretty right-wing in and of itself from what I recall.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[hey!]

Well, that stinks, but what did you expect? I'm sure Dean's much more focused on places like NJ, and VA, where things are up for grabs.

According to one way of looking at things, your chances don't look good enough to warrant a lot of attention on a national level. This viewpoint isn't the whole story though.

I live in Massachusetts; while Republicans do well in gubenatorial races, they don't do well in Senate or House races; we don't have a single representative who is Republican. I think the last Republican senator we had was Ed Brooke, who retired in 1979. This is bad for the state; Republicans ignore us as impossibly hostile territory; Democrats take us for granted.

Personally, I think what you are doing is very important. Safe seats are not only bad for the local electorate, they're bad for the nation. It isn't just a bad thing for the local people to be taken for granted by the incumbent party; It's a bad thing for the nation that incumbants don't need to worry about accountability. It's a bad thing for the country to be carved up into blue property and red property; we can see that in the Foley scandal, where the leadership apparently valued holding onto their majority higher than the greater good.

Somebody serious has to step up and do the work it takes create the organization that challenges entrenched encumbants.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Johnny5000]

You're right (and that's deliberate), but I think you overlooked the more simple point: Who is to blame if a campaign promise does not come through?

Like everything else in politics, it depends on who is louder and more effective in placing the blame:
the side screaming about broken campaign promises, or the side screaming about the morons in the XYZ Party who voted for raising your taxes.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Mattintosh]

Get rid of term limits (if there are any). But add one restriction... no consecutive terms. Force them to change things around every election rather than allowing one guy to put down roots. But don't limit the number of times one person can be elected. Do this at all levels - local, state, national, and for all branches (which includes the POTUS/VPOTUS and state officials).

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[An Onerous Coward]

but chance are if I closed my eyes and pointed to another spot and sent you there, you would be miserable.

Plus, there's a 70% chance I'd drown.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[shummer_mc]

I plan to vote for you (I decided awhile back). I'm not a democrat (or a republican). I'm an 'issue' voter. I like your ideas on 'fair' elections. Fairness in the electoral process is really the biggest problem that this country faces (that we *could* control), IMO.

Incumbent advantage isn't far enough, though. The last pres. campaigns cost $600M (per side), IIRC. The 'alternate' parties cannot hope to raise that money. They have valid viewpoints, and yet cannot get on the ballot in all 50 states without draining off their meager donations (which the dems and reps don't even have to do). The Dems and the Reps have a serious advantage that isn't fair. It's caustic... no one believes that politics are in their best interests any more and they don't think they have a choice. Only the wealthy and corporate-connected can hope to run a successful election (you are both). These candidates no longer represent the growing lower-middle class. It's wrong.

Your sort of idealistic campaign pledge virtually assures that you will get no funding from either Rep. or Dem. parties-- it's not in their best interests. This is really a case, though, where you've chosen a good fight. You may not win (sadly), but you should be proud of yourself.

I've seen lots of signs, and I'm hopeful that you win. GOOD LUCK!

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Lord Ender]

even if he loses, he gets tons of press for his isp

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[An Onerous Coward]

There are states where publicly financed elections exist. They don't have the disastrous moochery you describe. I believe it's because the candidates have to demonstrate a certain level of public support for their candidacy before they're eligible for public finances.

Ah, here we go:

Public Financing of Campaigns in the States

A number of states and cities have started to use public financing of campaigns. The main method, generally called Clean Money, Clean Elections, gives each candidate who chooses to participate a certain, set amount of money. In order to qualify for this money, the candidates must show a broad base of support by collecting a specified number of signatures and small (usually $5) contributions. The candidates are NOT allowed to accept outside donations or to use their own personal money if they receive this public funding. This procedure has been in place in races for all statewide and legislative offices in Arizona and Maine since 2000, where a majority of officials were elected without spending any private money on their campaigns. Connecticut joined them by passing a Clean Elections law in 2005, along with the cities of Portland, Oregon and Albuquerque, New Mexico.

The point is, you have to be a reasonably serious candidate to get the funds. 700 seems a bit excessive.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[BEHiker57W]

You say that powerful senior senators bring home pork for their constituents, but Orrin Hatch doesn't. Utah is well below average in federal largesse in spite of its thirty-year senator.

Utahns just feel comfortable with Hatch and Ashdown hasn't given them a good enough reason to reconsider. Mostly that's because Ashdown doesn't have enough money to blanket the state with media and the right wedge issues to make it stick.

It's also because Utah votes very Republican so it's hard to make a case to just swing voters and win, Ashdown has to win over a large proportion of the Republicans, too.

The same dynamic keeps most senators reelected. This is very different from the Ted Stevens (Pork-Alaska) and Robert Byrd (Pork-WV) approach where they really do bring in barrels of federal cash; only a few senators can manage that.

Too bad, because Ashdown would be the one voice that could really get digital freedom issues a hearing on Capitol Hill.

And the rest of you slashdotters haven't helped much in the fund raising, either. Head over to Pete's Site and give a little.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[killjoe]

"OBTW, I have been to Boise, guessing you haven't, because Boise is pretty right-wing in and of itself from what I recall."

I have been in boise plenty of times. Yes it's right wing compared to rest of america but it's left wing compared to the rest of idaho. First of all they actually publish a weekly alternative paper (hey they know how to read!). What's shocking is that in that very same paper you will see ads for homosexual chat lines!!!!. Imagine that anywhere else in idaho.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Lost Race]

Wow, you really need to get someone who knows English to write or at least proofread your public materials. E.g.:

Campaign promises are a literal joke that repeats every political season.

So when politicians make promises they have no intention to keep, they're not lying, they're just kidding? I think you don't really want the word "literal" in there.

In differentiating my candidacy from the others, making campaign pledges are important.

That sentence is so messed up it should be scrapped and rewritten from scratch. I think you mean to say that something about your campaign pledges differentiates your candidacy from others.

If you don't have anyone else to do your proofreading, I volunteer. I'm not a Democrat but I am a big fan of correct syntax.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[hendersj]

There are pockets of opposition pretty much everywhere you look, even in Provo/Orem, UT, there are pockets of Democrats. Hell, you can actually buy beer in Provo! (shock!)

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Bios_Hakr]

I lived in Italy for a while. I saw the perversion of the system when the public funds candidates. It does happen and it will happen if there is enough money involved.

>>The candidates are NOT allowed to accept outside donations or to use their own personal money if they receive this public funding.

Still does not stop them from spending a weekend at $big_corp hunting lodge or getting a ride on $special_interest private jet.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[An Onerous Coward]

The handling of political gifts isn't necessarily linked to campaign financing. Pete Ashdown could take all sorts of private jets to all sorts of tropical islands (and I strongly encourage him to do so. He looks like he could use some sun) but that wouldn't help him pay for TV time or lawn signs.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[killjoe]

BTW One thing great about Boise is that they actually have decent restaurants there. I like the korean place and I also loved the middle eastern place. I forgot their names already but I haven't forgotten the food (or the hot belly dancer). Yum.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Bios_Hakr]

I could give two shits about lawn signs and commercials. What bothers me is the fact that once elected, the official is obligated to return the favors. If you give $20 to the GOP, you get shit for it. If Bill Gates gives $20,000,000, he gets a night in the whitehouse and a private sit-down with the man.

That needs to stop.

Special interests and corporate shills are buying votes from people who are all to willing to let them.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[hendersj]

I've been to lots of restaurants in Boise - there's some good ones, no doubt. There's also good ones throughout Utah (and particularly in SLC).

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Sharkeys-Day]

1. Term limits for House and Senate.

That would be like putting a band-aid on a gaping wound. You stated yourself that they are corrupted "within a few months".

2. Force reps to disclose *everything* they do on a daily basis under the penalty of perjury if they lie. Meeting attendees and minutes should be published within 24 hours of a meeting on a web site available to all registered voters.

I really don't want to know *everything* they do. But outlawing secret meetings is a good idea.

3. Force people to vote. Make voting days a Federal holiday and force employers to pay employees for that day. Count it as the cost of doing business in the USA.

Bad idea. I would prefer that the people who don't study any issues and vote for the name which sounds most familiar do NOT vote.
Freedom of speech includes the right to be silent, and the right to vote includes the right to abstain.

4. Force campaign promises to be carried out. If a politician promises to repeal/enact $LAW, hold him to it as an impeachable offense.

Another band-aid, this time for a severed limb. Campaign promises are already so nebulous that you can't pin them down to anything specific, and this would make it worse.

My suggestions:

1. Vote for a third party. The two-party system has failed.

2. Require legislators to personally read every bill before they vote on it, or have it read in open assembly. No more 5000 page "omnibus" spending bills on the last day of the session.

3. Every law expires after 10 years unless renewed by a successful vote. A 3/4 majority is required for a permanent law.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[killjoe]

I haven't had a decent meal in SLC at all. Missoula rocks though, probably better then seatle and that's saying a lot.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[swillden]

If you're open to suggestions, let me know. I've spent a good deal of time in the past 5 years thinking about it.

Go register on Ashdown's Wiki, and detail your suggestions there.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[An Onerous Coward]

I understand that. But that doesn't mean that publicly-financed elections don't help.

With the current system, not only can corporations get influence with the candidates, they can also help the candidates get influence with the voters. Once that stops, and the playing field becomes more flat, investing in incumbents is no longer as useful to corporations. First reason, it's far less likely that the incumbent will be there in the future, because they can't build up a huge, scary warchest that will deter challengers from trying to mount serious campaigns. Second reason, the incumbent has to be more responsive to the people, since he can't expect to win by simple oversaturation of the media. Finally, since the incumbents no longer rely on corporate money (whether given directly or funneled through party channels) to keep them in power, they can afford to vote their conscience.

Also, it should be noted that successful incumbents spend a great deal of their time soliciting campaign contributions. That's time that could better be spent studying actual issues.

