Congressmen Rated On Tech-Friendliness

Uncle Dick writes "CNET has released the results of a study ranking every US Representative and Senator on a scale rating their relative friendliness towards various technology and internet related issues. Republicans and Democrats fare similarly in both houses of Congress, although CNET gives the edge to the GOP. Big Winner? Ron Paul (R-TX). 2004 Presidential candidate John Kerry (D-MA) does not fare so well."

Comments

Ron Paul

[eric76]

What a go, Ron Paul.

For those who don't realize it, Ron Paul ran for President once as the Libertarian Candidate.

Re:Ron Paul

[CAIMLAS]

And there are many of us who hope he damn well does it again. He's the most sensible politician out there right now. Pragmatic, you might say.

- Sees technology as beneficial when well employed. Fosters it as a result and doesn't push hindering legislation (eg internet tax).
- Sees that guns don't cause crime, people do. Doesn't support gun bans or legislations which simply keep guns out of the hands of upstanding citizens.
- Sees that there is a fundamental issue with immigration more essential than Mexicans simply coming here. Reconsiders the sanity of birthright citizenship.
- He's observed that foreign financial/food/economic aid is often more harmful than helpful (both to us and them), and wants to do away with it.
- And a bunch more.

Basically, he's a straight-up Jeffersonian Constitutionalist. So, if your politics are "left" - socialistic, crippled by misplaced white male guilt, and in support of the "the government is here to help" mentality - or "green" - want to benigate the national security and economic interests in favor of saving trees - you'll likely hate his guts.

Re:Ron Paul

[dctoastman]

I find his theories interesting and would like to subscribe to his newsletter.

The things you mention sound well enough in line with my own personal idealology, but you could be just picking his best qualities. He may like kicking puppy dogs in his spare time. We don't know.

Man, I'm politically interested in a Republican from Texas. That's scary.

And for shame Bobby Jindal. I thought better of you.

Re:Ron Paul

[Opportunist]

I don't think in terms of left and right. It doesn't do justice to the wide variety of possible viewpoints. Economic? Social? Personal liberty? I tend to be on very divergent points on the scale that could put me anywhere from libertarian, communist, anarchist and even fascist, depending on your point of view and the topic at hand.

For what it's worth, I think that guy is right.

Re:Ron Paul

[XxtraLarGe]

I don't think in terms of left and right.

You're not the only one. You should take the World's Smallest Political Quiz" and see where you show up. Libertarians on the balance tend to be very pro-tech/tech-savvy. It would be interesting to see how congressional candidates (not just elected officials) would end up. I'm betting it would be Libertarians in a landslide.

Re:Ron Paul

[rm999]

He looks pretty conservative to me:

-Opposes abortion
-Against gay marriage (this automatically should get him kicked out of the liberterian party IMO)
-For the electoral college (this is not conservative per se, but it is certainly not liberterian where one vote should count the same as every other)

I agree he is pretty liberterian, but the last thing I want is a social conservative after the Orwellian years of Bush. Liberals can lean liberterian too (I consider myself both)

Re:Ron Paul

[griffjon]

To be fair, Ron Paul votes against everything. He's really a libertarian in Republican clothing, which is fine, we need more of them to balance out the neocon and religious right types.

Re:Ron Paul

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

-Opposes abortion

Not sure if he is a pro-lifer on religious grounds, or on his interpretation of Constitutional rights applying to the unborn. There are also many libertarians who argue that this is a state rights issue.

-Against gay marriage (this automatically should get him kicked out of the liberterian party IMO)

I've never read his official position, but the liberterian stance is to get govt out of the marriage game altogether.

-For the electoral college (this is not conservative per se, but it is certainly not liberterian where one vote should count the same as every other)

The libertarian stance is pro-EC. The reasons for the EC were layed out 200 yrs ago in the Federalist papers ... basically to avoid mob-o-cracy.

Re:Ron Paul

[Phat_Tony]

Ron Paul is good on a lot of things, but then he's also one of these Libertarians who latched on to an unfortunate idiotic attribute of Objectivism, The Gold Standard.

That's right, he wants to tie our currency's value to an international commodity's price. He complains about how 1-2% annual inflation has been devaluing our savings, failing to note that, had we been on a gold standard, the money supply would have experienced 50% deflation in five years, matching the 1929-1933 10% annual deflation that caused the Great Depression. Wouldn't that be a great way to stabilize the currency?

Re:Ron Paul

[Progoth]

While I'll be voting Libertarian come next presidential election, I always find that particular quiz a bit unfair... Most people who take it end up Libertarian, and, funnily enough, the Advocates for Self Government is a Libertarian organization.

Re:Ron Paul

[Progoth]

Interesting, I didn't know "gov't should have nothing to do with marriage" was an official position of the Libertarians. That's what I've been saying for a while. Mark another point for the Libertarians.

I guess it makes sense, though...it's not the government's place to have anything to do with that. And of course Fair Tax would end giving tax breaks to married couples, which is the only reason I could see for government having their hands in laws concerning marriage. (Health insurance usually doesn't require you to be married anymore, just have a "domestic partner," so that point is also out.)

Re:Ron Paul

[chameleon3]

Man, I'm politically interested in a Republican from Texas. That's scary.

fret not, for Ron Paul is a RINO if there ever was one. He campaigned as a Republican just to get into Congress. Most classify him as a Libertarian.

Re:Ron Paul

[stinerman]

I'm pretty damn far to "the left" (whatever that means) and I'd vote for Ron Paul for just about any office he'd run for. I agree with his views that the federal government should be greatly reduced, his opposition to the Iraqi war, his pro-gun views, etc. Of course, he's dead wrong on birthright citizenship and the estate tax, but he's right on enough to make me enthusiastic to support him.

Re:Ron Paul

[siriuskase]

Like anyone, he must choose his battles. The stand on abortion and gay marriage aligns him with the Republican Party line. Must line up with them somewhere if he's going to diverge on issues he considers important. That's the unpleasant truth of politics in a two party system. Unlike so many career politicians, he actually ran with a thrid party, lost, and managed to get back on board with the Republicans. So, he has his place in the legislature as a Republican with Libertarian leanings, which I suppose is better than being unelectable because he isn't a Democrat or a Republican. It's a terrible tradeoff.

I'd like to know where he stands on correcting the biases in the system that make more than 2 viable parties virtually impossible.

Re:Ron Paul

[JesseMcDonald]

That's right, he wants to tie our currency's value to an international commodity's price. He complains about how 1-2% annual inflation has been devaluing our savings, failing to note that, had we been on a gold standard, the money supply would have experienced 50% deflation in five years, matching the 1929-1933 10% annual deflation that caused the Great Depression. Wouldn't that be a great way to stabilize the currency?

Where do people get this stuff? Neither deflation nor the gold standard caused the Great Depression. The primary cause of the intensity and length of the Great Depression was the goverment's idiotic monetary policies following the inflationary boom from 1921-1929 and the inevitable corrective depression starting late in 1929. The Austrian economists of the time (including Ludwig von Mises) accurately forecasted the depression during the inflationary period, and when the boom ended the government did exactly the opposite of what the Austrian business cycle theory (ABCT) recommended. All the boom-depression cycles up to that point had been sharp but quickly over, a result of predominately laisse-fair government policies. In 1929 the government took a different, disasterous approach: instead of leaving things well enough alone they tried to stave off the depression (the cure for the economy, though they failed to realize it) by pumping even more money into the economy (inflation), raising taxes to institute make-work projects and subsidies (with similar effects), and instituting mandatory price controls on commodities and labor. As a result, unlike the previous depressions, the Great Depression lingered on until the beginning of the next World War.

It is interesting to note that during the Depression real wage rates generally increased due to the fact that prices of goods fell more quickly than monetary wages; this seems to be a general trend for deflationary economies. The widespread unemployment of the era was due to attempts by the government and government-supported unions to prohibit any decrease in monetary wage-rages. It should be obvious that if real wage rates (the price of labor) are increasing due to fixed monetary wages and falling prices the result will be a decrease in the demand for labor, and thus unemployment. If the real wage rates had remained at market levels (with roughly the same "purchasing power" as before the Depression) unemployment would not have been nearly so much of an issue; it would have been limited to "frictional" unemployment as people transitioned from the industries swollen by the inflationary malinvestments of the boom period into more productive lines of work.

All this ignores the fact that the inflationary period from 1921-1929 was itself due in large part to the policies of the Federal Reserve since its creation in 1913, in particular the absurdly low 3% reserve ratio on time-deposit accounts.

This is just the summary; for the full analysis of the events leading up to and contributing to the Great Depression see America's Great Depression by Murray N. Rothbard.

Re:Ron Paul

[operagost]

Marriage is a religious institution, which is why it has no place in government. Were the government to do away with "marriage licenses" and civil ceremonies, I think you'll find the REAL objectives of some left-wingers who really are more interested in antagonizing the "religious" rather than winning the benefits of social partnerships for homosexuals.

Re:Ron Paul

[operagost]

Like anyone, he must choose his battles. The stand on abortion and gay marriage aligns him with the Republican Party line. Must line up with them somewhere if he's going to diverge on issues he considers important.

Or, he might think that abortion is murder. Just because one is a classical liberal doesn't mean he should throw morality out the window. He could be wrong, but it's time we admit that such positions must be open for debate rather than continuing the ad hom attacks and straw man debates.

Re:Ron Paul

[operagost]

Why do so many revere FDR when he presided over a decade-long depression, yet they revile GWB for the 2001-2003 recession immediately after 3,000 people were killed in a terrorist attack in the USA's financial center and after the internet bubble burst before he took office? It's the same as people placing the sole blame for the Depression on Hoover, as if after less than a year in office he had created the dangerous economic policies which had actually been constructed over the last decade.

Re:Ron Paul

[Phat_Tony]

"Where do people get this stuff?

Oh, you know, no where in particular. It's not like Milton Friedman won a nobel prize for it or anything. It's not like that's how they teach Economic History at, say, MIT and the University of Chicago. It's not like your own response refuting this also advances the same claim:

"It is interesting to note that during the Depression real wage rates generally increased due to the fact that prices of goods fell more quickly than monetary wages; this seems to be a general trend for deflationary economies. The widespread unemployment of the era was due to attempts by the government and government-supported unions to prohibit any decrease in monetary wage-rages. It should be obvious that if real wage rates (the price of labor) are increasing due to fixed monetary wages and falling prices the result will be a decrease in the demand for labor, and thus unemployment. If the real wage rates had remained at market levels (with roughly the same "purchasing power" as before the Depression) unemployment would not have been nearly so much of an issue; it would have been limited to "frictional" unemployment as people transitioned from the industries swollen by the inflationary malinvestments of the boom period into more productive lines of work."

Or, in other words, the massive deflation, in conjunction with price controls that would not allow prices (most particularly wages) to adjust to the new conditions they had created, stopped us from pulling out of a recession and instead sunk into a depression. It's interesting that half of your entire text following your thesis "Neither deflation nor the gold standard caused the Great Depression" is about how deflation contributed to The Depression.

This is just the summary; for the full analysis of the events leading up to and contributing to the Great Depression see A Monetary History of the United States by Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz. America's Great Depression by Murray N. Rothbard is pretty thoroughly discredited by modern economists. I understand why you feel the way you do believing in that book, because like Ron Paul, it advocates a gold standard. Note that, in my post, I didn't say that the gold standard caused the depression, I said deflation caused it, which, together with price controls, is the predominant view among today's economists, be they Monetarists, Keynsenians, Neo-keynsians, or even Austrian School (Rothbard excepted.) And there's no doubt, looking at the price of gold, that we would have suffered severe deflation over the past five years if we'd been on a gold standard, as over the past five years, US dollar monetary inflation has been about 1%, while the relative value of gold with respect to the dollar has increased 50%.

Still, I it's surprising that you imagine where people get looney ideas about deflation and the gold standard being involved with the depression even when they read discredit books like Rothbard's, which says on pages 14-15:

"The depression phase begins with the end of inflation, and can proceed without any further changes from the side of money. Deflation has almost always set in, however. In the first place, the inflation took place as an expansion of bank credit; now, the financial difficulties and bankruptcies among borrowers cause banks to pull in their horns and contract credit. Under the gold standard, banks have another reason for contracting credit--if they had ended inflation because of a gold drain to foreign countries. The threat of this drain forces them to contract their outstanding loans. Furthermore the rash of business failures may cause questions to be raised about the banks; and banks, being inherently bankrupt anyway, can ill afford such questions.11 Hence, the money supply will contract because of actual bank runs, and because banks will tighten their position in fear of such runs." This

Re:Ron Paul

[Libertarian001]

I hate to say this (no, I'm not being sarcastic, I really do hate having to say this), but marriage for about 5800 of the last 6000 years has in fact had absolutely nothing to do with religion and love and has been about politics and money.