I'm not saying it's a silver bullet, or that it would put an end to corporate influence-peddling. I'm also not saying that the things you describe don't need to be cleaned up in their own right. But it's a useful start.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow if we are the best how come we're below the international average for education health care etc ... We say we are the best but we are not acting like we are Frustrated Amerikan

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[hendersj]

Then you've just not looked in the right places in SLC. There are plenty of good places to eat here.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[Anonymous Coward]

You are an idiot. Read the post before responding in the future.

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[hansonc]

Make that 3. I already voted for Pete before leaving town....

Re:Polls don't look so good for Ashdown

[hansonc]

Sorry Pete, I read the SLTrib RSS feed regularly and they almost never mention you. I did catch you on KPCW a couple of weeks ago though... it wasn't nearly as much fun as listening to Hatch and Blair go at it the next day though :-)

But as I said below, you got my vote before I left town. Good luck on Tuesday!

I love the Wiki idea!

[roscivs]

As the wired article states, he has a wiki version of his campaign platform where people can contribute. This is awesome, in my opinion. Check it out and tell me you're not impressed!

Re:I love the Wiki idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not editable. I call BULLSHIT.

Re:I love the Wiki idea!

[paulmer2003]

It appears the guys wiki has been 'slashdotted' - its lagging badly.

Sorry...

[Anonymous Coward]

If this guy thinks he can upset Hatch, he's smokin' something illegal.

Good on him

[QuantumG]

If only more geeks, scientists and other technically competent people did this. But, I suppose, they're all too busy actually working for a living to bother.

Re:Good on him

[Anonymous Coward]

Tagged with howtofixamerica

I really would try my hand at politics if it weren't for starving and such.

Re:Good on him

[Overzeetop]

I know I could probably squeak by on $165k/yr plus benefits (which are decent, btw). The killer is coming up with at least $25M - that would be the minimum it would take to even have a crack at a seat.

Re:Good on him

[pashdown]

Why not demonstrate a system to change it? I remember years ago it cost $25M to make movies, then Spike Lee made "She's Gotta Have It". You used to not be able to get music distribution without a music contract, but that isn't the case any more is it? International business and communication also used to be difficult too, but is it any more?

The status quo will remain status quo unless people work to change it.

Re:Good on him

[cptgrudge]

Putting up some videos on youtube or your website is a far cry from putting political ads on TV and radio.

The vast amount of money is mostly for advertising yourself and your stand on the issues, blasting other candidates, and mobilizing a campaign force to put yourself forward as a candidate. I'm sure that the cost of the actual production of those ads is cheap compared to actually getting those ads to potential constituents.

Re:Good on him

[pashdown]

How many ads did ebay, Google, or Yahoo! run before they hit one million users? How about MySpace and YouTube? The world is changing.

Re:Good on him

[Overzeetop]

It's not the running that's expensive - it's getting lazy americans off their couches and into the voting booth after throughly understanding the issues. And you have to get at least 70-80 million of them to do that nation wide.

Sort of like indie films or music - you can make it on a shoestring, but (a) can you get more than 50 of the top 100 tunes on billboard in any given week by non-RIAA distributors or 6 of the 10 top grossing films in any given year by independent studios? Can you do this ten years in a row? Can you do it without a huge marketing effort?

You're pushing against enormous momentum, and - more importantly - wealthy, activist organizations (the 2 parties) for whom the current system is in their best interest. Working to change the system is a good start. You've got two years. First, find 600 people who are intellegent, well spoken, good looking, and willing to quit their jobs and work 14 hour days for the next two years. Then I recommend talking to 10 every single month - new, unique people each month - explaining the issues, and convincing them that out of 300,000,000 people, their vote matters. If every US slashdotter did this, we could get to all of the US population, and if we were successful in half our conversations (a major sucess, btw) we could make a difference.

Re:Good on him

[ChristTrekker]

I wanted to run. But it's too darn expensive to even file the paperwork! However, the federal offices (where I feel I'd fit best) have nothing to do with that. State offices don't pay squat, so I can't even consider running for those.

Re:Good on him

[geoffspear]

I'm sure everyone you'd represent is glad you're not running if your motivation is the paycheck.

Open source developers boycotting Utah?

[Anonymous Coward]

There have been suggestions on some Linux mailing lists that open source developers should start boycotting businesses based in Utah, due to the trouble Utah has recently caused.

While not everyone in Utah is supportive of such nonsense, as shown by this Ashdown fellow, many in the Linux community do see Utah as the root of many problems within the technical world. Hatch's twisted understanding of technology, and the legislation it helps lead to, is one issue. Another is the whole SCO debacle.

I don't know how effective such a boycott would be. But voting this Ashdown fellow into power might be a far better step for everyone.

Re:Open source developers boycotting Utah?

[cachedout]

That seems like an awfully big hammer. Especially since, as one of the syadmins over at XMission Internet I'd really rather not experience that. And before everybody points it out, yes, XMission is Pete Ashdown's company. :]

Re:Open source developers boycotting Utah?

[burnin1965]

many in the Linux community do see Utah as the root of many problems within the technical world. Hatch's twisted understanding of technology, and the legislation it helps lead to, is one issue. Another is the whole SCO debacle.

Yeah right, I doubt many in the linux community are that ignorant. Hatch doesn't have a twisted understanding of technology, he has NO understanding of technology. Hatch is a mere puppet of the real trouble makers, MPAA, RIAA, BSA, and hey, don't they all come from the west coast, California and Washington? Perhaps a boycott isn't enough, maybe we should just nuke 'em and save the technical world from all their meddling. Then again perhaps labeling all the people in a geographic area is kinda dumb and perhaps we should get to the real source of the trouble which is likely to be a very small percentage of the population from any specific area. In fact I bet we could narrow it down to a handful of wealthy corporations who are acting out of greed.

Hatch

[aztec rain god]

Hatch is among the more conservative politicians on the issues of 'digital privacy' and 'fair use'

What exactly is it, regarding digital privacy and fair use, that Hatch is conserving?

Re:Hatch

[ResidntGeek]

The power of rightsholders and monopolies like the RIAA. He sponsored the INDUCE Act.

Re:Hatch

[Overzeetop]

So what exactly is the conservative stance on digital privacy and fair use?

As far as I've seen, both parties seem to be tripping over themselves trying to legislate more and more restrictions. Democrats should be telling the content providers to "fuck off" and give th power to the people. Republicans should be getting the god damned government out of my living room and letting me do whatever I damned well please with my shit.

Personally, I think it's all Benjamin Franklin's fault. If it weren't for guys in suits stuffing wads of paper with his face on it into every congressman's pocket, we might get something pro-citizen passed in Washington.

Re:Hatch

[kfg]

People keep using that word . . .

KFG

He's the perfect candidate - for 2026

[Salvance]

Given the tech savvyness of the younger generations, Politicians like Pete Ashdown are sure to become more commonplace over the next 10-20 years. Unfortunately, the vast majority of voters and capital hill aren't ready for the reform. Remember Ross Perot's "revolutionary" voting ideas? He wanted to enable people to vote in elections (and even on every congressional act) from their computers or at government kiosks. Everyone laughed at the idea, but his kooky vision is getting closer to reality.

In politics, it never seems to pay to be a visionary ... while they may eventually effect great change in how our government functions, their lack of mainstream appeal never gets them very far in the election.

Re:He's the perfect candidate - for 2026

[trolleymusic]

I get quite upset that in our political system [at least here in Australia] I've got more say over who gets kicked out of Big Brother or Australian Idol than I do over the workings of our Government. After vote time, there's not a lot you can do to change the course of the Government policy [ie: talking to your local member is fine, but the party will do what it wants]. I would love to be able to vote individually on bills, or at least have my opinion heard in my own Parliament.

Re:He's the perfect candidate - for 2026

[pashdown]

If nothing else, I hope to inspire other tech savvy people to step up. We desperately need leadership in Congress that understands more about technology than where the power button is.

Re:He's the perfect candidate - for 2026

[SpaceLifeForm]

Well said. So, what's your thoughts on SCO v IBM?

Re:He's the perfect candidate - for 2026

[fossa]

Well, in some sense things are purposely set up this way. Perhaps to avoid the tyranny of the majority or whatever. I'd like to see more discussion in this rather than an implicit assumption that more people voting directly on more things is better. Of course, when the representative democracy of the US was set up, the states had more power and the feds had less. Now the federal government has grabbed everything important through the commerce clause and various strings attached money taken via taxation and given to the states, so the dynamics of the US republic are a bit different with power more concentrated and each individual vote counting for less... But those are the things I'm fuzzy on and would like to hear more about.

Re:He's the perfect candidate - for 2026

[pashdown]

Speaking as someone who owns a business that received a letter from SCO for our use of Linux, I hope IBM crushes them and wipes clean the stain from Utah's tech community.

Favorite movie..

[vancondo]

WN: Your favorite movie is Brazil..

If I recall correctly there are a lot of pneumatic tubes in that movie used to transport information from one point to another.

How fitting.

--
http://vancouvercondo.info

Re:Favorite movie..

[pashdown]

Terrorists too.

Here's why

[Anonymous Coward]

People mis-read the names as:

Scorin Snatch

vs.

Peter Assclown

Re:Here's why

[LindseyJ]

Wait, what? You mean that commercial I saw was wrong?

Never Happen

[Anonymous Coward]

The Mormons would fix the election before Hatch was voted out.

vote

[PenguinGuy]

I am voting against Hatch, since he only cares about the "rights" of companies and not not the rights of the people

His Wiki is locked - how collaborative is this?

[Salvance]

One commentor posted a link to Pete Ashburn's wiki, so I was excited to add a link back to slashdot on it (and figured Pete and his supporters would be happy to know he was featured on a popular national tech site).

However, on page after page after page, I continually received "this page is locked" warnings. I still e-mailed Pete, but even so ... to disallow members from editing seems against the purpose of a Wiki and Pete's collaboration goals.

Re:His Wiki is locked - how collaborative is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that is strange, maybe it's a temporary lock while he's getting all this traffic. Dunno.

Best of luck to him, but he's going to lose and it won't be close. :-/

Here is your winner -> (R)
"No Democrat has represented Utah in the U.S. Senate since Hatch defeated Frank Moss in 1976."
That streak is not about to break.

Re:His Wiki is locked - how collaborative is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are instructions for signing up to be a contributor right on the front page.

Re:His Wiki is locked - how collaborative is this?

[Salvance]

Yep - and when I signed up and accepted the e-mail, it still kept everything locked ... and this was before he was slashdotted. Oh well, others are right - he doesn't have much of a chance.

Re:His Wiki is locked - how collaborative is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

One commentor posted a link to Pete Ashburn's wiki, so I was excited to add a link back to slashdot on it (and figured Pete and his supporters would be happy to know he was featured on a popular national tech site).

He was probably annoyed at people who can't get his name right.

Re:His Wiki is locked - how collaborative is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's still one more step. His staff has to permit your access. Perhaps you should improve your reading comprehension.

They say that they don't have the resources to handle vandalism, and, anyway, I highly doubt his probability of winning depends much on the ease of signing up for his wiki.

Re:His Wiki is locked - how collaborative is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

probably because he doesn't want his picture to be replaced with this.

Re:His Wiki is locked - how collaborative is this?

[benplaut]

Good grief... the wiki is posted in a comment halfway down the thread, and it's already slashdotted! Keep in mind that wiki software is also just a way to easily make a site... not just for anyone-can-edit.

Re:His Wiki is locked - how collaborative is this?

[pashdown]

I got tired last January of battling the Red Keyboard Brigade from putting TubGirl all over my pages and had to go to registered accounts with email requests. Quoting from the front page:

  How Do I Edit?

All are welcome to contribute to this Wiki. However, due to our inability to properly staff against vandalism, there is a registration process involved.

      1. Register an account.
      2. Respond to the registration email sent to your email address.
      3. Email the campaign staff to activate your account. Be sure to include your Wiki account name!

Re:His Wiki is locked - how collaborative is this?

[pashdown]

At least he didn't call me Ashcroft. It has happened out on the trail and I just gotta smile.

Re:His Wiki is locked - how collaborative is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, at this rate we might have a congressman /. poster. :P

Re:His Wiki is locked - how collaborative is this?

[dch24]

1. Elect slashdotter to Congress
2. ???
3. Profit!

Understatement

[A beautiful mind]

Hatch is among the more conservative politicians

That's like saying the Amish are among the more conservative users of computer technology.

Re:Understatement

[mattwarden]

You laugh, but if you look at the recent Amish school shooting, it's obvious that more and more Amish are embracing technology. I mean, where else would they get ideas like that if not video games?

Re:Understatement

[RustNeverSleeps]

I know your comment was sarcastic/a joke, but I think it's worth noting that the shooter in that incident was not Amish, only the victims were Amish.

Re:Understatement

[Anonymous Coward]

Dumbass. The killer was a disturbed truck driver.

Unfortunately

[Anonymous Coward]

he's not going to make it. First, copyright is a foreign issue to everyone outside of Slashdot (mostly) and this is not going to be a factor when the average Utahn votes.

Secondly, Hatch makes sure that he's known as the pro-life, pro-family candidate everywhere, plus (he says) works to keep nuke crap out of our west deserts. This resonates strongly with Utahns.

Pete Ashdown, though, instead of running as a "conservative democrat" and aligning his positions with the mormon church as others have successfully done (Matheson), he has not done this. Instead, Ashdown has run as a full-bore liberal which will be his death nell on Nov 7. A *lot* of people have respect for O'Reilly here.

The fact that Ashdown is getting 25-30% of the vote says a huge amount. This is a signifacant percentage of people who would like to see a change.

Unfortunately, once again we have to put up with Hatch stabbing online rights in the back for another six years. For people that say boycott Utah blah blah blah, come here and help change politics instead.

Re:Unfortunately

[pashdown]

I demand full accountability of our representatives by having them post schedules and call logs online. Every department of government should post their budgets and expenditures on a monthly basis. I will involve the American people in the process and I am demonstrating ways to do that. I believe the Constitution is more than a "piece of paper" and should be upheld if I swear to do so. Please explain to me how this is "full-bore liberal", because people all over Utah have told me that it sounds good to them.

Re:Unfortunately

[Anonymous Coward]

Well. your stance that I have seen sounds like that you would not support a constitutional amendment protecting marriage, when Hatch said he would. Also, it seems you are not pro-life, where Hatch openly advertises that he is. You seem to forget (or don't care) that Utahns were some of the first to overwhelmingly vote for a state amendment on marriage.

These two issues alone make you come accross as a liberal, and is what is going to hang you on Nov 7.

It's unfortunate that it has to be black and white like this here, and that there is no viable third party candidate. If there was, i think Utahns would vote for him.

Also, it's unfortunate that that Hatch can claim the high ground on a couple of issues, while supporting all the other dross of the current administration (e.g. patriot act II on steroids, carnivore, not to mention all the other junk from earler years CTEA, DMCA, INDUCE - the list is endless as you know). That and his campaign warchest is enough to get him elected every time.

I think that your ideas of representative accountability are great, but the message doesn't seem to be reaching the Utah masses, or they don't care about that as much as other things. Also, if the national Democratic party cared, they should have given you more money for your campaign. Maybe that would have helped, but I do not think much.

I think the people who do vote for you are not actually voting for you, but voting against something else, whether it be Hatch or the administration. Which apparently will not be enough to win on NOV 7.

I voted for you (early voting BTW the diebold machines were busted when I went today - you should be making that a campagn issue) but not because of what you said you would do, but because I hate Hatch and want to see him out of office. Also, I would personally would have liked to have heard more about healthcare. Something that not many politicians are talking about. Hatch should have been attacked on the senior drug program (seniors vote more than anybody), and the handouts the drug companies get. I would have liked to see him attacked for this last absolutely worst do-nothing congressional session ever.

Really, all these things taken together puts you behind the eightball. I feel bad that we are going to see another six years of Hatch, but the reasons why are pretty crystal in my mind.

When the day is done, you are not connecting with the majority of Utah voters. It's as simple as that.

Re:Unfortunately

[Anonymous Coward]

that you would not support a constitutional amendment protecting marriage

What, are the Republicans outlawing divorce? Oh wait... Personally, I think Kinky was right: homosexuals have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us. "Protecting" marriage by preventing people from marrying while ignoring the increasing divorce rate is dumb. You want to "protect" marriage? Try mandatory marriage counselling for 6 months after you apply for a license before your license is actually valid. Try not ignoring the biology (if you're religious, the biology that God gave us so that we would go forth and multiply, and that hasn't "evolved" since women were old maids at 15 if they hadn't been married and popping out the next generation for several years by then) that leads to teenagers having sex and making babies.

Or you could just separate the civil act of marriage from the religious act of marriage, and allow your pastors, clerics and priests to marry whoever may meet their standards while repealing laws that ban insurance companies from selling multiple-person policies to certain people, and revise inheritance laws in order to allow a person's last will and testament to be executed faithfully, regardless of whether you think the person set to receive the estate is a sinner or not.

Re:Unfortunately

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, you have a right to your view, as I do mine. It's just that the vast majority of Utahns think like/agree with me on this issue. It seems that Pete does not, and that was my point. I will continue to aupport a national amendment protecting marriage.

donate

[Anonymous Coward]

Since Hatch is responsible for much of the DVD hassles we've had to endure on Linux, it'd seem like investing $10 or $100 in Ashdown's race would be a Good Thing. Sounds like he hasn't gotten enough media exposure, but he's in a cheap media market ($1 will buy a lot more ads in Utah than it will in California) so contributions could be well worthwhile.

He already lost my vote

[Reverend528]

He lost my vote when he refused to endorse Stochasticracy.

Re:He already lost my vote

[pashdown]

You never gave an effective argument as to how the average American voter could ever hope to understand it. Voting is already pretty simple, and we're lucky to get a 25%. You want to enforce a system that most people can't pronounce, let alone understand?

Re:He already lost my vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Which candidate in this race is it that you're voting for that endorses Stochasticracy? And why do you think that a person's stand on it is the most important issue in a Senate race -- given that a single senator's beliefs on a reform of than nature will not lead to any policy changes anyway? And, finally, are you actually able to vote in this race, or are you just talking nonsense in order to bring up your own pet theory?

Re:He already lost my vote

[shilly]

Firstly, his system doesn't require democratic engagement in the same way -- because it doesn't require turnout. Second, you've assumed that people are more likely to vote if the voting system is simple. But people may prefer fair to simple.

For what it's worth, I think instant runoff voting is fair, simple enough and effective. And I think that stochasticracy is a silly, complicated name for an idea people are very familiar with: jury service. A revising chamber comprised of randomly selected citizens might well be an effective check on an elected legislative chamber. It would surely be no more liable to unwanted influence.

Re:He already lost my vote

[ChristTrekker]

Ha! I've often joked that we'd have a better government if we selected some people at random from a phone book...

Conservative?

[finkployd]

Bad Tech laws are one of those few issues that seem to really cross party lines and ideologies. When it comes to privacy remember one thing, both sides do not want you to have it, but the minority party will always come out in favor of it. \

Example: When Clinton and Gore were busy pushing the Clipper initiative and trying to make sure all digital communications encryption had a government accessible back door to aid in spying, John Ashcroft was one of the most vocal opponents coming down on the side of personal privacy, freedom from government spying, etc. Now that Bush feels that everyone he unilaterally (and incontestably) declares a "terrorist" should be under constant surveillance, the Democrats suddenly pretend to care about government oversight on spying and everyone's personal privacy.

Hatch was the author of the Induce Act, which certainly seems right in line (and a logical followup) to the Clinton supported and signed DMCA.

There are certainly issues in America where your opinion easily points to one party over another, but not this one. By and large they both suck, are technologically incompetent, and totally bought and sold to their masters (be it Hollywood, BSA, RIAA, etc). I don't think you can call one position "Democrat", or "Republican", or "Conservative", or "Liberal".