Re:Ron Paul

[Libertarian001]

I'm wondering if you read the article? Or are you just intentionally mis-representing things?

Here, I'll help. Here's the quote in its entirety:

"He is also a proponent of gun rights and he personally opposes abortion, though he thinks the matter should be left to the states."

In the future, you may wish to use "..." (elipses) to let people know when you have an agenda to push.

Re:Ron Paul

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

He complains about how 1-2% annual inflation has been devaluing our savings

Where the hell are you pulling that 2% inflation figure from? Inflation is a monetary phenomena (ie. to inflate the money supply):

M2 M3

had we been on a gold standard, the money supply would have experienced 50% deflation in five years, matching the 1929-1933 10% annual deflation that caused the Great Depression.

You're right, better to hyperinflate into oblivion like the Weimar republic.

Re:Ron Paul

[psykocrime]

Man, I'm politically interested in a Republican from Texas. That's scary.

Don't worry, he's really a libertarian. So much so that he was formerly
the Libertarian Party candidate for President.

Re:Ron Paul

[psykocrime]

Interesting, I didn't know "gov't should have nothing to do with marriage" was an official position of the Libertarians.

I don't know if it's official in the sense of being part of the published party platform; but almost
every Libertarian I know takes that position. It's not the government's role to decide who
is or isn't married, or who can or cannot get married. Seems pretty self-obvious to me,
but somehow it became accepted that the govt. could control this. <shrug>

Re:Ron Paul

[carlivar]

Or people could just vote directly for Libertarians. It's kind of sad that Ron Paul couldn't get anywhere until he started calling himself Republican. People in the U.S. are so blinded by the democrat/republican thing (which have more in common than not).

Re:Ron Paul

[Darby]

I think you'll find the REAL objectives of some left-wingers who really are more interested in antagonizing the "religious" rather than winning the benefits of social partnerships for homosexuals.

What a load of idiotic crap.

The extremist nutjob religious psychos are the ones trying to shovre their evil psuedo religious crap onto the decent
people in this country. People opposed to these sleazy hate mongering monsters are interested in keeping theocratic lunatics from destroying the fiundamental basis of this nation.

But, no, you must be right. It's obviously "teh eval left wingers" who are to blame again even though they aren't the ones trying to shove their ignorant hate based religious lunacy down other people's throats.

The sole cause of the issue is the extremist religious bigots. If they would grow up and start acting like human beings, then the entire issue would not even exist.

Nice try, Sparky.
Try again when you have a position that is at the very least, sane.

Re:Ron Paul

[CAIMLAS]

You're right. That's why I said he was a Jeffersonian.

Re:Ron Paul

[DragonWriter]

While I'll be voting Libertarian come next presidential election, I always find that particular quiz a bit unfair...

The WSPQ is a rather well-known Libertarian propaganda tool; really, the whole two-axis spectrum it and similar devices (like the Political Compass) propose is also, I think, largely a Libertarian fantasy. Actual empirical studies of salient issue axes in the US that I've seen don't support that kind of two-axis decomposition (the one I recall show a strong economic/class axis that approximates the traditional left/right axis and a weaker race-related axes.)

Re:Ron Paul

[Phat_Tony]

OK, you're right, inflation has been 1.6 - 3.4% per year.

From the Consumer Price Index.

Do you have something that you think is a better indicator of US inflation than the Consumer Price Index?

M2 and M3 are measures of the money supply, which is NOT inflation. CPI is a measure of inflation.

Inflation is determined by how much money there is chasing after how many goods. As the economy expands and contracts- seasonally, with productivity, etc, the amount of goods and overall size of the economy change. Inflation happens when the money supply expands faster than (or contracts less quickly than) the quantity of goods for the money to pursue.

Did you really think those monetary supply graphs you linked to were measures of inflation? You think US currency deflated 13% from 1984 to 1995 like the M2 graph shows?

And what's your reasoning with Weimar? Weimar, Argentina, Zimbabwe, Albania- tons of countries have had hyperinflation. The US hasn't, and we haven't even had significant inflation in 25 years, since Jimmy Carter. But when we had 10% deflation, we had The Great Depression. We have a very stable currency, so you point to an example of a country that didn't, and use that to claim we should make our currency much less stable by pegging it to the value to a volatile commodity?

Take a look at 10-year volatility in US Currency vs. Gold. Yes, the gold chart is in US dollars, so it's confounded by inflation. But that doesn't make much difference, since in the past five years, CPI went from 164.7 to 199, an increase of 21%, while gold went from $252.8 to $725, an increase of 186.79%. After adjusting for inflation in the dollar price of gold, the real price of gold changed by 137% while the CPI changed by 21%. Plus, it's generally considered that it's much harder for economies to deal with deflation than inflation, and Gold was deflating while the dollar was inflating. For inflation, prices and interest rates rise. If you have significant deflation, prices can fall if they're allowed to (and a lot aren't, like labor costs), but banks can't well have negative interest rates. They pay you to borrow money and charge you to deposit it? It doesn't work. Banking collapses. Look what happened to Japan's economy under exceedingly minor deflation in the 90's.

Gold is less stable than the US dollar. It's a commodity. Look at everything affecting the price of gold- new mines prospected, new mining technologies, mining labor rates, jewelry demand, investor demand in markets all around the world, the performance of competing economies, the decisions of foreign governments. Indeed, gold hit it's 25-year high a few weeks ago when Chinese Economist Liu Shanen suggested that China should use part of its $988 billion in reserves to buy 1,900 metric tons of gold. A lot of the inflation in gold prices over the past five years is due to the rapidly rising GDP's of India and China, whose combined populations of 2.4 billion can now afford to buy a lot more gold. This is an excellent reason to invest in gold, as one can expect the prices to continue to increase as rising global wealth competes to buy not-so-rapidly increasing stockpiles of gold. But it's also a very good reason not to peg your currency to it, or to any other commodity. We don't want to abandon control of our currency and let external factors cause massive inflation or deflation.

When the currency isn't pegged to some commodity, the Fed can make adjustments to track whatever they want. By manipulating the monetary supply to stabilize CPI, they can control inflation and deflation and stop them from getting out of hand, which is impossible by definition on a bullion standard. This is what they've been doing since 1980 when Reagan appointed Greenspan, and it's why the US dollar has been more stable than Gold in that time.

Re:Ron Paul

[eric76]

I think that these days, with any enormous market drop, they loosen the money supply quite a bit to make sure we don't repeat the failed policies leading to the Great Depression.

In the Great Depression, the government tightened the money supply and dried up credit. When companies and individuals couldn't borrow the money to pay their creditors, they went out of business. When banks needed additional capital, they couldn't get it.

From what I understand, there is only one major U.S. city where there were no bank failures -- Houston. The bankers in Houston helped prop each other up. When one bank saw a run on their deposits, the other banks stepped in and helped. Consequently, public concern quickly eased and the banks stayed in business.

Re:Ron Paul

[kbielefe]

I don't think GWB is reviled because of the economy; most people seem oblivious to the economy right now.

Hoover believed the economy could be fixed by providing conditions like business loans to help the free market fix itself. This probably would have worked in the long term, but we will never know because in the short term things got worse, and Hoover was perceived as helping rich business owners at the expense of the unemployed. He wasn't so much blamed for causing the depression as for not getting out of it.

FDR took a much more active short term approach, pretty much having the government bail people out without regard to the long term sustainability. He then had the dubious luck of presiding over a successful war that created a lot of manufacturing jobs, and that people were willing to sacrifice and ration for, then died while he was still popular. And it won't be until my generation retires in another 30 years or so that the sustainability of his programs like social security even starts to become a problem, but I'm sure some future president will get the blame for that.

Re:Ron Paul

[gartogg]

Because they have an understanding of what effects inflation has on an economy.

Your right to speak has been revoked. Go Away.

Re:Ron Paul

[Rakarra]

What an amount of invective (especially for a general position I tend to agree with), particularly in that reprehensible signature of yours. My God, you even proved the grandparent's post for him. If you want anyone to take you seriously instead of seeming as loony as the extremists you criticize, please tone the rhetoric down. It doesn't help any sort of debate.

Re:Ron Paul

[kwiqsilver]

He's a retired doctor. He devoted his career to delivering babies, I doubt he kicks puppies (but I wouldn't be surprised if he's hunted before).

Re:Ron Paul

[kwiqsilver]

-Opposes abortion
-Against gay marriage (this automatically should get him kicked out of the liberterian party IMO)

Those are his personal opinions. His political opinion is that neither of those issues is any of the federal government's business, which is a correct strict constructionist interpretation of the US Constitution.
He opposed the anti-gay marriage amendment crap a few years ago.

Re:Ron Paul

[kwiqsilver]

It's official.
If the platform doesn't say they favor giving the government a specific power then they oppose it. The Libertarian platform is written similarly to the US Constitution (all powers not expressly granted to the Feds are reserved for the states and the people).

Re:Ron Paul

[kwiqsilver]

I have to applaud you. This is the most intelligent, rational post I have ever seen on /..
It's good to see there are some other believers in Austian economics here.

Re:Ron Paul

[JesseMcDonald]

Your original statement, for reference:

. . . had we been on a gold standard, the money supply would have experienced 50% deflation in five years, matching the 1929-1933 10% annual deflation that caused the Great Depression. Wouldn't that be a great way to stabilize the currency?

You responded:

It's not like your own response refuting this also advances the same claim:

The claims made by you and I were in no way similar. You claimed that falling prices alone were the cause of the Great Depression, or at least that is was a sufficient factor to cause a depression. My response was quite clear that it was the price controls -- a fallacious reaction to the falling prices -- which led to the Depression. To be sure, price controls in the absence of falling prices would probably not have led to a depression; the same could be said for falling prices without the price controls. In the case of the Depression prices were already falling (with the prices of goods falling faster than wages); by itself this was harmless. The trouble only started when the government added price controls in an attempt to offset price decreases (and further monetary inflation to nullify the price controls). Ergo, the fault was not "deflation" (falling prices) but rather the government's and unions' attempts to freeze prices at their inflated levels.

Or, in other words, the massive deflation, in conjunction with price controls that would not allow prices (most particularly wages) to adjust to the new conditions they had created, stopped us from pulling out of a recession and instead sunk into a depression. It's interesting that half of your entire text following your thesis "Neither deflation nor the gold standard caused the Great Depression" is about how deflation contributed to The Depression.

contributed to != caused

Falling prices certainly "contributed to" the Depression, in the sense that it took both falling prices and price controls to bring the Depression about. For that matter indirect exchange "contributed to" the Depression -- you couldn't have a Depression without an economy, after all. However, the cause of the Depression was, as I said, not the falling prices, but rather the price controls. The falling prices were not the work of the government; the price controls were. The price controls also had nothing to do with the presence of the gold standard. You keep placing the emphasis on the falling prices, but it was the price controls, obviously, that kept prices from adjusting to the new conditions.

America's Great Depression by Murray N. Rothbard is pretty thoroughly discredited by modern economists.

You made this sort of ad hominem attack a couple of times; care to cite any sources for your assertions? Being completely ignored is not the same as being discredited. Has anyone actually managed to credibly argue that any part of Rothbard's analysis is based on bad data, unjustified assumptions, or logical fallacies? Incidently, the "nobel prize" in economics is actually the "Bank of Sweden Prize in Economics in Memory of Alfred Nobel"), and the Bank of Sweden (a Central Bank) is naturally predisposed to award the prize to economists supportive of central banks. Mises and Rothbard would never have qualified no matter how insightful they were. Basing an argument over the actions of central banks on the authority of a "nobel prize" winner in economics introduces a serious conflict of interest.

price of gold, that we would have suffered severe deflation over the past five years if we'd been on a gold standard, as over the past five years, US dollar monetary inflation has been about 1%, while the relative value of gold with respect to the dollar has increased 50%.

Yes, gold is becoming

Re:Ron Paul

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

M2 and M3 are measures of the money supply, which is NOT inflation. CPI is a measure of inflation.

Bullshit. Look up inflation in the dictionary. AFA the CPI is concerned, it was neutered by Boskin/Greenspan in 1993 to limit government liability payments.

We don't want to abandon control of our currency and let external factors cause massive inflation or deflation.

I got news for you. The only thing propping up the dollar is the willingness of FCBs to hoard them. When the FCBs (and really OPEC) finally reach saturation point you'll be burning them for warmth.

Re:Ron Paul

[rm999]

Just to be clear, my views on life align with his - I am pro-life and against the death penalty. So I have no agenda...

From Wikipedia:
"In 2006 he introduced H.R. 776 to have Congress declare that life exists at conception and to prevent federal courts from claiming jurisdiction over cases involving abortion."

IMO no true liberterian introduces a federal bill to *remove* rights from people. Liberterians, as I understand it, believe in free rights for people at the federal level, not arbitrary rights for the people at the state level. States tend to have far less fair laws than federal government (see california's 3 strikes laws, or most of the south's opinions on seperation of state and religion.)

To repeat, libeterianism should be (in my opinion) about the rights of the people, not the rights of the state. I am not a card carrying liberterian, and I am guessing you are based on your name, so please correct me if I am wrong.

Re:Ron Paul

[Darby]

My God, you even proved the grandparent's post for him.

Hardly. He made a totally insane statement directly contradicting every relevant fact and basic sanity. I pointed out the fact that he was lying. Calling a spade a spade isn't a problem, really. It's been years now that we've had to deal with this push for a gay hatred amendment and not one person has put forward one single reasonable point to support it. All we've heard is delusional rantings about how "teh faggotzors are destroying the world" with nothing to back it up.

People who spout out or lend any credibility to such idiotic rantings are delusional extremist religious nutjobs.
Those are simple facts, not invective.

What exactly is reprehensible about my sig anyhow? There is a group of people who are working their asses off to make sure that our government can drag us away in the middle of the night to third world death camps to be tortured and murdered with no recourse to the law among numerous other crimes and acts of treason.
I recommend self defense against these people and I'm the one who is reprehensible?!?
Seriously, WTF?
Maybe you should pay attention to history and realise that appeasing traitors, terrorists and murderers doesn't work.

If you want anyone to take you seriously instead of seeming as loony as the extremists you criticize, please tone the rhetoric down. It doesn't help any sort of debate.

Hardly. There is no debate on this topic. You have a group of people who are working to piss right in the face of everything this country stands for for purely delusional religious reasons. There is no point in debating them since one can't be reasoned out of a position that reason couldn't have gotten them into.

Debating them is worthless since they are immune to reason.
Treating them as if there ideas were just their own reasonable opinions doesn't work either.
Like a dog that won't stop shitting on the floor, you have to catch them at it and rub their noses in it. It still might not help since were these people posessed of even the most basic concept of decency, then there wouldn't even be an issue, but it can't hurt, and treating their lunatic rantings as what they are honestly and directly really is the best way to deal with any type of delusional fantasy world rantings.

Re:Ron Paul

[Copid]

Because they have an understanding of what effects inflation has on an economy.

Please elaborate. And be sure to compare and contrast with the effects the same rate of deflation would have.

I think we're all for currency stability. Some of us just accept that it's not a reasonable propsition, and it't safer to err on one side than on the other.

Re:Ron Paul

[FrostedChaos]

Bravo. A very well-done post.

I can't claim to understand economics at a PhD level, but I do know that almost all of academia considers the gold standard impractical for a modern-day nation, for exactly the reasons you describe. For one thing... like you said, the gold standard can lead to deflation. Deflation is evil, and destroys banks, making it impossible for entrepeneurs and others to get capital.

A lot of people claim that gold has "real value," whereas the dollar is just paper. But that's not really true. If you have nothing to eat, and nobody to trade with, then gold is just a useless shiny metal. Goods and services have utility only in the context of a particular time and place. If Dr. Smartguy discovers a cheap way of harvesting gold from asteroids tomorrow, then gold's value may plummet. If there's a population explosion in India in the next few years, then gold's value may soar. The price of gold today is NOT the price of gold in the future. Every transaction is unique at the moment it happens.

Of course, I am disturbed by the actions of "american neo-conservatives" in the government lately, and the staggering debt that we are carrying. But in our modern society, you just need to trust the people in power sometimes, because there is nothing you can do about some of their decisions. This is a hard pill for Libertarians to swallow, and I can understand why Ron Paul feels the way he does.

Re:Ron Paul

[Copid]

Yes, gold is becoming more valuable while the dollar is depreciating. Yes, if we were using gold as currency that would mean falling prices. No, that would not imply "suffering" unless the government and union leaders, acting on fallacious economic fantasies, instituted strict price controls like they did during the Depression.

Well, that and it makes debt phenomenally difficult to get out of, dries up the availability of credit, reduces spending, and generally creates a self-fulfilling prophecy of further deflation, dragging the entire financial system down.

You are also ignoring the fact that currencies tend to be more stable over time than regular commodities, being less subject to speculation and better distributed throughout the economy. Assuming a lack of government interference, the only speculation there would be on the value of gold currency would be the potential for the discovery of new mineable gold deposits, a fairly rare event. Present "gold speculation" is mostly speculation on the future value of the dollar, not the future value of gold. The significant increase in value in the past five years follows decades of government interference and misrepresentation of the amount of gold in government reserves.

Yes, that would probably stabilize the price to some extent, but it also puts a rather firm upper limit on the speed at which we can grow our economy without forcing steady deflation into the picture. Not to mention the fact that the price of gold assumes a certain rate of discovery of new deposits, and any short (and completely unpredictable) dry spells would result in spikes of deflation capable of knocking the wind out of even a robust economy.

All of this to avoid a minimal amount of generally well controlled inflation. I really think that a lot of the pining for the gold standard is simply a result of people being vaguely morally outraged that their hard-earned money is decreasing in value.

Re:Ron Paul

[JesseMcDonald]

I really think that a lot of the pining for the gold standard is simply a result of people being vaguely morally outraged that their hard-earned money is decreasing in value.

No, my "moral outrage" is that the government prohibited ownership of gold and confiscated it from private citizens to give themselves the ability to take near absolute control over the economy by controlling the medium of exchange. If they had not done so we would probably still be using gold (or equivalent) as currency. Ownership is no longer prohibited (since the 70's), but by that point the damage was already done.

Other reasons for supporting gold as currency:

• Gold contracts favor neither debtors nor creditors; they are fair to both sides.
• Gold currency is historically a less risky "store of value" than fiat currency.
• Gold, unlike paper, cannot be created on demand as a hidden form of taxation; this limits the government's influence over both the economy and its citizens.
• Use of gold in place of credit contributes to higher reserve ratios, which in turn dampen the severity of boom-bust cycles.
• A gold currency places monetary policy in the hands of the people, where it belongs.
• As a commodity with non-monetary uses gold is far less likely to ever suffer from hyperinflation.

In regards to the "store of value" point, it is true that fiat currencies and inflation reduce "hoarding" (investments in currency) and thus increase the sum of business investments and consumption. The increase can go to either; in practice, as the reduction comes from a low-risk category, the majority of the increase will tend toward consumption. Even the part that does go toward business is hardly costless; it comes at the expense of increased risk and a lower economic stability than individuals would have chosen on their own. The correlation between risk and ROI cannot be circumvented by mere monetary policy.

[Deflation] makes debt phenomenally difficult to get out of, dries up the availability of credit, reduces spending, . . .

• Debt should be hard to get out of. If you borrow someone else's property you should have to pay it back in full.
• Credit is not the answer for everything. A gold currency generally limits credit to what people are willing to risk. Inflationary credit gives borrowers an unfair advantage, as they get to purchase stuff before prices start to adjust; those who have a hard time borrowing (the poor, usually) are hurt the most by this, as they get the higher prices but not the easy credit.
• Are you trying to call a reduction in spending a bad thing? Saving creates capital, increasing the productivity of labor and the purchasing power of the currency; it creates new wealth for everyone, rich and poor alike. Any system that encourages consumption at the expense of saving will compromise the long-term wealth of the whole society.

[Gold currency] . . . puts a rather firm upper limit on the speed at which we can grow our economy without forcing steady deflation into the picture. Not to mention the fact that the price of gold assumes a certain rate of discovery of new deposits, and any short (and completely unpredictable) dry spells would result in spikes of deflation capable of knocking the wind out of even a robust economy.

First, you are assuming here that that a steady fall in prices is an problem. Some of the best periods in American history, from an economic point of view, were marked by a steady fall in prices and a gold-based currency. Falling prices are not an issue. Second, the price of gold as a non-currency commodity varies as a result of "dry spells". As a currency the value of gold would be primarily determined by its marketability, and the marketability of a commodity currency does not generally tend to change rapidly over time.

Re:Ron Paul

[CAIMLAS]

Not entirely! Marriage - an institution between a man and a woman which produces offspring - is a cultural institution necessary for the longevity of a nation. Nations which do not produce offspring soon begin to cease producing anything, and as a result slowly fade from the pages of history.

Re:Ron Paul

[psykocrime]

Yeah, I just wanted to hedge a bit on my statement because the platform was modified in some major ways at the last LP national convention, and I haven't familiarized myself with all the changes in detail yet. I mean, I'd hate to say "Oh yeah, it's official" and then have somebody come along and go "No, we took that out at the convention," ya know?

remarkably biased view

[mumblestheclown]

from what i understood from this article, this survey appears to be monumentally biased. it seems to believe that all "tech people" have the same politics, which is horribly, horribly false. For example, the article scored politicians based on their views of H1b visas and export restrictions. How, exaclty, voting one way or another makes a lawmaker "tech friendly" is unclear to me. Those issues are about immigration, trade, and security policy (or some mixture thereof), NOT technology. There's not a single issue that I can think of that would justify this survey. Heck, I'm as pure a technologist as you can find (own a few 3-letter dot coms, multiple CS/EE degrees, I have written code that now sits in the linux kernel, and now run a small software company) and i am basically for stronger enforcement of copyright laws.. does this make me 'anti-tech' or 'pro-tech' in this survey view?

Re:remarkably biased view

[Mad_Rain]

i am basically for stronger enforcement of copyright laws.. does this make me 'anti-tech' or 'pro-tech' in this survey view?

I don't know but it certainly dooms your slashdot karma. ;)

Seriously, there does seem to be a flaw here - does "Tech friendly" mean "Hacker friendly", or "Big Technology Business Friendly" ?

Re:remarkably biased view

[Rob the Bold]

[F]rom what [I] understood from this article, this survey appears to be monumentally biased. [I}t seems to believe that all "tech people" have the same politics . . .

I don't think the survey is intended to reflect opinions of tech people. From TFA:

Internet policy, others covered computer export restrictions, H-1B visas, free trade, research and development, electronic passports and class action lawsuits.

From these issues, by "tech friendly", the survey means "friendly to big corporations involved in tech". They don't mean friendly to tech people at all, but tech investors -- who pay the bills (in congress). You dance with the one that brung ya. For congress, that's corporations.

Method disadvantages minority party

[Aaarrrggghhh]

It is not enough to ask what bills a congress person votes for or against. One must also ask why they voted the way they did, aside from just the face of the bill. You have to ask what else was in the bill that was objectionable and what other proposals were kept from the floor for a vote because the majority party tends to control what legislation gets consideration.

A simple up or down analysis does the minority party a diservice by not considering what their alternative would have been when they voted no and by not looking deeping into reasons a person might have wanted to "vote for it before they were against it". That line is used against Kerry often, but that's because he's so bad at explaining that a considerate senator must consider the whole bill and its alternatives, not just the political expediancy of its title and prominent sections.

IE: A poltician is not "against the troops" because he voted against a military spending bill that fails to supply adequate body armor. He may be backing a better bill that goes further and gives the troos that neccessary protection.

Just a thought.

Re:Method disadvantages minority party

[gartogg]

Actually, I have to disagree - the way that the system works is by having all bills that pass go into law, and all that don't, go away. The point is that if I can analyze a bill as a whole and say whether it was pro- or anti-technology, I can gauge someone's attitude towards the issue pretty well.

Of course, I'm not sure why limiting class action lawsuits is pro-technology, as opposed to pro-insurance industry, but I assume that CNET has top analysts who research and fully understand these issues, and come to a conclusion about how NASA has nothing to do with technology, and that internet gambling is a technology issue and not a legislation of morals issue (not that I'm for it...) They also understand how computer generated porn is an important technology issue, since the word computer is used, and that extra laws against spyware are bad, becuase there is already legistlation on the books. (So our representatives were punished on the scorecard for voting for the bill, since it's a data point, and we can't assume that it's a silly question whether someone voted for a unnecessary bill.)

So yes, scorecards work. And CNET is part of a half dozen astroturf campaigns, and has no grasp on which issues matter. Of course, it will be ignored by voters, so it's better than traditional news media.