Finkployd

Re:Conservative?

[mattwarden]

Do you have examples of this hypocrisy prior to Bush and Clinton? Many people, including myself, feel like the Republican party has changed drastically recently, including in the area of privacy and personal liberty. Your perspective is an interesting one, but you would have to use examples that are not so recent in order to rule out the alternative theory.

I'm not trying to argue -- I'm genuinely interested in further support of your opinion. (Very un-Slashdot-like, eh?)

Re:Conservative?

[finkployd]

Do you have examples of this hypocrisy prior to Bush and Clinton? Many people, including myself, feel like the Republican party has changed drastically recently, including in the area of privacy and personal liberty.

I agree with this, but I believe it is because in recent history the republican party gained control of the government. Prior to the mid 90s, they had a very long dry spell where the Democrats controlled congress, so even when there was a Republican president, there was checks on power. It was easy to stir up fear about an overpowering, spying government when they were not the ones doing the spying and amassing the power. Contrast their reactions of the Clinton actions at Waco and Ruby ridge vs. today. Back then the feds were jack booted thugs out to grab power and stomp on the little guy. Now if you do not support every single thing the feds do, you are unpatriotic.

The sad part of this is that the Republican party's position on personal liberty and privacy was all just so much hot air designed to appeal to the masses, just as the Democrats position today is. The truth of the matter is that both sides feel that THEY are the ones who should be doing the spying, and curtailing liberties they find troublesome to make it easier to govern the population. They only fear it when it is that evil other party doing it.

This goes back further than the 90s vs today, but that provides the most significant 180 on the part of both parties regarding their views on domestic spying, federal power, etc. I'll dig up more examples tomorrow, right now it is time for bed.

Finkployd

Re:Conservative?

[ScrewMaster]

I don't think you can call one position "Democrat", or "Republican", or "Conservative", or "Liberal".

Very true. Next time, try inserting the words "Crook" and "Traitor" instead of "Democrat" and "Republican". I think you'll find they're pretty much interchangeable at this point.

Re:Conservative?

[pashdown]

By and large they both suck, are technologically incompetent, and totally bought and sold to their masters (be it Hollywood, BSA, RIAA, etc). I don't think you can call one position "Democrat", or "Republican", or "Conservative", or "Liberal".

You can call them all ignorant.

good point

[krell]

There was a liberal democract, Senator Exon, who was a big proponent of the Communications Decency Act. I don't think he is in office anymore.

Re:good point

[jcarkeys]

He retired in 1997 and died last summer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._James_Exon

Re:good point

[finkployd]

"The information superhighway is a revolution that in years to come will transcend newspapers, radio, and television as an information source. Therefore, I think this is the time to put some restrictions on it."
U.S. Senator James Exon

Re:good point

[krell]

He was a man ahead of his time. If the founding fathers had thought like he did, newspapers would have been regulated out of existence by 1830.

Re:Mormons.

[Anonymous Coward]

Take it from a LDS member, I don't want that long time looser in office. The sooner the better.

As for the members that have no issue with him, THINK. Use your head! If you're voting purely on the basis of religious following, you have COMPLETELY MISSED THE BOAT. Be upset if you must, but try to determine all the (probable) ongoing and potential motives before you just record your vote.

And as far as getting you, well, that's left to the man upstairs.

Reform? Try repeal.

[Entropy]

The only good DMCA is a _dead_ DMCA

Re:Reform? Try repeal.

[Concern]

Damn right.

Reform it with some gasoline and a lighter.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Interesting...

[Null Nihils]

From the fascinating Wikipedia article on Mr. Hatch:

Hatch caused an overnight controversy on June 17, 2003 by proposing that copyright owners should be able to destroy the computer equipment and information of those suspected of copyright infringement, including file sharing. In the face of criticism, especially from technology and privacy advocates, Hatch withdrew his suggestion days later, after it was discovered that Sen. Hatch's official website was using an unlicensed JavaScript menu from United Kingdom based software developer Milonic Solutions. Milonic founder Andy Woolley stated that "We've had no contact with them. They are in breach of our licensing terms."

On a lighter note, apparently lots of people in Utah are rather tired of Orrin Hatch. Particularly, it seems, his advertising. (From the OneGoodMove weblog; Where they have things that might be clues.)

Re:Interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's nice to see that blog posting of a photoshopped billboard has a total of no more than 15 comments, yet "lots of people in Utah are rather tired of Orrin Hatch"...

I rather enjoy all that Orrin Hatch has gotten Utah. Most notably, the fact that HAFB is still open. If that base were to have closed, Clearfield and surrounding areas would be backtracked economically for 10+ years. But then again, I'm sure Pete Ashdown could have secured that same deal had he been allowed to pull all of his strings in Washington.

Re:Interesting...

[pashdown]

Nobody wants to see base closures in their home state. The question is who can best handle the economic redevelopment if the government closes the base anyway?

Re:Interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like my tax dollars back that you took from me to keep your stupid air force base open.

An upset isnt gonna happen here...

[jonwil]

The reason the media companies chose Hatch to help them get their bills through (and paid him big $$$ to do it) is because he has such a strong support base from the religious groups that he is very hard to vote out of office. (and replace with someone less likely to listen to their lobbying efforts)

Re:An upset isnt gonna happen here...

[Anonymous Coward]

Even though I (and my wife) will vote against him, my parents and grandparents will vote for him just because he's Mormon.

Re:An upset isnt gonna happen here...

[pashdown]

Have you talked to your parents and grandparents about the race? I've put 25,000 miles down in the last 18 months and people are receptive to my message. Slashdot seems to write this off as "fixing copyright" which one reason I got in, but certainly not what I preach to the masses. Talking about bringing accountability, fiscal responsibility, and participatory democracy to government is what people want across the political spectrum, and I have a plan that I am demonstrating how to do it.

Re:An upset isnt gonna happen here...

[jonwil]

Woah, a political candidate who posts to Slashdot. Never seen that before...

If I lived in Utah and not Australia, I would vote for this guy in a heartbeat (and not just because he posts to Slashdot, I actually aggree with the things he says).
Now if only we could find someone in australia willing to do the same (such as favoring the little guy instead of the big multinational, giving the iraqi people a say in who should control their country etc)

Re:An upset isnt gonna happen here...

[pashdown]

Now if only we could find someone in australia willing to do the same...

Maybe that person using your keyboard?

Re:An upset isnt gonna happen here...

[joshsnow]

Woah, a political candidate who posts to Slashdot. Never seen that before..

You have - unless you're new here!


There was that techie girl who was running for California Governor in the race that Schwarzenegger won. Not Mary Carey, the other one.

what a campaign issue!

[briancnorton]

Shrugging off the topically relevant war in Iraq to focus on an important issue like *GASP* music piracy is certainly a bold move that will ressonnate with the progressive voters of Utah. I don't know, nor do I care what this guy's platform is on real issues, but my god, this is about as low on most people's totem pole of political importance as gay marriage or Native American Affairs. I really hope it's not his flagship issue, because it's a real lame one for most people.

Re:what a campaign issue!

[cachedout]

Huh?

How exactly does introducing one issue constitute "shrugging off" another issue?

Re:what a campaign issue!

[Anonymous Coward]

The technology issues highlighted by Wired's interview are hardly the focal points of Pete's campaign. Perhaps you should spend five minutes on his website before you write off his efforts as "lame?"

Re:what a campaign issue!

[Quila]

, this is about as low on most people's totem pole of political importance as gay marriage

Maybe your totem pole, but there's a huge chunk of our population that cares about gay marriage, one way or the other. I'm not among either group, but I know they exist, and many are single-issue about it.

Re:what a campaign issue!

[Dhalka226]

this is about as low on most people's totem pole of political importance as gay marriage

If you do not think gay marriage is an important issue to people, talk to some Republican strategists. Many of them were crediting the gay marriage issue almost single-handedly for galvanizing their base to go vote, and winning them the 2004 election. Do you think it was accidental that Bush tried to push a gay marriage ban through as a Constitutional amendment--doomed to fail--just before the election?

Re:what a campaign issue!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're assuming too much by thinking he even read the Wired article.

Welcome to Slashdot.

Re:what a campaign issue!

[An Onerous Coward]

Look, Pete is a tech guy. When he heard about Hatch's brilliant idea of letting the RIAA "blow up computers" to protect their profits, it seems to have been something of a transformative moment for him. It was a giant slap-across-the-face-with-a-mackarel, showing him just how corrupt and out of touch our Senator-for-Life is.

But Ashdown's goal isn't to enable music piracy. My impression is that he wants to replace Hatch with someone who is far more informed about technology issues, far less entrenched, and able to use technology to connect with voters and wake America up to the possibilities of true representative democracy. He has plenty of ideas on a wide variety of issues; just check out his wiki. It strikes me as one of the most comprehensive political platforms I've ever seen from a politician). I disagree with him on some of them, but I'm absolutely psyched about his desire for transparency in government and draining the money out of the political process. His promise to publish his daily schedule online is a breath of fresh air.

Pete has my vote in November, and the vote of anyone else I can talk into voting for him.

Re:what a campaign issue!

[briancnorton]

not relevant. "It's the WAR stupid." That's the ONLY issue this election. Sad but true.

Re:what a campaign issue!

[An Onerous Coward]

I'm sorry to hear that. But given that it is a one-issue election, anyone who doesn't desperately believe that Iraq is just a few short years from vibrant democracy should vote for Ashdown over Hatch. Ashdown's position on the Iraq war is, "send the Iraqis to the polls again, and this time ask them if they want us to stay." Hatch's has been, "Stay the course! The president says we must stay the course! You anti-war nutcakes are going to get us all killed by terrorists!" I'm pretty sure that's a direct quote.

Re:what a campaign issue!

[briancnorton]

That's EXACTLY my point. He's got a powerful issue to push and he (chooses?) digital media rights? Doesn't seem like a good idea.

Just wond'ring...

[Black Parrot]

> Hatch is among the more conservative politicians on the issues of 'digital privacy' and 'fair use'

Is that good or bad? I.e., what is the writer's notion of what makes a 'conservative' position on those policies? (Is protecting fair use conservative or progressive?)

Re:Just wond'ring...

[pashdown]

If you're talking about keeping the government and business out of people's lives, then I'd say its libertarian. It used to be conservative when Goldwater was around, but they buried that idea with him.

Re:Mormons.

[portforward]

I am Mormon. No we are not.

All together now

[mattwarden]

Ashdown hopes to help pave the way for better decision-making on the Hill

You're new here, aren't you.

Sincerely,

Washington

I live in Utah and

[Goblez]

Orin Hatch is certainly not getting my vote. If for nothing else, I'm happy to throw my vote on a no name to help raise the numbers of those that won't stand for his lack of foresight, to put a little more funding against him, to lower his comfort level and domination, and to just plain boost the numbers of the 'other guy'.

For The Love of Pete!

[orionsnebula]

Vote for him!

Re:For The Love of Pete!

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you? A thief or a faggot? Or both? Dirty butt loving faggot!

Re:For The Love of Pete!

[cachedout]

Republicans are so cute when they get upset.

Re:For The Love of Pete!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm certainly not a republican.

And what's to get upset about? This guy's going to lose. He's just spinning his wheels, wasting contribution dollars. If anything if republicans look at this in the right light they should be laughing.

But thanks for being another dumb ass who thinks most people fit neatly into one of two slots.

A moron and a faggot. You guys are funny.

Re:For The Love of Pete!

[Anonymous Coward]

Homophobics are so cute when they get upset

I hate to say it... but there are bigger issues

[MikeRT]

The very fact that people think he has a chance, when these are some of the issues he's most passionate about, for a Senate seat against a guy like Hatch says how out ot touch many are. He'll get his ass kicked unless both Hatch and the Democrat get caught screwing little foreign toddlers on capitol hill while high on crack. If he cares about these issues, he needs to run with a firmly libertarian point of view and try to "out right wing" Hatch as a hawk, capitalist, family values guy patriot who thinks the government should mind its business. That's the only way he'll be able to even have a shot at putting his issues into a larger perspective that he can sell.

Re:I hate to say it... but there are bigger issues

[pashdown]

Did you bother to read my issues before passing judgement? How about watching the debates? Reading the interviews?

His photographer should be shot

[spagetti_code]

Whomever did this photo of Pete could have done better. They've used wide f-stop creating a narrow depth of focus. Thats OK except when you do it on someone up close, it makes their nose look big. Also, because his face is in focus but his shoulders and body aren't, they look like they are a long way away - so he looks like he has a 2' neck.

Re:His photographer should be shot

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, It's not so much the wide aperture as the wide angle lens. The out of focus is a small distraction but it certainly doesn't change the geometry of his face like the wide angle does.

Personally, for that sort of head shot, I'd probably be shooting a 50 or 100mm (on a dslr, so that's cropped), and given the blank background, f/8 and off camera lighting. If there was background, I'd be looking at the same lens and f/4, natural light. No way I'd go for the puppy dog nose effect like that.

Re:His photographer should be shot

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, good comments, but he actually does have a 2 inch neck.

Re:His photographer should be shot

[pashdown]

There are other photos from other photographers on the site. If you'd like, I can send you a signed copy whatever one you like the best.

Re:His photographer should be shot

[Keltik]

While that photo isn't the best, it is not as distored as you would think. At least, that is what he looked like on a televised debate I caught between him and Senator Hatch last week in Salt Lake City (no I don't live there, I was on a business trip).

Granted, his looks don't matter just his views and actions. I have no idea if his politics would mesh with mine, but his looks would not deter me from voting for him if I agreed with his view.

Re:His photographer should be shot

[spagetti_code]

Thank you kindly for the offer Pete.
Sadly I'm not in your constituency (nor even
in your country).

At the risk of sounding toady, you'd get my
vote as the first politician who knows that
you can't wear a network mask :-)

Good luck with the contest - Mr Hatch is
a dangerous man and needs to be replaced.

Make your LAN party a write-your-Congressman party

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Votes matter. Money only matters because it buys ads to get votes. Every time your Congresscritter's staff see a real letter (as opposed to a form letter from an astroturf campaign) they look at it and see dozens of votes from people who feel the same way but didn't bother writing.

Have everybody put the issue in their own words, don't go overboard defining "talking points". Be more polite than you would on Slashdot.

If the congressional staff is working at all, your letters will be counted, and a sudden jump in letters on a previously obscure issue will get attention.

Unclear Platform

[Millenniumman]

One thing irking about his campaign is his stance on several issues. He says he is in favor of "rethinking" them, but does not give an actual platform.To me, that seems like deliberately avoiding taking a position on a topic so as to please everyone, while still seeming like he has a position.

Re:Unclear Platform

[pashdown]

Codified issues are located on the issues page. If you want something finalized, tell me what it is. I unfortunately have to spend a lot of time away from the keyboard. If you've ever met me in person, you'd know that there isn't a question I won't answer and I don't avoid taking positions.

Find me another candidate anywhere who has as many stands on their web page or has openly discussed over 40 in some online form like I have on my Wiki.

Online debate

[mulhollandj]

Read his online debate at www.utahdebate.org.

Re:Mormons.

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Mormon, someone who has met Hatch, and someone who leans toward the Republican party, I'll be voting for Ashdown. Hatch should have been out of office a LONG time ago.

His ISP is awesome!

[zuhl]

Our company co-locates a server with his company, http://www.xmission.com/. They are great to work with. They were also the first ISP in Utah.

About the geekiest group of guys around. And I mean that as a compliment.

And, though it really shouldn't influence my vote here in UT another cool thing about Pete is that he is a vintage video game collector. For a while they were using an un-used part of the data center for storage of his machines. Plus, you can play a stand up version of one of the Donkey Kongs in the lobby of the data center.

Re:His ISP is awesome!

[MichaelSmith]

I think he must be going for the slow down cowboy record

Re:His ISP is awesome!

[The Cydonian]

Wow, he's been here for four hours already! I don't feel so bad about wasting time on Slashdot anymore. :-D

Re:His ISP is awesome!

[tincho_uy]

Not only that, but he also hosts the best page in the universe!!

No, I'm New Here

[New Here]

No, I'm New Here

maybe he should think a little more about the wiki

[funkmasterbillis]

from his wiki frontpage:

HELLO SLASHDOT! YES, YOU DO NEED TO REGISTER BEFORE YOU CAN VANDALIZE THESE PAGES

now I'm not a political expert, but it would seem assuming a large group of potential supporters are vagrants, and then calling them such is a bad strategy.

Re:maybe he should think a little more about the w

[pashdown]

Why do you think I had to go to registration in the first place? This isn't the first Slashdotting.

It doesn't mean anything.

[Krytical]

The majority of the U.S population don't know what DMCA stands for, let alone the folks over at Utah. The fact that the majority of citizens in Utah aren't interested in a geek representing them doesn't make them any more dumb. Slashdotters tend to associate technology with intelligence way too often, one thing doesn't necessarily go with the other. My calc professor was a genius, yet he could hardly turn on a computer.

Re:Mormons.

[Pike]

'K thanks, I believe you.

Re:Make your LAN party a write-your-Congressman pa

[tehdaemon]

This may apply to your average congress-critter.

However, as a geek and Utah resident, I have to say I really don't think Hatch would listen on 'digital privacy' issues regardless of the format of the letter.

I'd rather have a loony liberal junior Senator than Hatch - issues don't matter any more. No junior Senator could do as much damage to this nation as Hatch is/will. Digital rights etc. are just a small part of that.

Latin?

[Michael Woodhams]

On education, some good looking stuff and: "I also believe things like learning Latin are essential."

Why Latin? I could understand "I believe learning a second language is essential" and maybe even "learning a highly inflected language", but what is educationally magical about Latin?

(Not that I personally have anything against Latin.)

Re:Latin?

[pashdown]

Taken any college level science curriculum lately?

Re:Latin?

[xplenumx]

Pete,

As an Immunologist with a PhD and academic, industry and post-doctoral experience, I can assure you that an understanding in Latin would be of very little help in understanding a college level science curriculum. Two years of Latin might help the first year student pick up a few key terms a bit faster, but to be honest, 30 minutes with flash cards would be far more beneficial and time efficient.

As a scientist, I'll tell you what language is useful - Spanish. The vast majority of the janitorial staff where I have worked speaks Spanish as their first language. The ability to communicate "Don't clean this room" or "Please lock the door" is far more useful (even critical at times) than the ability to read and write Latin.

Re:Latin?

[Tsunayoshi]

Maybe because latin is seriously hard to learn and would stimulate thinking in a certain manner? From what I understand latin is difficult yet very structured and I imagine that would imply logiclal thinking.

The same reason my CS profs gave for why we have to take all of these post-calculus math courses. Math is very structured and requires critical thinking and a very spefici syntax to work and therefore is a good match to pair with computing.

Re:Latin?

[Michael Woodhams]

Taken as in taught? Yes. Latin wasn't useful.

Re:maybe he should think a little more about the w

[cachedout]

Isn't a candidate allowed to say or write something at least remotely sarcastic or has this country really become that politically correct? Hell, people ought to be thrilled that a serious candidate knows what Slashdot is, much less well enough to actually engage in tounge-in-cheek humor about it.

Small correction.

[tehdaemon]

He is the Democrat.

Re:Mormons.

[theTerribleRobbo]

I am Norman. Yes, we are.

Obligatory Cross Between Simpsons and South Park

[dch24]

I for one welcome our new Mormon overlords...

"Ahem. Welcome to hell. Yes, you are in Hell."

"Hey, I was a good Protestant! Why am I not in heaven?"

"Umm, you chose the wrong answer. The correct answer was ... the Mormons. Yes, the Mormons. Now ..."

(On YouTube too)

Dumbocracy

[Doc Ruby]

Orrin Hatch has been the dumbest man in Congress for years. Ever since Alan Simpson retired, anyway.