Re:Method disadvantages minority party

[Guuge]

That line is used against Kerry often, but that's because he's so bad at explaining that a considerate senator must consider the whole bill and its alternatives, not just the political expediancy of its title and prominent sections.

No, it's not because he's bad at explaining it. It's just an opportunity to bash Kerry. I can't think of one single intelligent person who holds that line against Kerry.

It's like the Al Gore "invented" misquote; if you can't say anything good about Bush then you have no choice but to lie about his opposition.

Re:Method disadvantages minority party

[eldepeche]

But GP's point was that if there was a bill that would preserve net neutrality forever and also kill a puppy, from a technology-centric viewpoint, someone should vote for it to be considered tech-friendly.

Re:Method disadvantages minority party

[maxume]

One must look far and wide to find a reason to bash Kerry. NOT!

Re:Method disadvantages minority party

[mi]

if you can't say anything good about Bush then you have no choice but to lie about his opposition.

Two years ago, Kerry's supporters were potraing their party and candidate as the smart and well-educated bunch — contrasting Kerry's unknown-but-presumed-excellent academic achievements with the publicized mediocre ones by Bush. Kerry would not release his own records...

Several months later — in the summer of 2005 — Kerry's records were released and turned out to be worse than Bush's. Kerry's overall average was one-point less, and he got D's in Geology, two History courses, and in Political Science... Bush's only D was in Astronomy...

We don't need to lie about Kerry. He — a 20-year US Senator with nothing to talk about during a presidential campaing except his 4-months stint in Vietnam — is a disgrace on his own. Waffles.

Re:Method disadvantages minority party

[gartogg]

Yes, but when evaluating which bills to be looked at as a pro-technology vote, this hypothetical bill should be ignored because it's not a useful data point.

Re:Method disadvantages minority party

[ClamIAm]

Example: Byron Dorgan (D-ND). He was one of the people who actually introduced a Net Neutrality bill, along with the fact that he's part of the relevant committee.

On the other hand, this "study" only looks at 20 votes and I can't find any mention of the methodology used, so it would probably be better to just assume all numbers are made up.

Re:Makes sense...

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Yah - I'll vote for another Texas Republican when hell freezes over and Microsoft starts partnering with Linux vendors.

Re:Makes sense...

[AuMatar]

That makes more sense than you think when you read their methodology. Many of their "tech issues" are just regular buisness issues that were backed by a few buisnesses that happened to be tech companies. For example- curbing class action lawsuits and accounting laws. In other words, its not really a tech rating.

Read the fine print.

[stomv]

Consider the Senate Methodology

3. Prohibit Internet gambling. This isn't really a tech vote. This is a moral socio-economic vote. c|net wanted Senators to vote to allow (not to prohibit) Internet gambling... because it's on the Internet?!

5. Increasing paperwork for Internet Sellers. What's the amendment that c|net wanted a no vote against? "To require persons selling tangible personal property via the Internet to disclose to purchasers that they may be subject to State and local sales and use taxes on the purchases." That's it. Simply inform the buyer that he or she may have to pay taxes in other districts. You see, when you buy in meatspace, this part of the transaction is automagic. Not so in virtual space. Again, I don't see it as being a major technological issue vote.

11. Free Trade Bill. No, seriously. If you voted for free trade, you demonstrated your prowess as a technologist? Give me a freaking break.

12. Over-ruling state anti-SPAM with the CAN-SPAM. Now, you might not think that the legislation is tough enough, but I think it is fair to say that the pro-technology approach to Internet regulation is to not have 50 different sets of regulations within the United States.

16. For curbs on class-action lawsuits. Again, WTF? This isn't a technology issue per se. This is a judicial process issue. To put it in this list is asinine.

But, what wasn't on this list?
  * Judicial approvals
  * Regulatory approvals (think FCC, et al)
  * Committee membership
  * Interaction with lobbyists and money acceptance from PACs.

It's a dumb list, at least on the Senate side. I didn't even bother to check out the House side.

Re:Read the fine print.

[gad_zuki!]

Its not a dumb list its a conservative wish list. Toss banning of gay marriage on there and you have most of the gop platform. Shows you what cnet thinks of "technologists."

Re:Read the fine print.

[electroniceric]

Yeah, I have to agree that this is really a rather simple-minded list that's mostly an anti-regulation screed. For example, they apparently wanted candidates to leave anti-spam laws at the state level. But for any company that operates in multiple states, this is often far worse than a single federal statute, as the effort to comply with numerous, potentially conflicting state laws is far greater than a uniform federal statute. Think of Sun's push for uniform regulation on disposal of e-waste. Their stated beef is that CAN-SPAM is less effective than state laws it replaced. That's a valid criticism, but how is that tech-specific?

Questions about regulation should basically center around the burden it puts on companies, and whether that burden is fair and commensurate with what it achieves. I can't say I know whether CAN-SPAM has been all that effective, but I don't think it's all that burdensome, nor is the burden spefically directed at tech companies.

To add to your list, #6 is titled "for more ecommerce restrictions", and is in fact a firearms issue, not a tech issue at all. The claim that the legislation "singles out" the internet seems pretty specious, too - though I can't say for sure, I find it hard to believe that selling guns in classified ads or over the phone was legal at the time of that act. I expect the legislation addressed the internet in order to extend existing jurisdiction over an activity to a new medium for that activity.

Likewise, I'd argue that a permanent, broad ban on internet sales taxes is unrealistic, not tech-related, and in fact anti-federalist. Is Target.com the tech industry? Absolutely not - it's the internet presence of the retail industry. And because states levy and often depend fairly heavily on sales taxes, exempting sales as they move online is either a move to have the federal government mandate state tax cuts, or a move to have the taxation occur at the federal level. When internet commerce was a nascent phenomenon, suspension of taxation for purchases made online made sense as an incentive to drive business online. But that era is over, and taxation of online purchases has only a minor effect on the growth of internet commerce. This is now an anti-tax argument disguised as a tech argument.

And all this is before even considered other posters' excellent points about what votes for and against a bill really work.

There are a few votes in here that are fairly cut and dried across nearly all the tech community and industry. The DMCA clearly favors content owners over the tech industry. Targetting MySpace and other social networking sites is also pretty clearly against the tech industry. Though I'm not a fan of the Communications Decency Act, the case for it being anti-tech is not as strong, though not bad as the ones above.

The question of developing a ranking for tech votes is a tough one - it's not nearly as cohesive an industry as, say, energy. Are the interests of someone who does development for Target in the same industry as someone making scheduling systems for trains, or as someone developing software at Google? Tough to say. Unfortunately I think the methodology here is a little to hasty for a broad subject like this.

Re:Read the fine print.

[Chris Pimlott]

Regarding Internet gambling, I would guess the idea is whether Congressmen are intelligent enough to realize that the Internet is a global entity and that the US cannot legislate the content of sites operated in foreign states, and that, in general, the Internet is a new beast that no one country can really control which requires a new way of looking at things.

Re:Read the fine print.

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>3. Prohibit Internet gambling. This isn't really a tech vote. This is a moral socio-economic vote. c|net wanted Senators to vote to allow (not to prohibit) Internet gambling... because it's on the Internet?!

Offline gambling is legal. Banning online gambling is discriminatory. I suspect that was c|net's reasoning.

Re:Read the fine print.

[siriuskase]

It's a dumb list, at least on the Senate side. I didn't even bother to check out the House side.

Yeah, it's another dumb list, because CNet commits the error of confusing an enabling technology with the activities that it enables. Gambling is a dumb thing that adults are allowed to enjoy, internet gambling just gives adults another way to access this activity. Gambling activities are best covered by amending or writing gambling laws, not technology laws. Same for most other online activities. The significant features of using the internet is differences in convenience and privacy. Any legisilation that promates a technological solution to control the convenience and privacy of gambling/child born/unameit will also interfere with legitimate activities such as shopping for other products and obtaining healthcare information. This is why such behavior must be controlled the old fashioned way using the existing laws as much as possible. Legislators cannot be experts on every law they legislate.

Re:Read the fine print.

[0xdeadbeef]

Are you surprised? Look at who wrote it - Declan McCullagh. He's the biggest LINO of them all, the John Stossel of Internet journalism.

Re:Read the fine print.

[sgt_doom]

Citizen stomv - you should be troll modded down to nothingness for your absolutely intelligent comments and outstanding display of critical thinking.

With people like you around there is always hope for humanity....

Decisions...

[Shihar]

So the next question is... is it better to have a politician in power who understands technology and so can merrily and effectively have the government muck technology up, or is it better to have a technological idiot try in futility to put technology under the control of the government but risk breaking things by accident?

Or, to put it another way:

Would you rather be robbed by a guy armed with a gun that knows how to use it and expertly aim it, or an idiot with a gun who doesn't realize that pulling the trigger is going to cause the gun to fire and has no idea if the safety is on or off?

Re:Decisions...

[EveLibertine]

I don't think you paid enough attention to statistical probability with your analogy.

Using your same analogy of computer knowledge to gun toting and skill in marksmanship, and who I would rather be robbed by is irrelevant when chances are that for every 1 person in the government fits into the knowledgeable marksman category there at least a few dozen that are carrying the weaponry with no formal training. Given probability and strength in numbers, I'd probably be safer going with just the 1 thief. At least if I can get close enough I might have a chance to take him out in hand to hand combat; I doubt I'd have the same chance against the moronic mob.

Re:Decisions...

[Guuge]

This article has nothing to do with understanding technology. It's about "tech-friendliness", which is essentially loyalty to certain lobbyists deemed to represent "technology". A congressperson can get a perfect score without knowing anything at all about technology.

Technology is a BUSINESS?

[PopeRatzo]

Voting for the benefit of business is not the same as voting for the benefit of technology, or technological advancement.

For example, if you voted "yea" for a bill that allows a two-tiered Internet, with toll-booths manned by AT&T, you wouldn't really be voting "FOR" technology, now would you?

Or if a GOP congressman voted "yea" for a bill that requires all music to contain DRM, after getting a fat envelope from, say, Sony N.A., he would in fact be voting "for" the technology of DRM, but wouldn't be voting "FOR" technology, right?

Let's say some fat, greasy Republican congressman, while buggering a teenage page, voted "yea" on a bill which gives enormous taxpayer-funded subsidies to an oil company or a multi-national pharma corp ostensibly to "promote research" you can bet he'd say (after shooting his best friend in the face) that he's "pro-technology". Well, he could say he's "pro-youth" too, but the young page might disagree.

CNET, desperate for attention during this silly-season of campaign bullshit, needs to give a little more thought to their ranking methods, although Mr Paul is A-OK in my book. It's a shame that he had to switch his party affiliation from Libertarian to Republican in order to get to Congress. Whichever party, he's a decent guy.

Re:Technology is a BUSINESS?

[Rydia]

This is really how all these "ranking" things work, however, from the ACLU to the FotF.

I'd prefer that people just paid more attention to specific candidates' stances, and not rely on cherry-picked numbers taken by special interests (or bad journalists), but it seems that these kinds of "report cards" are solidly entrenched in our electoral... thing.

Re:Technology is a BUSINESS?

[syphax]

Most of the scorecards I've looked at are at least coherent and reasonably consistent (see, eg, the League of Conservation Voters ). Of course scorecards are going to reflect a certain agenda; that's the point. On scorecards from groups that I disagree with, I value low scores. The problem with this one is that the issues includes represent a mixed and somewhat contradictory agenda. I'm not all that sure that a high score is necessarily a good thing.

Of course it makes sense to evaluate specific candidates. But I don't think it's mutually exclusive; I would argue that well-crafted scorecards offer a decent way to evaluate just where a candidate stands relative to peers on a specific set of issues. A poorly designed scorecard is a waste of time.

"The methodology behind this scorecard is cuckoo for cocoa puffs," Kerry spokesman David Wade said.

I wouldn't have phrased it quite that way myself, but I agree.

Re:Technology is a BUSINESS?

[tiocsti]

My understanding is Ron Paul had to switch his affiliation not so much to get into congress, but to get seats in important commitees.

Diebold and sex offenders

[gelfling]

OK so in North Carolina here are the big issues:

Funding for eVoting. Check
Funding to track every sex offender real time, 24/7 everywhere on Earth forever and ever. Check

We're good to go.

Re:Diebold and sex offenders

[Alaria Phrozen]

What sucks is if you get wrongly accused of rape, and get labled a sex offender for the rest of your life...