Re:Dumbocracy

[someone1234]

Don't forget the tubes on the internets! Or that is better than average?

Re:Dumbocracy

[casehardened]

What's wrong with Simpson? Looking at the Wikipedia page, he seems like a decent, moderate guy. Good quotes.

Re:Dumbocracy

[Doc Ruby]

He's not necessarily a bad guy, though I do remember him sitting dead wrong on many issues, especially in the 1980s. He's just dumb as a bag of hammers, with an affable personality that got him re/elected. Of course his Wikipedia page a decade into his retirement makes him look decent. Watch him on TV sometime - he's popping up again, probably an example of "real Republicans" as mass media corporations struggle to reclaim the damaged brand from the Bush image. Right underneath the spongy grampa surface is a... spongy dolt.

Re:Dumbocracy

[boingo82]

He'll be the dumbest for 6 more, sadly. Pete actually did very well for a Democrat in Utah. My husband and I were glad to have someone on the ticket that we felt good about voting for.

Re:Dumbocracy

[Doc Ruby]

Unfortunately, even Bennet (R-UT) is next up for firing, but only in 2010. At least Hatch has much less influence, especially as a moron, with a Democratic Congressional majority. Which is a pity for the reasonably intelligent people of Utah. But, given Hatch's stupid positions on intellectual property (as an IP owner himself), it's probably good news for Slashdotters.

If you felt good about voting for Ashdown, you'll probably feel good about supporting the people in the Utah statehouse races Ashdown probably supports. The statehouse creates the rules by which Utahans can run to represent Utahans, so a longterm project that will be rewarding is remaking Utah politics in the image of the best Utah has to offer.

Re:Religious Reasons

[mulhollandj]

Hatch's policies go against what many of the brethren have taught. That is why I am voting for Scott Bradley. He actually understands the proper role of government. I like Pete but he doesn't understand the job description. You can come see him debate online at www.utahdebate.org.

Re:Religious Reasons

[burnin1965]

For the most part you are dead on with your analysis of Utah, its religion, and its politics but I think I can help clarify why people in Utah will send Hatch back to DC.

You see, Ashdown is Mormon as well, so it isn't about the religious persuasion of the candidate, its about forcing christian fundamentalism onto everyone else. Ashdown is a moderate when it comes to religion and unlike Hatch has no interest in forcing his religion on the rest of our nation. What Hatch means by "save the Constitution" is that he will assist in introducing and if possible passing laws based on hate and ignorance. While our personal rights as citizens are trampled by our government and by corporations with the assistance of Hatch the people of Utah vote for Hatch because they believe it is more important to create hate laws against homosexuals, eliminate science which contradicts their beliefs from our schools, and turn our society into a fundamental christian society pretty much like Afghanistan or Iran.

Hatch and his supporters don't have any plans to save the constitution, their plans are to change it into the christian constitution so that it only provides rights to those who follow their religion. To the fundamentalists in Utah that is a goal which is more important than freedom.

Anyhow, I'll be voting for Ashdown no matter what the polls say because I still have faith in this countries ability to be a free nation.

Re:Mormons.

[swillden]

Speak for yourself, portforward.

I'm Mormon, and I'm out to get them. All of them.

BWAHAhahahahaaa!

Excuse me while I polish my horns.

Re:Mormons.

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a friend who worked as a therapist, and he had a coworker who was actually a delusional paranoid, who truly believed the Mormons were out to get him. He claimed the Mormons had been following him around the country, giving him electrical shocks, sneaking into his house and moving objects around just to freak him out. We figured that he may have had some actual bad experience with Mormons at some point, but then it had blossomed into a full-blown neurosis. And this guy was employed as a mental health professional! Needless to say my friend switched to a different clinic as soon as he could. (I had just read that book "the Professor and Madman" about the early days of the Oxford English Dictionary, and how one of their best contributors turned out to be this imprisoned murderer who though the Irish were out to get him, and many of his "symptoms" were eerily similar--I guess brains tend to malfunction in common ways).

Thank the odd gods of the galaxy for that post

[Anonymous Coward]

I was beginning to think there wasn't anybody inside the faith that had any idea what they look like to the rest of us.

If you've managed to keep your clear understanding of what's going on in the LDS "heartland" and still remain a believer, maybe Mormonism itself isn't the soul-cancer it often appears to be. P'raps it's just the usual corruption power brings to leaders....

Thanks, dude.

Just remember.

[Axe]

Just because you are not paranoid, does not mean that they are not out to get you.

Democracy etc

[XanC]

Democracy's all very well and good, but it's often at odds with the idea of limited government, which (I would say) is the primary attribute of the great experiment of this country.

One doesn't hear much about it these days, from either party.

What's your take on reducing the role of the federal government in general? (I'm not in Utah, so you're under no obligation to answer. :-)

Re:Democracy etc

[pashdown]

Transparency breeds efficiency. If the public is able to reveal and know the inefficiencies of government, they're more likely to be eliminated or changed. I believe in a limited government, but I also don't believe we should sell our government services to the lowest bidder (or no bid).

Education is one area where "No Child Left Behind" has put big government into the smallest classroom. In most cases regarding local issues, the feds should be cutting checks to local governments then getting out of the way. In non-interstate issues, the locals can always do it cheaper, better, and quicker than the feds.

Re:Democracy etc

[R2.0]

"In most cases regarding local issues, the feds should be cutting checks to local governments then getting out of the way."

Why? The statement contains its own contradiction: if it's a local issue, why should Federal money be involved at all?

You want the money, but you don't want any strings attached. That is accountability? That is good governance?

Re:Democracy etc

[pashdown]

No, I think local governments should be equally accountable to their constituents.

Re:Democracy etc

[Bitmanhome]

Not true. Competition breeds efficiency. Transparency breeds fear -- Even if reformed, government is still a political environment, and everything you do will be spun, sometimes for good, sometimes for bad.

Oh, and I believe all schools should be privatized.

Re:Democracy etc

[multimed]

In most cases regarding local issues, the feds should be cutting checks to local governments then getting out of the way.

That sounds like a horrible idea. In the general sense, the federal government should never just cut a check and get out of the way - there should be more oversight not less on how the government is spending my tax money and it's pretty much counter to your goal of more transparency. The whole Katrina debacle is a prime example - billions of dollars spent, yet nobody really knows where it went.

I do agree that local control is almost always better than federal and that includes education - but why then should the feds be cutting the checks?

1st Amendment

[XanC]

McCain-Feingold has pretty much shat on the whole point of the 1st Amendment already...

Re:1st Amendment

[An Onerous Coward]

Yeah, the Founding Fathers would really get behind the idea of "one dollar, one vote."

So long as anyone is able to use any resources at their disposal to petition the government and the electorate, we're going to live in a society where government is inundated with the messages that the rich want them to hear. So long as anyone is able to self-finance a campaign, we're going to elect a boatload of multi-millionaires, who will be very receptive to those messages.

Yes, sapping the money out of politics is going to require taking some freedoms away from some people, but it does so in the service of greater freedom for a greater number of people.

Re:1st Amendment

[geoffspear]

I'm fairly certain that the whole point of the 1st Amendment wasn't to make it easy to legally bribe elected officials, but I could be wrong. I'll need to go back over what Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers to make sure I didn't miss something.

Scurrilious rumours regarding Hatch....

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the the Wayne Madsen Report (www.waynemadsenreport.com) Hatch is known to troll gay bars in DC. That site is a bit out there (well, rather a lot really) but has been known to get things right from time to time.

Re:Religious Reasons

[pashdown]

Does Scott Bradley and the Constitution Party understand the first amendment? Specifically that part about religion?

DMCA Vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Both major parties voted for the DMCA:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li sts/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=2& vote=00137

Vote Counts:
YEAs: 99
NAYs: 0
Not Voting: 1

As mentioned by the parent, it's a two party problem. If people with party affiliations barked at their own party's problems instead playing into the two party track, maybe things wouldn't suck so hard. Look at it this way: You bark at the other party and say "I'm from the other side and you suck." and that won't be effective. But on the same side, someone might listen.

P.S.> I added that vote record to the Wikipedia page. Guess I really like anonymous!

A big reason Matheson was elected

[The Wooden Badger]

I think a HUGE factor is Matheson getting elected was that he was the son of a prominent Utahn. That figures big just about anywhere in the country. Picture a liberal republican in Massachusetts trying to get elected to the senate. Now picture Ted Kennedy's son try to do the same thing.

Re:A big reason Matheson was elected

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely. Many Utahns had respect for Matheson (the father) and that does play large, as does the fact that Matheson knows that he has to vote conservative on some issues. Those two things keep him in office, where under different conditions it very well could be a republican there.

Not Me, Man

[Greyfox]

My regime would bring back impaling. It worked for Vlad the Impaler, it'll work for us.

My regime would ban all organized religion except for a state mandated one based on Smurfs. No one ever died in a war over Smurfs. Doing so would be un-smurfy. Unsmurfy behavior would be punishable by law (Generally, impaling.)

My regime would require a license to breed. If you need one to buy a gun and you need one to drive a car you damn well should need one to have a child. See also: Mandatory reversable sterilization for all children at puberty. We'll reverse it for you if you get a breeding license.

My regime would take children from their parents at birth and raise them in state-accredited facilities.

My regime would not only allow gay marriage, it would mandate it. After all, members of the opposite sex are far too different to really know how to please someone of the other gender. All reproduction would therefore have to be artificial but that ought not be a problem. Note that this completely takes care of the entire abortion issue...

My regime would mandate Samurai honor code for corporate upper management and public servants. For example, under my regime Michael Brown, Chertoff, Rumsfield and the various and sundry CEOs currently being tried for fraud would all have had to commit seppuku for the disgrace that they brought to their respective offices.

Within those confines personal freedom would still be higher than under the current regime. Generally speaking as long as a Papa Smurf deems your behavior generally smurfy you'll be cool with us. Mormons could practise polygamy (As long as all partners were of the same sex and also didn't admit to being Mormons,) folks could play online poker (It's not particularly smurfy but it's not particularly unsmurfy either) and folks could smoke pot to their heart's content. What better way to appreciate the sacred texts of the official religion, after all? In fact smoking pot and viewing the sacred texts, possibly while imbibing of a pizza, would be deemed the most smurfy of all mortal behaviors.

Choice positions in my administration will be given out to the most loyal of supporters. Apply for yours today!

Re:Not Me, Man

[Anonymous Coward]

I demand the right to vote. As long as it is absolutely clear that votes do not matter.

Re:maybe he should think a little more about the w

[rhizome]

Where does he mention vagrants?

Bravo, Ashdown!

[SethJohnson]

I heartily congratulate you on putting action where your thoughts are. So many people are discontent with 'the way things are' yet they rationalize their surrender by saying resistance is futile. Your campaign is inspiring and should stand as an example that we don't have to sit back and accept things as they're presented to us.

Vote.

Talk.

Organize.

Change is possible, but it ain't going to happen without these steps.

Seth

Conservative

[jandersen]

What a strange place America is. 'Conservative' used to simply mean that you didn't jump on any ne wband-wagon that came along; that you like to preserve things more or less as they are. I am a deeply conservative person; I am also convinced that communism is a better way - something that I suspect most Americans would consider a contradiction in terms. But that is because you are used to the screwed up world of American politics, where 'conservative' means that you are ultra-reactionary, against anything that might not allow big companies and fundamentalist churches free reins to do whatever they see fit for their purpose.

Will it ever be possible to communicate directly and freely between Americans and the rest of the world? I mean without having to translate everything to American terminology?

Re:Conservative

[el_munkie]

Where do you live? For example, in British and French politics, as far as I know, conservative means righist views. I've never heard of a conservative, one who by definition supports the status quo, also being a communist.

Re:Conservative

[MichaelSmith]

a conservative, one who by definition supports the status quo, also being a communist.

How about a Chinese conservative?

Re:Conservative

[CrimsonBelle]

Because I can't say it better than Mark Twain..... The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them.

Re:Mormons.

[doom]

Maybe he meant the scientologists.

and the word 'conservative' is further degraded...

[caudron]

Hatch is among the more conservative politicians on the issues of 'digital privacy' and 'fair use,'

Hatch is most certainly not conservative on the issues of digital privacy and fair use. He is strongly in the camp of the Republicans, a political party that has co-opted the use of the term 'conservative' in an attempt to make it mean something that it doesn't!

Traditionally, the conservative view on privacy and personal rights is almost precisely the opposite of its use in the above context. Conservatives have a history of fighting government intrusion into their personal and private lives. I wish I knew where those conservatives were now. I'd probably vote for one if I met him. All I can choose between now are these 'neo-conservatives' whose only interest is in conserving the power elite's status quo and these 'progressives' whose only interest seems to be progressing 50 or so incompatible agendii from their various special interest groups.

I know I'm fighting a losing battle in the War of Semantics here, but damn, it's just disheartening.

Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/

P.S. And don't get me started about the Libertarians and the Green Party! ;-)

Not good enough

[joshsnow]

I think your defensive answers aren't helping you do a very good job of setting out your stall here on Slashdot. Nothing you've said in discussion here makes me want to run outside screaming, "Vote for Pete Ashdown!". Which is a shame, because if you convince enough people, they'll convince other people and at the very least, the general consciousness of who you are and where/why you're running will be raised.

On the point of low profiles, maybe you should do something headline grabbing relation to Hatch, so that whenever his name is mentioned, yours is mentioned too, by association as the challenger who did [fill in the blank].

Re:Not good enough

[pashdown]

Up on the tightrope here, I have one group of critics telling me that I haven't stood my ground on issues, and another group telling me I've said too much. One side says I've been too passive in my campaign, the other side tells me that I've been too aggressive on the attack. Some people love the commercials and the media I've made, others hate it. Lincoln was right, there is no pleasing everyone all the time.

Relating to headlines, take some time and read the press releases I have put out. Most of them have been ignored wholesale by the press. The only thing that grabs headlines these days is when you do things differently. I think I've done a pretty good job at that.

Re:Not good enough

[joshsnow]

OK, fair comment, but I still think your media profile is too low. I mean, I'd vote for you but I don't live in Utah. In fact, I don't even live in the USA.

I wish you all the best on the 7th and hope you get well in excess of a 25% share of the vote.

Re:Religious Reasons

[mulhollandj]

Sure. He understands that government shouldn't exercise religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof. If you understand what the founding fathers said they firmly believed in God. They knew that our government was only fit for a moral and religious people and once we forsook that our nation would fall apart. Being a religious people does not mean that we endorse one religion but banning prayer and such things in our schools has built the religion of atheism. The "separation of church and state" is a Supreme Court creation done by taking Thomas Jefferson out of context. I think we can see how our nation has suffered from it.

Re:maybe he should think a little more about the w

[An Onerous Coward]

I saw it, and I realized just how well he understands the Slashdot demographic. I like it!

Re:Religious Reasons

[jinxidoru]

I disagree. I am devote Christian and believe very strongly in the "separation of church and state." I know; I know. That phrase never appears in the constitution, but it gets at the matter better than referring to the "establishment clause." It is not a creation of the Supreme Court though. It is very clear that the Founding Fathers were very careful to keep religion out of the constitution. I hear people claim that the framers of the constitution intended this to be a Christian nation and things like that. To statements to that affect, I always have the same question. If that is the case, why didn't they say it in the constitution?

Regarding prayer in schools, I used to agree with you. I used to believe that banning school prayer and what-not endorsed atheism. Then I thought about it for a moment. That's all it took for me to realize that that is ridiculous. They aren't teaching you to not pray. They aren't taking time to inform you that God is a lie. No, they are simply saying that school is not the place for prayer.

Mandatory voting

[Tsunayoshi]

3. Force people to vote. Make voting days a Federal holiday and force employers to pay employees for that day. Count it as the cost of doing business in the USA.

In Peru (my wife's native country) every legal adult is REQUIRED to vote. You have a "libreta electoral" card you carry with you and each election you get a foil stamp in it. If you get a traffic fine or such, the police can check your voting card and if you are missing the latest election's stamp you can get fined for missing that also.

When I lived there, during election periods the energy of people supporting various candidates was psycho. You could probably ask any Peruvian about the candidates for their area and get into a much detailed discussion about them. I wish American's gave a tenth as much attention to voting here as they do in Peru.

Re:Mandatory voting

[Hektor_Troy]

That must really suck.

Don't vote one year, get fined every single time you get stopped between then and the next election.

Re:Mandatory voting

[Tsunayoshi]

Well, keep in mind that (at least when I was there) around lunch time traffic cops would suddenly start pulling people over left and right for real, yet never enforced, infractions in order to earn some "lunch money". i.e. pay the cop to let you go. I doubt many people really pay any sort of fine. But I like the idea of mandatory voting.

Country was, and still is, corrupt as hell. But people know this which is why new candidates that look promising will gain tons of support from everyone (as in common people) who hates the current corrupt guy in power. Repeat ad nauseum.

schooling is local

[ChristTrekker]

I choose to homeschool my kids. Are the feds going to cut me a check, too?

Why the inefficiency of sending them money just to get it back? Just do it all locally - we don't need a big wealth-redistribution system at all. Heck, schools ought to be funded by tuition and private grants - if you want a passle of kids, it's your obligation to raise them properly. With what I pay in property taxes every year that is earmarked toward schools, I could go a long way to decking out the spare room into an ed center.

Pete for Senate

[flitty]

Vote for pete, even though it's a long shot. This isn't the first time pete has been named on /. Last time he was on here, Slashdot destroyed his wiki and cleared it several times, hence the warnings on his Wiki. Run again pete, run again.

Utah's not bad at technology, it's just involved

[norminator]

...many in the Linux community do see Utah as the root of many problems within the technical world. Hatch's twisted understanding of technology, and the legislation it helps lead to, is one issue. Another is the whole SCO debacle.

Never mind that Utah's the state that brought us Word Perfect (I still know professors at BYU who are very anti-MS because of their own ties to WP), and Novell (and thus it now provides Suse Linux). Utah is involved with technology, and has provided some of the only serious competition in some of Microsoft's markets (obviously WP and NetWare got steamrolled, but at least they were out there). Sure there's jerks like Darl McBride at SCO, but that situation didn't happen because it was in Utah, it happened because he's a jerk, and they have those all over.

Also, Orrin Hatch may cause techno-trouble on Capitol Hill, but he's a US Senator, not a state senator, so his involvement in legislation is mostly at the nation-wide level, not specific to Utah. He gets voted in by Utah voters, but those who vote for him are most likely not aware of his stances on technology/copyright issues, and base their votes on other issues.

I wish him all the luck in the world...

[abb3w]

But frankly, it doesn't seem hopeful. Utah is a deep-red state (71% Bush in 2004). The Votemaster shows Ashdown is polling as bad, especially since undecideds generally break for the incumbent or incumbent party.

So, barring photos of Orin Hatch raping a dead sheep in front of the Salt Lake City Mormon Temple hitting the press between now and election day, I don't think the senator from the RIAA can lose. However, hopefully the run will at least help stir public discussion of policy.

Re:I wish him all the luck in the world...

[Anonymous Coward]

Time for a Fark photoshop thread!