Re:Diebold and sex offenders

[gelfling]

Or the fact that in our panic driven society the nature of the conviction has become VERY expansive. We had a high schooler near here recently who managed to get convicted of a 4th degree felony sex offense for snapping a girl's bra on school grounds. So basically the kid's life is over. He'll be taking the bus to his Jiffy Lube job when he's 50.

Re:Makes sense...

[Nicaboker]

Get ready then. Novell and M$ are talking about a Linux partnership or something to that affect.

Re:Makes sense...

[SydShamino]

Well you are halfway there:

http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/06/11/02/1957252.s html

But..

[craagz]

what if..there are senators like..

"It says "Press any key"" and i can't find the damned "Any" key on the keyboard...

Ted!

[Urza9814]

Where's Ted Stevens? He ought to be lowest scoring in SOMETHING.
They could at least give him honorable mention or something! lol

Re:Ted!

[Southpaw018]

He scored 55%. Ted Stevens is in a position whereby he can exert direct control over the internet, he's made it clear that he's "for sale" to lobbyists concerning its future (the infamous "tubes" speech), and that he knows absolutely nothing about technology or that over which he is supposed to preside...and he scored better than a ton of other people.

I dismiss this entire study outright on that alone.

Re:Ted!

[Dragonslicer]

Wouldn't it be worse if that were accurate, and Ted Stevens really does know more about technology than half of the other members of Congress?

Re:Ted!

[dragonsomnolent]

Here here! I find it shamefull that politicians are so blantantly putting themselves up for sale like this. I think government needs an overhaul - big time. No more political contributions from any group, business or collective entity, and cap personal contributions to something in the tune of $1000 bucks per person. Get rid of all lobbyists, so that congress-critters listen to the people again, not just the ones who take them to Jamaica on vacation with them.

Re:Ted!

[eldepeche]

It's "Hear, hear!"

Re:Ted!

[dragonsomnolent]

my bad

Re:Counter-intuitive Rating...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm. Look at some of the other scores - I am not sure that a "check" or "X" means the person voted yea or nay on a bill - it means that they made the "right" vote for that particular measure. Many of the lowest scorers had "Xs" against votes that I would consider pro-tech.

Paul is extremely consistent - his nickname in the House is "Dr. No," because he votes against so many bills. He's probably the only person in the entire federal government who can really be considered a libertarian, and definitely the only person I'd bother to cast a vote for (If I lived in the 14th district of Texas, that is).

Survery them on outsourcing and H1-B visa increase

[pkbarbiedoll]

What I want to know is if they are doing their part to protect the middle class and jobs that support the middle class, or if they support support middle classes of other countries.

Re:Counter-intuitive Rating...

[v783650]

Ah, that makes far more sense. Thanks for clearing that up.

Re:Lots of tech votes scored

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Blockquoth the AC:

How many _true_ geeks are going to be for any of those bills?

Fair point. On the other hand, how representative of the best interests of the general population are true geeks? To be sure, there's a lot of overlap, but often with legal or regulatory frameworks, what's reasonable and in the interests of the well-informed and able specialists may be unreasonable or have an overall negative effect on the population as a whole. Surely legislators must take this into account when deciding what laws to pass, and any appropriate exemptions to include?

Re:Counter-intuitive Rating...

[Dachannien]

Voted FOR investigating "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas"

Actually, he voted against that resolution. The CNet article was incredibly unclear in how checks and X's were assigned to the votes, but as the sibling to this post suggests, the check mark indicates that they voted in the tech-friendly way, which wasn't necessarily "yes".

Liberals

[Flying pig]

It's amazing how the Republican Party and their joculators have managed to make the word "Liberal" a term of abuse in the US. Who do you think invented laissez-faire and free market economics, back in the day when right-wingers just wanted to keep their slaves and feudal tenants from escaping to more liberal (i.e. equal and progressive) societies?

It's an impressive achievement. After all, what is the opposite of "Liberal"? Not "Conservative", but presumably "Illiberal", i.e. somebody who wants to prevent people from doing what they want. Which presumably includes the introduction of innovative business ideas which threaten the status quo.

We need a corollary to Godwin's Law: Anybody who uses "Liberal" as a term of abuse on the Internet has forfeited the argument.

Re:Liberals

[LaughingCoder]

It's amazing how the Republican Party and their joculators have managed to make the word "Liberal" a term of abuse in the US.

Actually I think liberals did it to themselves. Clearly liberals have fought for good and meaningful changes in society in the past. Unfortunately many liberals seem to live in that past, when businesses treated their employees like slaves and the employees had no recourse, when living conditions for most of the population were miserable and infrastructure was non-existent, when education was only accessible to the wealthy, etc. Now that those primitive times are behind us (thank you liberals of the past) they can't accept that, for the majority of Americans at least, many of the policies they now advocate seem destructive, and detrimental to the country. Of course I may just be echoing what was said about liberals during the civil rights movement, the labor movement, and the establishment of public education; it's always hard to make these judgments while you are in the middle of the storm.

Re:Liberals

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Actually, I believe liberal==pejorative came about the time politcal correctness had gone quite so crazy, and everybody and his^H^H^H her/his brother/sister was a hyphenated something or other(eg. vertically-challenged american). Of course the pushing of special group rights over the rights of the individual really didn't help either. And before we started calling them "Greens" the PETA types fell under the Liberal umbrella. Oh and people don't like paying taxes so that's another reason Liberal == bad.

Re:Liberals

[fireboy1919]

After all, what is the opposite of "Liberal"? Not "Conservative", but presumably "Illiberal", i.e. somebody who wants to prevent people from doing what they want.

I'm afraid not. Liberal and conservative are both terms used to describe distribution of something. Haven't you ever heard something like "apply liberally to affected region" or "caution: may burn; apply conservatively?" From the very meaning of the words you can hopefully see that these are both about economics in relation to government. Both asking, "how do we spend?" It has long been thought that you can derive all of a political view from this, but I think it's time to use more to talk about it. Mostly because you can spend in a way that supports either of the other two terms you were actually comparing.

The terms you're thinking of are "libertarian," (allowing people to do whatever they want/against government regulation) and it's counterpoint "authoritarian" (preventing people from doing what they want/for government regulation).

Initially, these had to be linked because everyone who wanted more regulation also wanted some way to pay for it. So liberal implied more taxes. Today we spend money we don't have, so you can be against taxes and still be for spending.

I don't think these terms actually apply very well anymore. Both of the main parties seem very authoritarian and very liberal (remember, this means "they spend a lot").

Re:Liberals

[Stormwatch]

Well, you see, during the Cold War, socialist-leaning politicians couldn't be too blatant about their agenda -- most americans simply wouldn't vote for that; so they started using that word instead. They are the opposite of "classic" liberals (now called libertarians), who support free enterprise and small government.

Re:Liberals

[bigdavex]

I'm afraid not. Liberal and conservative are both terms used to describe distribution of something. Haven't you ever heard something like "apply liberally to affected region" or "caution: may burn; apply conservatively?" From the very meaning of the words you can hopefully see that these are both about economics in relation to government. Both asking, "how do we spend?" It has long been thought that you can derive all of a political view from this, but I think it's time to use more to talk about it. Mostly because you can spend in a way that supports either of the other two terms you were actually comparing.

The terms you're thinking of are "libertarian," (allowing people to do whatever they want/against government regulation) and it's counterpoint "authoritarian" (preventing people from doing what they want/for government regulation).

Initially, these had to be linked because everyone who wanted more regulation also wanted some way to pay for it. So liberal implied more taxes. Today we spend money we don't have, so you can be against taxes and still be for spending.

I don't think these terms actually apply very well anymore. Both of the main parties seem very authoritarian and very liberal (remember, this means "they spend a lot").

-1, wrong.

Liberal relates to freedom. Liberal governments as opposed to unlimited monarchies and such. It's only recently that people have decided that it's an insult.

Re:Liberals

[WindBourne]

Also forgot that

1. Eisenhower imposed heavy regs on the airlines,
2. Nixon imposed heavy regulations on USA during the first oil crisis as well as economic regs (WIN anyone?)

, whereas it was Carter who lifted all regs on Airlines and Oil.

Offhand, I would not say that Dems are stellar with Business, but Republicans are actually not that great. Only to the large lobbying type business are they good with. I wonder what that says about morality and all?

Re:Liberals

[fireboy1919]

That's popular opinion. It simplifies things. Broaden yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

Re:Liberals

[Darby]

Actually I think liberals did it to themselves.

Sort of. It was 3 things really. Mostly 2 though.
Leftists coopted the word and started using it to describe themselves and their policies which were quite left of liberal in many cases.
Right wingers demonized the concept, both in its original meaning and in its new, altered meaning.

Both the left and the right hate Liberalism fsar more than they hate each other, since they are very similar in many ways, most especially the fact that they both *love* big government and despise individual liberty.

Some actual Liberals probably did help screw it up themselves, but I think that's less of a factor than the other two.

Re:Liberals

[Millenniumman]

No. Liberal and conservation have other meanings apart from distribution of something. Those meaning aren't related in the way you think.

The word liberal, in a general political sense, and not distribution of something, refers to freedom, or liberty. Classical liberals supported individual liberty in every area. In modern, especially American, politics it has come to refer to leftist ideology, which is quite different, and as you said generally "spends a lot".

LIbertarian is a made up word that means the same thing as classical liberalism, without the stigma of being "classical" (out of date) or "liberal"(leftist).

Conservative, in a general political sense, and not distribution of something, refers to preserving traditions. It is also used to describe many right wing ideologies, which generally go along with that principle, but have other, possibly more important, facets.

Senator Allen (R-VA)

[caudron]

Also unsurprising was George Allen, a first-term Virginia Republican who won the top score in the Senate, at 78 percent, after becoming chairman of the Senate High Tech Task Force five years ago.

Those of us from Virginia aren't surprised either. Senator Allen used to be our Governor where he spent consider energy and resources courting high tech companies and trying to bring legislation to the table that made us an attractive option for technology companies in search of a headquarters. As Governor, his approval rating was pretty damn high.

That said, as a Senator, he has not fared so well in the polls. He may be friendly to technology interests (apparently 78% friendly?) which is expected given his history on the subject, but he's even friendly to President Bush (apparently 96% friendly?) and that doesn't sit well with a nation or a state that isn't interested in more of the same right now.

I guess what I'm driving at here is that while our pet interest might be in technology, we can't let that drive our vote. It's an important issue category, but it's only one of many and on many other counts these people may be doing quite a poor job. I'd argue that voting so closely with President Bush's interests (seriously 96% is A LOT!) shows me that a great governor does not necessarily make a good senator. I suspect he is just courting the RNC because there has been talk of him being a serious presidential contender in the near future. I know you have to sell a little of your soul to get anywhere in politics nowadays, but I can't in good conscience vote for someone who does it so thoroughly and so blatantly...even if he is good on technology.

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

Re:Senator Allen (R-VA)

[10e6Steve]

I wonder if Allen knows what Youtube is?

Re:Senator Allen (R-VA)

[3waygeek]

He may not know YouTube, but he knows about Xybernaut.

Re:Senator Allen (R-VA)

[(trb001)]

I'd argue that voting so closely with President Bush's interests (seriously 96% is A LOT!) shows me that a great governor does not necessarily make a good senator.

What I'm getting from your statement is that you don't like Bush, and because Allen voted with Bush so much, you therefore don't like Allen. That doesn't make him a bad senator; that makes him a senator whose votes you don't like.

I really liked Allen as governor, I thought he did an amazing job with Virginia's economy. I don't have serious issues with him as senator, but he's a freaking spendthrift, so deciding between him and Webb is going to be tough. I don't think he's been as fiscally conservative as I would have liked him to be, but that doesn't make him a bad senator, just one whom I'm not sure I want representing me.

--trb

Re:Senator Allen (R-VA)

[caudron]

I'd say that's a fair assessment of my post. Actually, I do have some problems with him as a Senator (and I also liked him as Governor) that aren't just related to him strong allegiance to the current president, but I didn't want to get too far into Va politics in this thread.

He's made some decisions as senator that I vehemently disagree with. I'm not exactly excited about Webb (who is?) but I think he'll be marginally better than what we have now. I wish I could be more positive about our senatorial choices this year. :( At least we still have Warner! :)

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

Re:Senator Allen (R-VA)

[Gneral Tsao]

So, I guess the article wasn't taking his position on net neutrality in to account?

Re:Senator Allen (R-VA)

[(trb001)]

I'm not exactly excited about Webb (who is?) but I think he'll be marginally better than what we have now. I wish I could be more positive about our senatorial choices this year.

I'm not so sure. Not from a lack of trying, but I don't know a lot about Webb. His website is horrid, giving sound bites instead of clear and concise visions of what he will and won't vote for. The bits that he does have statements about, favoring windfall taxes on oil company profits for instance, are exactly what I *don't* want in a Senator. I'm not a fan of how the GOP has handled Congress, but that isn't to say I won't continue to vote for them if they're still better than the alternative. With Webb, I have no sense of what he intends to do when it comes to legislation. Allen, at least, I know and mostly approve of. Bigot or not, it's never come through in his legislation (with the exception of the marriage amendment, whose justification I still don't see).

--trb

Re:Senator Allen (R-VA)

[Bored George]

I guess this wasn't clear and concise enough for you?

But you do have a point about a windfall profits tax on oil companies. If we do that, they probably won't lower gas prices before the next election...

Re:Senator Allen (R-VA)

[Bored George]

Yeah, but have you seen Allen's trading card?

Re:Senator Allen (R-VA)

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>while our pet interest might be in technology, we can't let that drive our vote. It's an important issue category, but it's only one of many and on many other counts these people may be doing quite a poor job.

Absolutely. George Allen's background on racial issues. George Allen and free speech. On that last incident, Allen tried to blame the blogger for getting choked and slammed to the floor.

Bull Spit

[mothlos]

These report cards that measure the quality of legislators based on their floor votes really don't give the big picture and don't really mean much.

First, it assumes that each bill can be rated as either 'good' or 'bad' in some key respect. This is an extremely subjective position and with the low number of tech bills that regularly go through the congress it is hard to say.

Second, it assumes that the legislation is single-issue. The legislative process is one of compromise. Something which may be a fantastic idea to one person may be horribly flawed due to some political reason, such as objection to a sunset clause or a rider which is not acceptable.

The very 'best' score was an 80% with a major clumping in the 50% range? This seems that most of the representatives weren't unfriendly to tech interests, but they were voting based on unrelated criteria. This isn't a measure of tech friendliness, but a measure of tech indifference.

George Allen ranked the highest Senator?

[vistic]

I guess he learned a lot from the "macacas" he welcomed to the real word of Virginia.

Correction...

[andykuan]

You're conflating "liberal" with "Democrat". The OP made no such connection so what he states is still true despite your attempt to redefine and drift his meaning. Besides, these terms lose their meaning over time. Yes, the Republicans freed the slaves, but that was almost 150 years ago -- I'd say the GOP's more than a little different now. In fact, all of those Democrats who sought to maintain segregation? They've long since switched parties and are Republicans now.

Re:Liberals PROMOTED SEGREGATION

[planetmn]

Ah, but you are confusing liberal and democrat. Or more accurately, you are confusing liberal and "dixiecrat". Yes, the democratic party (in the south) after the civil war was terrible. They voted for segregation, were supportive of many racist organizations. But they were not liberals.

That party doesn't exist anymore for all intents and purposes. In fact, if you look at the people who supported the dixiecrats, you would find that they are considered conservative now.

The GP was getting pretty trolly with his whole "back in the day" argument, as back in the day, just about everybody in power abused it (and abused it worse than they do today). But that being said, his main argument about the Republican party (successfully) coopting the word liberal to have negative connotations. But what's probably worse, is that most liberals have resigned themselves to this fact and are too scared to even admit they are liberal.

I myself am a social liberal (though not a democrat), and fiscal conservative. I don't belong to a political party.

-dave

Re:Counter-intuitive Rating...

[tehcyder]

not restricting sites like MySpace seems to be positive -- free speech and all

Sorry, this is one example where free speech should be trumped by the greater good.

Re:Makes sense...

[Opportunist]

Considering the place I live in is like hell and it's snowing constantly now...

Re:Where's Ted Stevens and his tubes?

[iCharles]

Stevens came in at 53%. Tech friendly votes include "against taxes on Internet purchases," "for an R&D tax credit," "against banning sale of firearms online," "Extending ban on Internet access taxes through 2007," "To liberalize computer export restrictions" among others. Granted, he did vote for the CDA. However, I don't think "making bad analogies" equates a bad tech voting record.

You see, congress is like an iceberg full of penguins...

Re:Where's Ted Stevens and his tubes?

[theckhd]

He comes in at 53.33% (click on Alaska on the map), which while the lowest in Alaska is far from the lowest overall. In fact, it's above the senate average of 43.30%.

Re:Correction... if only you were correct?

[andykuan]

Sure, but if you're going to cherry pick, how about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Helms to name just two instances of conservative Democrats who jumped parties. Anyway, my original points are still salient in that a) you can't conflate liberals and Democrats -- especially historically and b) party beliefs change over time -- sometimes drastically.

Re:John Kerry is Satan...

[Dragonslicer]

Humorous replies pointing out the irony of your post in 3.. 2.. 1..

Utterly Ridiculous, Fantastically reductive

[BeeBeard]

This is from the article:

While many of the scored votes centered on Internet policy, others covered computer export restrictions, H-1B visas, free trade, research and development, electronic passports and class action lawsuits.

The article is lean on the science and heavy on the fluff, but apparently their methodology involved assuming what they believed to be the technology-friendly stance on each of these issues, and then scoring Congress according to whether or not a member voted for a bill that supported that stance. This raises all sorts of issues. For example, how do you score a Senator or Representative when they vote against a free trade bill because it contains pork that would get rid of the estate tax? By the time it's been processed and mangled by the committees, very little legislation is "clean" enough so that you could claim that it is exclusively about one issue, or exclusively about another.

Furthermore, what do you do when there are two sides to an issue, and each side is presented as having technological interests in mind? (For example, "Computer export restrictions help domestic tech companies" vs. "Not having computer export restrictions helps domestic tech companies.") Are we supposed to assume that Declan McCullagh and Anne Broache, through the prism of their infinite wisdom and impeccable judgment, have arrived at some sort of "correct" stance on these issues? Forgive me if I'm just a little skeptical.

Re:Survery them on outsourcing and H1-B visa incre

[Rob the Bold]

TFA says that survey does address H1-B visas and Free Trade. I think you can assume that a high score in the sruvey means supporting more H1-Bs and more offshoring.

So are they doing their part to protect the middle class? Only to the extent that middle class people invest in tech companies.

Re:John Kerry is Satan...

[Rob the Bold]

Humorous replies pointing out the irony of your post in 3.. 2.. 1..

I think we're supposed to read it as sarcasm. His sig would certainly suggest that.

"A Series of Tubes!" -- ranking is deeply flawed

[Hollinger]

Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), is somehow ranked at 53.3% according to this article.

This has to be flawed -- the man got quoted as saying this in a debate:

Ten movies streaming across that, that internet, and what happens to your own personal internet? I just the other day got...an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday, I got it yesterday. Why? [...] They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet. And again, the Internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes

If you search around, you'll find a copy of the MP3, where you can hear him stumble over the words.

I'd argue that the article is ranking something meaningless if Ted "Series of Tubes" Stevens got a 53% score. That, or the bottom 50% are REALLY bad.

This does bring to mind a quote (from somewhere): "Think about how stupid the average (American, Person, Senator, ___) is. By definition, half of them are more stupid than that."

And yes, I realize this is a "score" not a "ranking."

What about Congressladies?

[jfruhlinger]

Apparently they aren't ranked?

Re:What about Congressladies?

[ChiChiCuervo]

I prefer the more generic term: Congresscritter

Re:What about Congressladies?

[Nimey]

Congressweasel, Shirley?

Re:What about Congressladies?

[Wellington Grey]

Apparently they aren't ranked?

I think the word you are looking for is Congresschicks.

-Grey

Re:What about Congressladies?

[Manchot]

They're with the woladies.

Re:Liberals PROMOTED SEGREGATION

[krell]

"Imagine if the GOP still had a former KKK member in there ranks... Geee, he would have to resign"

The Republicans did have David Duke (KKK) in their ranks. However, the party repudiated him on a national and state level. They even urged voters to vote for Democrats opposing him. The Dems have yet to shun Robt. Byrd.

I do not think it means what you think it means.

[silentounce]

Stop that Hitleresque talk, you Nazi!

OMG: I'm a "liberal"

[TapeCutter]

Thanks for the link, turned out I was a liberal huddling in the corner next to warm centrist and somewhat autistic libetarian(jk). I think Ron Paul sounds like a bit of a nutter but kudos for the tech score (assuming I agree with the method that I didn't read). BTW over here in Australia the conservatives are the "Liberal Party", however the sites definition of "liberal" sits with me just fine thankyou :)

From the GP's link:
LIBERAL
LIBERALS usually embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but tend to support significant government control of the economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net" to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations, defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.

Re:OMG: I'm a "liberal"

[TheCarp]

Whats really funny is, I can't even tell what conservative means anymore, except that its what republicans like to call themselves. In fact, both conservative and liberal have completly lost their meaning.

Lets see if I can remember how it goes. The Libertarians are the classic liberals. The modern liberals, are the defacto conservatives. The conservatives aren't at all conservative. The neocons are liberals with a socialist background who decided they wanted to call themselves conservative.

Personally... I am about as left wing liberal as they come. However, I have no problem with the old conservatives. I mean shit, the venerable Goldwater critized the exclusion of gays from the ilitary saying "Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar.". William F Buckley Jr wrote an article on why marijuana should be legalized!

Put that in a current day conservative pipe and smoke it!

-Steve

Re:OMG: I'm a "liberal"

[doom]

TheCarp (96830) wrote:

Whats really funny is, I can't even tell what conservative means anymore, except that its what republicans like to call themselves.

Well you see conservatives are the people who believe in shrugging off environmental concerns and running massive deficit spending to finance pointless military adventures, while undermining the Constitution (not to mention the Magna Carta).

And liberals believe that John Kerry should've apologised more nicely for stumbling over his tounge, and they're very sorry he embarrassed George Bush by winning the vote in the 2004 election.

Re:OMG: I'm a "liberal"

[WilliamSChips]

Personally... I am about as left wing liberal as they come. However, I have no problem with the old conservatives. I mean shit, the venerable Goldwater critized the exclusion of gays from the military saying "Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar.". William F Buckley Jr wrote an article on why marijuana should be legalized!

Goldwater's statement is slightly inaccurate:Sparta came before Caesar. And yes, the old conservatives, although I disagree with them on several issues, are mostly respectable people with a decent understanding of logic. There are very few people in modern politics about whom you can say that.

Re:"A Series of Tubes!" -- ranking is deeply flawe

[Yosho]

"Think about how stupid the average (American, Person, Senator, ___) is. By definition, half of them are more stupid than that."

That is not necessarily true, actually. It would be true if you said "mean" instead of "average" and "equally or more stupid than" instead of "more stupid than." However it's entirely possible for the average value of a set to not fall at the halfway mark. For example, take these values:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 100000

The average value is about 11,115. That means that only one of those is above average; 88.9% of them are below average.

The point is, it's entirely possible for a majority of people to be above or below average intelligence, and there's no way of knowing unless we can quantify everybody's intelligence.

Who Rates the Raters?

[Doc Ruby]

Unfortunately, Congress' tendency to shy away from recorded votes means that some important events were not available to score.

And many other ways in which Congress games the system to make laws and influence policies also make such an oversimplified rating as this one nearly useless.

Did the raters rate those 20 bills on which Congress voted on overall "tech-friendliness"? Does voting against a tech-unfriendly bill score the same as voting for tech-friendly ones? Should it, if one is much more un/friendly? How many unfriendly votes can't be counted, and how much worse are they?

How many tech-friendly bills couldn't be voted on because the majority party prevented the vote from even getting to the floor? The raters didn't rate the committees, all of which are controlled by even a bare majority party, but where practically all of the bills are killed or pushed to a floor vote.

And who's so sure that "H1B visas" and other issues are "tech-friendly", and not just "tech corporation friendly", working against the interests of American tech workers, consumers, and perhaps the technology itself?

20 votes across over a decade, to determine a career's rating? Where's CNet's history of producing political ratings, to get some kind of track record for accuracy and insight?

The Tech Law Journal published a scorecard for the 1998 Congress, part of their central mission to cover these issues. I'd be interested in an IEEE or ACM scorecard, but not so much in a Communication Workers of America or American Association of Manufacturers scorecard, unless some wizard could somehow combine them in a model that was simple enough for most people to understand and agree. Impossible, really.

Re:Who Rates the Raters?