Re:Religious Reasons

[mulhollandj]

I believe in the separation of a particular church and state. Here is the problem, there is a much larger effort to remove religion from life and replace it with filth and pornography. For example, I was recently at a public school in a very conservative area. I was appalled to a milk advertisement of an immodest woman in a suggestive pose. Is this what my tax dollars support? Of they wouldn't allow a picture of the ten commandments in that same school. It seems that one type of belief is endorsed while another is banned from public view. I find it interesting that public education is one of the points on the Communist Manifesto. The problem with Communism is that it is godless. It pretends to allow religion but you are penalized for being religious. Look at the former GDR. You could go to church but it was pretty much guaranteed you wouldn't get a good job if you did. That is what I call an endorsement for atheism. So why does it favor public education? While living in CT the local high school would have a day of silence for gay repression. If you did not participate you were ridiculed by both your peers and teachers. Does this sound like an establishment of religion? As my wife grew up they showed rated R movies in her school and had very graphic descriptions in sex-ed. Endorsement of immorality? Sure it is. My circumstances allow me to home school my children but not all have that opportunity. What are kids learning in public schools? Drugs, sex, bullying, disrespect, cheating, etc. They are not learning values, just the opposite. I think you must admit that people's morals are going downhill quickly and we are fast becoming ungovernable. Read how much the founding fathers knew that we must be a religious and moral people to survive. As we move away from that we lose our freedom.

The only reason to vote for Ashdown

[ryry]

http://www.hatchmusic.com

Re:maybe he should think a little more about the w

[Anonymous Coward]

And at least one anonymous coward salutes you. To be honest, the OP sounds like me when I was in my mid-twenty-somethings. Cynical++.

Really, the guy puts a little shout out to the slashdot community (which is more acknowledgment than any other politician that I can remember*) and he gets flamed for it. In my time, I would have probably gone for the "politician == arsehole, he's just playing us with marketing" route.

But then again, I would have marked this particular post (my anonymous reply) as a bit of astroturf so I couldn't expect the OP to budge on the matter.

*dislaimer: not an USAsian (as if my mod_speling didn't give it away) and I give props to your US politicians because they are kick-arse at doing what they do**.

** yes, yes, lying and all that shit. They do it with such charisma***.

*** current representation excluded.

**** profit etc.

PACs

[superflippy]

"I considered forming a PAC after this race and actually I was thinking about doing a technology PAC. I'd really like to see some of these open-source advocates get out there and form their own PAC and be more active in the political process."

What about iPac? They've already endorsed you.

Re:PACs

[pashdown]

IPac is dedicated to sensible intellectual property advocacy, not open-source. The article didn't finish my quote. I said that after this race, I'm more interested in forming a "Longshot" PAC for helping the federal candidates that get no help outside of their state.

Re:PACs

[superflippy]

That sounds like a really good idea. I currently live in the horribly gerrymandered district of a long-time incumbent who's one of the worst pork barrel spenders in Congress. He's been re-elected so many times, and our district's borders are so carefully tailored to his support base, that no other party will even bother to run a serious candidate against him. I'm voting for the other guy this time just out of principle, but it would be nice if he had to face a real challenge and account for his actions.

Re:Religious Reasons

[pashdown]

Whose vision of morality do you propose we teach in our public schools?

heh

[BitterAndDrunk]

You'd have to be from Utah, not just an American ;)

(and to some of us big city folk, that's just asking way too much of anyone. Let me serve in Iraq, please.)

Re:Religious Reasons

[jafac]

God, I'm so sick of making this argument over and over with the wannabe Ayatollahs who can't get over the FACT that Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and MOST of the rest of our Founding Fathers were Deists, and their ideas came from the principles of the Enlightenment - none of which espoused any kind of bullshit about allowing a religious majority to inflict their notion of morality on the rest of us.

There's ample literature to support this view, the writings of Thomas Jefferson being a good example, but really, just a small part of the overall material available. Saying that the Establishment Clause was a fluke Supreme Court creation based on taking Jefferson out of context is really a stupid and misinformed position.

Re:Religious Reasons

[Big Boss]

How about ALL of them?

The trick is to teach them like a History or Science class. Don't teach that any particular religion/morality is RIGHT, teach what they all think, and cover the similarities and differences between them. They didn't do this when I was in school, and I wish they had. The lack of understanding is a big part of the problem between "believers". Witness the idea that Mormons have horns, tails, and many wives, even today. I've heard that when I've traveled outside of Utah. Some are joking, and we all laugh. The really scary ones aren't. Not that education can solve the whole problem, but it can help move things in the right direction.

Of course, my kid sister's History teacher taught about a few religion's beliefs as part of a class discussion and had parents of some of the students trying to get him fired for "teaching apostate views". For those not familiar with LDS terminology, that's teaching about something that is not Mormon faith. This was in Layton, Utah not long ago.

As disclosure, I grew up in Utah and in the LDS/Mormon religion. I no longer practice the religion, for reasons too numerous to mention. However, I have no anger toward them. I do, however, still live in Utah. I'll probably vote for Ashdown just because I'm so damn tired of Hatch. It probably won't change anything, but I'll do it anyway. I usually vote Libertarian for similar reasons.

Good Luck, Pete

[Dan the Control Guy]

I was an xmission user back in the mid 90's. Best ISP I ever had. I met you one year at the food fest at the City and County building. I wish you luck in your efforts, and I hope you can overcome the extremely biased Utah political climate. I couldn't deal with it anymore, and left the state in 97.

DAB

Re:Religious Reasons

[mulhollandj]

That is a difficult question. I think that we can teach values such as being trustworthy, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent. The family is under attack and it seems that public schools as a whole are part of that attack. Will this approach offend some? Sure it will. Will it infringe upon their rights? I don't think so.

supporting the family comes first

[ChristTrekker]

My motivation is not the paycheck. But my primary obligation is to support my family. If the position doesn't pay enough to do that, I cannot consider running for the office.

Re:Religious Reasons

[mulhollandj]

So if they were deists why did they pray to God to seek guidance? Why did they claim they were inspired in what they were doing? I never said the Establishment Clause was a Supreme Court creation. I said that the separation of church and state was.

Re:Religious Reasons

[greylouser]

There's an interesting book called moral minority that discusses the religious beliefs of the founders - it's really a big collection of quotes with some commentary. It suggests that, at best, the founding fathers were deists who didn't really care about religion. Many were outright atheists, as was somewhat fashionable among enlightenment intellectuals at the time.

Re:Religious Reasons

[mulhollandj]

So if they were deists why did they pray to God to seek guidance? Why did they claim they were inspired in what they were doing? It isn't difficult to take people out of context and take a very select group of quotes to make it look like people believe things they don't.

Re:Religious Reasons

[jafac]

Because Deists believe in a God.

They reject infallibility of scripture.

These are obviously cherry-picked, but when you read them, you'll get the general idea of the attitude in their minds.
Jefferson was so unhappy with the New Testament as-defined by the early church, that he made his own version. (Called the Jefferson Bible).

In any case, the whole point of a Constitution, and our system of government with separation of powers, is designed specifically to protect a minority (presumably non-Christians) from a tyranny of the majority (Christians) - or vice-versa if their numbers were ever to be reversed for any reason (new religions, population shifts, etc.).

I honestly don't know where the idea came from, that our Founding Fathers were all conservative Southern Baptists. They weren't. Not even close. There's ample evidence to the contrary - and frankly, it looks like the "big lie" tactic all over again. It would be very convenient for America's Clergy to propagate this idea in support of striking down our freedoms, in particular, the Establishment Clause. It's bad enough that churches are tax-exempt.

Some additional Jefferson material:

"The bill for establishing religious freedom", Jefferson wrote, "I had drawn in all the latitude of reason and right. It still met with opposition; but, with mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that it's protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that 'coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion', an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word 'Jesus Christ', so that it should read 'Jesus Christ the holy author of our religion.' The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it's protection, the Jew, the gentile, the Christian, and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination."

The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites.

They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition of their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.... Do not be frightened from this inquiry from any fear of its consequences. If it ends in the belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise...

The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."
-Thomas Jefferson, 1782

"I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christia

Tribune Endorsed Hatch

[CrimsonBelle]

The Salt Lake Tribune http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_4567868/ has endorsed Orrin Hatch. The really sad part about their endorsement of Hatch is that even in the way they phrase the endorsement, they are encouraging their readers to vote for him only because of a power play. They basically even say that Hatch is not one of the "good guys".

Suffice to say that a complete list of Hatch's negatives might exceed this space, especially if it included some of Hatch's more outrageous statements on public policy issues such as citing author Michael Crichton as an authority on the science of global warming, or suggesting that House Republicans' failure to act on former Rep. Mark Foley's sexually explicit e-mails to congressional pages may be attributable to their desire not to appear homophobic.

Hatch is all about big business and helping the multi-level marketing interests in Utah, and his record has done basically NOTHING for the individual. Besides which, Hatch isn't intelligent enough to be making decisions for our nation in this day and age. Even if I didn't strongly support Pete Ashdown because he is technologically savvy, anyone but Hatch would make a better Senator. Anyone. I'm just glad it's Pete running against him!

Re:Religious Reasons

[mulhollandj]

I agree that Christianity has been the banner for countless murders. But that does not mean these guys were Deists. I never said they were devout Southern Baptists or anything of the kind. I think that they saw corrupt religion for what it is. A Deist basically says that God has abandoned us. If so then why did they pray to God and seek his help? They recognized a Supreme Being as the author of our rights. The Constitution does not say the government has to be irreligious but should not establish any specific one. For me that includes atheism. If you accept that rights come from man then man can take them away. I believe that rights come from God and are for all man. Corrupt government can infringe upon those rights as ours infringes upon the right of property. I believe that the Founding Fathers were inspired men of God. They saw what current religion was like and I believe they awaited the day when God would bring back his true church. Of course I believe that to be the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. In this church we believe that you must be baptized to enter into heaven. We also believe that a man can be baptized after he is dead through a proxy if he did not have the opportunity to be baptized during his lifetime. I also believe that the Founding Fathers appeared to the prophet Wilford Woodruff and requested they be baptized by proxy. You can read about it at http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_lds.html

so Dean has ignored you

[aggiefalcon01]

So Dean has kept his distance from you ... Am I the only one who figures this is a blessing in disguise?

Re:Religious Reasons

[jafac]

Rights DO come from man, and they CAN be taken away.

Man takes rights away from man routinely.

Re:Religious Reasons

[mulhollandj]

No, rights come from God. Freedom comes from man, which is taken away.