[hibiki_r]

Well, as long as outsourcing is cheap, one could make the case that H1Bs help the American middle class. H1Bs drain foreign countries from talent, and move it to the US, where they have to compete in more equal terms with Americans. Also, they pay taxes that, unless they are naturalized, will probably never get the rewards from. And if they managed to get naturalized, they become as American as you are... except for being able to run for presidency. If you want to help the American middle class, fight the outsourcers. That H1B in the next cube is helping your team be more competitive than the big outsourcing company in India, Bulgaria or Brazil.

Re:Who Rates the Raters?

[Doc Ruby]

Except that H1B (formerly known as a "person") in the next cube may be working for a lot less money than you are, because they return to their home country where their expenses are a lot lower than yours. Which country is cheap because it's polluted, domestic labor is abused and working for even less than the H1B does in America.

Foreign labor from many countries unfairly competes against American labor with lower labor costs subsidized by foreign conditions not required to be as good or expensive as in America.

A true free marketer could argue that American workers can live in foreign countries in the same worse conditions as our H1B coworkers. But those countries typically have labor laws for immigrants with money ("Americans") totally asymmetrical to American H1B laws. And that scenario is a good demonstration of how economics is not the only determinant of people's behavior: will Americans rather go without work than live 3/5 years in a Bangladesh village without electricity or smog laws? The economist will say they should, but the human will realize how economics doesn't really govern that scenario as much as noneconomics.

That same true free marketer could argue that such disparity will eventually force the foreign countries to upgrade in order to compete. That does happen sometimes, but most foreign countries have demonstrated they accept the brain drain, and the subsidy mailed home, and the investments into their upper classes, without improving their environment or labor. At least not quickly enough to make a difference. Especially compared to the much faster rate of damage done there by American (and other) corporations outsourcing dirty/cheap/dangerous work to those other countries.

Economics is, after all, just a description of human transactions. Which can be measured by economics, but are not determined by the economics rules. The economics rules, to be an accurate model of the human transactions, must often become extremely complex, imprecise, and less useful than sociological descriptions. Like "foreigners force Americans to lower our standards to compete for money". When those lost standards cost more than the extra money made, the economics win, and the humans lose.

AMEN

[hey!]

You also missed the biggest assumption: that you agree completely with the person doing the rating.

If the Electronic Privacy Association, the Electronic Fronteir Foundation and the RIAA were to rate congressmen on their "tech friendlieness", they'd each come up with different rankings.

Re:Makes sense...

[smchris]

Normally I would love to bash the current Neocon metastasis of Republicanism as much as the next liberal but I think you are right on this one. Virtually "everyone" voted for the DMCA -- technically, wasn't there a motion to make it unanimous? I wrote Saint Wellstone of Minnesota about it at the time and the reply I got was basically just, "I'd do it again." It's pretty obvious that Republicans own the oil and gas lobbyist money. Is it so hard to imagine that the Democrats have a big piece of the Hollywood lobbyist money?

Report cards are misleading

[brownsteve]

Careful how you read those report cards. A check mark or red X does NOT mean the congressman voted for/against the stated issue -- this is remarkably misleading. The check mark or X actually shows whether or not the congressman voted in alignment with C|Net's political views. I wish they would have just given the REAL data and let the reader decide what is and what isn't tech-friendly.

Re:Liberals PROMOTED SEGREGATION

[krell]

Is that an actual thanks, or a sarcastic jab? I have to ask since your "0" rating does imply past trollishness.

Re:"A Series of Tubes!" -- ranking is deeply flawe

[Hollinger]

Heh. See, I try to end on a light joke...

I think that the statement would be true, if I'd prepended, "Assuming a normal distribution," which the human population is. Arguing that the Senate is "normal" is a separate matter. :-)

Re:Lots of tech votes scored

[mumblestheclown]

Ah, the "only true christians" fallacy. Look it up if you don't know what I mean. no matter what my bona fides, and the fact that i've written a magnitude of code more than you or what-have-you (and in many OSS projects, to boot), if i dont support your god given right to pirate movies, music, and software, then I'm not a "true geek"? yes, the DMCA and CDA have severe problems. let me repeat that: SEVERE problems. however, they're not as bad as the alternative that many "true geeks" here are supporting, which is basically complete abandonment of all IP regulations.

Just too complicated

[MobyDisk]

CNET wasn't clear on what they meant by "technology issues" which makes this article seem inconsistent, and makes the reactions very mixed.

For one thing, it includes lots of non-technology things. If you say H1-B visas are a technology issue because they impact technology companies, then EVERYTHING is a technology issue. Taxes, minimum wage, anything with financial impact. Perhaps CNET did not have a clear idea of what they wanted the purpose of the article to be. THese votes don't indicate how technologically adept a representative is, which is what I thought it would be about.

And many of the readers didn't understand what "technology" meant either. Look at this comment for example:

Do lawmakers votes on whether to allow Internet gambling really reflect their views on technology? More than allowing funding for stem-cell research or NASA?

Internet gambling votes are an easy way to determine if the representative understands technology. It is technically impossible to regulate internet gambling. It is an international issue, and it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Internet. But stem-cell research is an issue of morality and money, not technology.

Ignoring Net Neutrality is a vast omission since it is probably one of the most clear-cut of technology issues. CNet says that it wasn't included because businesses are so divided over it. That is a copout: The line is phone companies & router manufacturers -vs- everyone else. It is plain to see, but they choose to ignore it. That is irresponsible.

Re:Pro-Tech?

[east coast]

The article mentions Internet tax, but what does that have to do with technology? Pro-tech is more like providing government funds for new technology or making IP laws less draconian.

Hmmm... let me think... an internet tax would hamper efforts of internet marketing which would put a big damper on new tech begin sold to said marketers and it would also cause a slowdown in internet use.

Is it so hard for you to understand that the movers and shakers on the internet have largely been those who are doing it for commercial gains? Why do you think a private space program has come along so well in such a short period of time compared to NASA even when they had funds dumped into them? Commercial gains drives an economy and they also drive technological progress, comrade.

If adding government funding is what it takes to make someone pro-tech in your mind I'm afraid you have a skewed view of where most current internet technology is heading. Sure, there are still military ventures that help push things along but it's the Amazons and the Googles that are making the advancements without the hindrance of government dickering.

Nothing kills progress in the private sector like taxation does.

Where are the blogs and forums?

[Fastolfe]

So when are we going to see our elected representatives put up blogs and discussion forums for their constituencies?

Surprise Surprise

[siwelwerd]

The most libertarian member of Congress remains most libertarian when only considering tech issues. Who would have thunk it?

Re:Makes sense...

[bohemian72]

He's all the way there, if you look at today's low temperatures.

Weather: Hell

Senator Allen (R-VA) Hates Consumers

[Overzeetop]

No, seriously.

I wrote to him a few years ago about the SSSCA (acronym misspell?), and he write back a polite letter to the effect of "screw you, my consultants say I should vote for it," but thank you for your letter.

Nice. He has absolutely no concept of the consumer side of IP rights, and would mandate DRM and outlaw fair use if he even got a whiff of a chance.

Yes, I'm voting for Jim Webb. He can't be any worse.

Re:Senator Allen (R-VA) Hates Consumers

[Overzeetop]

No wonder he scored so well. If you check his detail, he didn't even vote on 7 of the 16 bills they used to classify the members.

Re:Senator Allen (R-VA) Hates Consumers

[Bored George]

I'm sure he was just too bored to vote on all those bills.

Re:Senator Allen (R-VA) Hates Consumers

[Bimo_Dude]

I had the same experience.

Although, I have to say that I'm not at all impressed with Webb, either. The Dems really seems to be consistant in that they nominate really, really lame candidates.

Re:Senator Allen (R-VA) Hates Consumers

[Overzeetop]

Well, Webb is really a Republican - you were expecting Ralph Nader? Hell, daffy duck could be running against Allen and I'd vote for daffy.

Re:Senator Allen (R-VA) Hates Consumers

[Bimo_Dude]

I don't know about voting for Daffy (Disney ;). There is an alternative to Webb and Allen, thankfully. Her platform isn't really too clear, and, since she's not part of either major party, she has barely been mentioned in the major media at all. IMHO, she seems better than either of the other two clowns.

Re:Senator Allen (R-VA) Hates Consumers

[Rakarra]

Donald is Disney, Daffy is a Warner property. Then again, WB's Internet rights history isn't glowing either.

Re:CC mag

[east coast]

Let's keep him around! ... even though he's a Republican.

Unfortunately the reason we don't have more people like this is because people keep looking for the little (D)(R)(I) tags beside the candidate name instead of investing time at looking at the candidate. As long as we continue to play "party politics" we're going to be the ones losing... Sure, the (R)s may lose a few seats this election... they'll gain them back in 4,6 or 8 years... The (D)s will be up to the same antics... the cycle will continue because there is too much of the "I'm a (R)","I'm a (D)" going around.

Right now in my local district we have a candidate running who's only message is "I'm a democrat"... fantastic, that's great that that will be enough to satisfy some voters. The real shame will be if he wins on this. If aligning yourself with a political party is all it takes to get elected than we (the voters) deserve everything we get.

Re:Correction... if only you were correct?

[eldepeche]

Well, by definition, conservatives were trying to preserve the status quo. In the last 150 years, liberal and conservative have developed different meanings.

where??

[Heem]

Is it just me, or... where's the freaking list?

I'd much rather just read the list myself than to read some long winded article about it.

Rick Boucher (D-VA) isn't at the Top of the List?

[Overzeetop]

How can you not put Boucher near the top of the list of Tech Friendly congressmen? He is consistently one of the few who "get it" and manage to vote for what aids the consumer instead of the corporation.

They included votes on Free Trade and Class Action Law Suits, but not Net Neutrality? No wonder the R's scored higher than the D's on that one. Good grief - if you're going to score on a subject, at least limit the scope to the subject at hand.

Re:Tech friendliness in the UK too

[TapeCutter]

"Tech-savvy youth don't respect politicians"

I grew up in the 60's, there is a famous incident where protesters started chanting "the whole world is watching" to the TV news cameras (the live moon landing really did have that feeling). Everyone (well those on a bit more than $1/day) can get there own "TV station/newspaper" now, but who can get "the whole world to watch" these days?

OTOH: I want to see the net free and flourishing (with due respect to victims of crimes and the assumption of innocence). Provided that politics/copyright does not strangle the net, there is some hope; eg: this story made it to the fornt page of google news, so it would seem the "grow up and argue about a real fucking problem" sentiment is popular.

Ron Paul supports illegal warrantless wiretapping

[pkbarbiedoll]

Which is hardly constitutional.

How do they rate?

[siriuskase]

Where would internet inventor Al Gore rank? And the old guy who knows all about the tubes? If they are near the top, what does that mean for the rest?

Re:How do they rate?

[Quila]

Where would internet inventor Al Gore rank?

Probably not well. While he did push for funding for what became the Internet, he was also big on preventing the people from using encryption unless the government had a key for it too.

Re:Amending the correction.

[fishbowl]

When you put 635 random people in a room, you're going to find some scandalous stuff, no matter what.

When those 635 are not *random* people at all, but rather, wealthy people seeking power and authority, you will *really* see some bizarre things.

You don't need a scenario as unique as Congress for this.

Re:"A Series of Tubes!" -- ranking is deeply flawe

[cnettel]

However, IQ is a rather accepted method to quantify intelligence, and some definitions of IQ contain the normal distribution as a totally inherent part of the definition. If we wouldn't get a normal distribution in the end, for the complete population, then the test is not calibrated correctly.

Re:"A Series of Tubes!" -- ranking is deeply flawe

[planetmn]

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/average

Average can be the mean, mode or median, from definition 1a:
a single value (as a mean, mode, or median) that summarizes or represents the general significance of a set of unequal values
And probably an even better definition is 2b:
a level (as of intelligence) typical of a group, class, or series

-dave

Re:Rick Boucher (D-VA) isn't at the Top of the Lis

[sheldon]

He is consistently one of the few who "get it" and manage to vote for what aids the consumer instead of the corporation.

"tech friendly" means benefiting tech companies, dummy.

Ironically, the most tech. friendly doesn't work..

[bergeron76]

Ironically, the website of the most tech. friendly Rep. Ron Paul (14th Dist. TX) [according to CNET], doesn't work with OS X?

I'm using Firefox on OS X and I'm just trying to click the giant PLAY button on his site.

Sheesh, what happened to standards?

What a crock...

[Zwack]

Looking at Oregon (the state I know most about for obvious reasons) they rate Gordon Smith (R) at 50% and Ron Wyden (D) at 43%.

Gordon Smith has voted in committee against Net Neutrality. Ron Wyden has continually voiced his support for it. Now there isn't a specific vote they could use to quantify that for all senators, but what is wrong with including such an important issue on their list?

This list is as meaningless as a random number generator.

Z.

Mark Foley

[dubbreak]

Well I know Mark Foley knows how to use msn, obviously he's never heard of OTR though.

Re:Mark Foley

[grikdog]

No, no, no! You obviously meant to say he knows how to use "man".

Re:Mark Foley

[dubbreak]

maf54@nambla:~$ man boy
No manual entry for boy

Cuckoo for cocoa puffs

[Spazmania]

"The methodology behind this scorecard is cuckoo for cocoa puffs," Kerry spokesman David Wade said.

That about sums it up.

Seriously, Rep Boucher, the House's paragon of Internet consumer rights issues scored a "50%".

Microsoft's Rep is very anti-tech

[MountainLogic]

Go figure, Dave Reichert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Reichert who represents Redmond and the suburbs east of Seattle, where many 'softies live, scored near the very bottom at 14.29% Come on Microsoft, get out and vote this troglogyte out. A former Microsoft Lead Product Manager, Darcey Burner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darcy_Burner, who worked on the .NET Framework is running against him. Should be interesting.

Re:Amending the correction.

[andykuan]

As I already posted, Byrd's the exception. How about Strom Thurmond or Jesse Helms to name just two? The Republicans, quite aggressively, went after conservative Democrats as part of Nixon's Southern Strategy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Strategy

Re:Liberals PROMOTED SEGREGATION

[Jett]

Are you being mendacious or are you really so ignorant of history?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

Good reason for not including net neutrality

[nohup]

The article points out that there isn't agreement in the tech community for net neutrality. See this article:

"Tech manufacturers rally against Net neutrality"
http://news.com.com/Tech+manufacturers+rally+again st+Net+neutrality/2100-1028_3-6117241.html?tag=nl

It says that some companies support it and some don't. We know Google and Ebay support net neutrality, but the article states, "more than 100 companies from the networking and communications sector, including Cisco Systems, Nortel Networks and Qualcomm, [said it was] too soon to enact network neutrality legislation."

One of the reasons this issue isn't so cut and dry is because a lot of us in the tech industry fear that by regulating the Internet we could be creating an environment that does has the opposite effect of the positive benefits of requiring neutrality. The argument goes that since corporations have such a large stake in the outcomes of regulatory control, they will over time turn the regulation to their favor through political pressure, lobbyists, and other means. I fear that creating so-called net neutrality through regulation could ultimately turn against us. There is a very good essay I would recommend to get a better idea of the potential dangers of regulating net neutrality:

"Net Neutrality" - Digital Discrimination or Regulatory Gamesmanship in Cyberspace?
http://www.cdt.org/speech/net-neutrality/20040112t hierer.pdf

In summary, there isn't unanimity among techs about whether regulating net neutrality is good or not so it makes sense that it wasn't included as one of the issues.

Tech friendliness != Pro-tech.

[kinglink]

While this is interesting, it sounds like this is more pro-tehnology, then tech friendliness or technology understanding. Why isn't Maria Cantwell 100 percent? She worked for Real Networks so she know technology = good. The simple fact is just because a bill supports technology doesn't mean it's a good bill.

Then they take 20 votes? Are these really the best 20, especially when the top candidates only voted in around half of them in the senate? Or are these the top 20 that Cnet agrees with? The methodology is good, the analysis is good, and the facts are interesting, I just think that they could have used a large potential sample.

That being said it's interesting to see who's for and against technology and how they voted on a couple issues, I hope google hurries up and gets the GOOGLE VOTE or what ever it will be so we can look at exactly what every candidate has said and what every candidate actually has done with votes for the 2008 election (2007 better but it probably won't be that good at that point). We'll be able to do this type of search on our own.

Re:Tech friendliness != Pro-tech.

[young-earth]

Yes Maria worked for Real - in marketing. Those on the 'net in those days may remember she was crowned "Queen of Spam" as she started a lot of the unsolicited commercial email practices in the early days. I have to live with her as my senator, and let's just say she is known in Washington as Maria Cant-Vote-Well.

It's all about corruption

[Bimo_Dude]

I'm with you on that one. I consider myself a liberal, and certainly enjoy my share of Bush/Repblican bashing. However, after looking at the voting records of many of the folks in the Senate/House, I have to say that I think they're just about all a bunch of crooks. This is no longer a left/right repub/dem issue... it's about corruption and hypocrisy, and representatives on both sides of the isle are peoblematic in this regard.

The way I see it it that we could reduce taxes and improve services and education if we were to eliminate most of the graft in the US government.

Re:Amending the correction.

[Shadowmist]

Let's call the spade a spade okay? That "excellent example" was for the abolishment of affirmative action. Which is fine and hunky-dory if you think that all the racial disadvantage problems in the United States have been fixed. Others however might disagree with that assumption.

Re:Where's Ted Stevens and his tubes?

[joeljkp]

What's wrong with his "tubes" analogy? It's the same thing as bragging about your "fat pipe".

yea... does not seem very tech-friendly to me.

[bigmammoth]

If congressman Ron Paul is so tech centric why does he link to proprietary windows media for his video clips, when he could link to the all open source ogg theora archive of his appearances :P

I am sort of joking but seriously its not like Ron Paul is campaigning for full transparency (he falls under the Transparency is not a priority list. He is not campaigning for open source software in government nor an end to DMCA. Although he does appear good on de-federalization...

In terms of so called "free trade"...the removal of local/national government regulatory structures in favor of transnational corporate regulatory structures against labor, the environment and local determinism guided by the single metric of maximizing profit does not really fall on either side of tech-friendly IMHO.

Re:Pro-Tech?

[east coast]

Nonsense, taxation hurts business and the bottom line.

Uh, that's what I just said.

Do you think companies would spend less on R&D because of taxes? NO! Its because they want to stay ahead of the competition. As for government spending, critical technologies like stem cell research wouldn't be possible without it. The government can throw a lot more money around than a single private company can or would be willing to do.

Good way to contradict yourself, your saying business doesn't have the money to throw around and you hint that companies that do have money to throw around are stingy but you claim they're "balls to the wall" about R&D no matter what their overhead is? That doesn't make any sense.

If we waited for the commercial sector to take us to the moon, we'd probably never get there.

That's really funny. Seeings as where the first private space flight didn't take place until 2003-2004 and that they're already planning for LOE and minor space tourism in the next 18 months? The private space race is going to grow in leaps and bounds. It already is compared to the clunky progress of any government space program.

Re:Amending the correction.

[krell]

Yes, let's call a shovel a shovel. Affirmative action is racism. By abolishing it you don't fix all of the racial problems of the United States. However, you do fix one big one. I don't want it abolished because "all the racial disadvantage problems in the United States have been fixed". I want to abolish it because it IS one.

How can any reasonable human being defend discriminating against people for having the wrong skin color? Yet, that is exactly what affirmative action demands. We need less discrimination, not more.

Re:Ron Paul supports illegal warrantless wiretappi

[CAIMLAS]

No, he supports warrantless internet monitoring or something like it.

Re:Correction... if only you were correct?

[Darby]

I will agree with you on that, It just bothered me the parents post was equating right wingers with slavery... which is factually incorrect...


Now you're trying to equate "right winger" with Republican, so you're wrong again.

It is entirely factually correct. Slavery is entirely a right-wing thing. It's about as purely right wing an idea as it's possible to have.

The problem is that you don't actually know what any of these words mean and so you come across as pretty silly when you try to correct others.

"Right" and "Left" are best defined in terms of what they're right and left *of*, which is Liberalism.
Classical Liberalism, that is.

Liberalism in a nutshell: "We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal".

Left means you *agree* with that fundamental principle but further believe that the power of the state should be used against the individual to promote/enforce that equality.

Right means you fundamentally *disagree* with the idea that people should be treated equally and further you believe that the power of the state should be used against the individual to keep them down and subservient to the elite.

So slavery is 100% a right wing thing.

Republicans and Democrats sometimes go along that left/right divide, but not always. For example, the current Republicans in congress are extremist right wingers which is perfectly in keeping with the fact that they are the most corrupt congress in our history by a huge margin. Giving huge gifts of our tax dollars to massively profitable companies is one of the more obviously extremist right wing actions they've taken.

Seriously, the 3 main divides politically in America now are Conservative/Liberal which is totally meaningless since modern Liberals ain't Liberal and modern Conservatives ain't that either. Democrat/Republican which is a simple matter of party membership and Left/Right which most people, yourself included, don't even know what are yet you still use them.

The fact that most "debates" in this country treat all 3 divides as the same jsut shows the hideous ignorance of our citizenry.

Seriously though, you really should try to at least have a basic idea what the hell you're talking about before you twice try to correct people when they are right. It makes you look ignorant and foolish.

Well What About "Maccaca Boy"?

[eno2001]

Where does he fall? Huh? HUH???

many other factors to consider

[coaxial]

Case in point: The biggest winner in the Senate, George Allen (78%).

Sorry. But I'm not voting for a racist.

Re:Correction... if only you were correct?

[Darby]

So your equating Republicans with extremist right wingers, odd, that sounds familiar....

No, I'm specifying that the *current* Congressional Republicans are extremist right wingers. This doesn not equate "Republican" and "right-winger" in all situations and most especially not in a historical context which is what is being discussed.


The OP was the one equating Republicans with the right wing and slavery, of which i find no indications of slavery being part of the right wing politics platform
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics
Nor would history or yourself, indicate proof of such a correlation

In fact I did provide exactly such proof. The idea that one person is inherently better than another to the extreme that it's ok for the one to own the other is entirely 100% right wing by definition.

In fact the predominately Liberal party in America has a former KKK member in its ranks, was pro-segregation in the south less than a generation ago, and currently is the party which supports racist policies that do not promote equality like affirmitive action. I guess we both agree, those are hardly liberal ideas

You keep making the same idiotic mistake and it has been pointed out to you by myself and several other people. So you know that you're not only wrong, but idiotically so.
The Democrats are *now* largely considered to be "Liberal", but that word itself doesn't mean what it used to. Nor do the policies of the current Democratic party have much in common with the policies of the Democratic party of a hundred years ago.
These are really pretty simple concepts which you've had explained to you several times. The fact that you keep spouting the same nonsense even through you know full well that it is complete crap since you've already been shown that many times does say a lot about you, none of it good.


Some, including myself, consider the political Right to include those forms of liberalism that emphasize the free market more than egalitarianism in wealth and equality for ALL, not just a minority of people(ie: affirmitive action)

Well, you're wrong.
What you're describing is classical Liberalism. The Right is not Liberal. The Right is violently opposed to Liberalism, and is in favor of corporate welfare and other types of wealth transfer from those who earn the money to those who already have money.

You can "consider" whatever you want, but you'll continue to be wrong. Further, by attempting to call Liberal policies "right wing", you are seeking to muddy the waters and to marginalize the entire concept.
There is a very large, very distinct difference between Liberalism and it's vicious opponents, the Left and the Right which you are trying to bury.


I am sorry , I do not find any references or facts to back up your claim that Slavery is a right wing "thing" nor did you provide any. I assume by your logic Americas forefathers had been extremist right wingers?

It follows directly from the definition. It's nbot complicated.

In regards to the idea of slavery, the FFs *were* extremist right wing. They obviously weren't Liberal on that issue since slavery is the opposite of individual liberty. They obviously weren't left wing on slavery as they would have benned it. That only leaves right wing and given the fact that the right is defined by the manner of its opposition to Liberalism, it follows directly that it is an entirely right wing view.


Now on to your baseless insults of myself and the American people...

It wasn't a baseless insult of anything.
You are a deeply ignorant person. You have proven that repeatedly. Stating that isn't an insult it's the statement of a fact.


So your basic gist is, I am foolish, silly and ignorant, The rest of the American citizenry is ignorant, and none of us know what we are talking about except for "enlightened" people like yourself which

CPI - the numbers are propaganda

[tehdaemon]

Sorry, but the CPI has almost nothing to do with real inflation - even if inflation is defined as price increases.

See this article, skip dpwn to 'indirect manipulation'. The short of it, inflation - using the flawed definition of increasing prices - is closer to 10% than 2%.

Second, your examples of unstable gold prices are deeply flawed, simply because you measure them in terms of US dollars. A tailored suit costs about the same in gold now as it did 200 years ago. Investment demand can only exist when you do not have a gold standard. (and investment demand is a key cause of gold's volatility - but it is nothing more than a reflection of underlying volitility in the US dollar.)

"When the currency isn't pegged to some commodity, the Fed can make adjustments to track whatever they want. By manipulating the monetary supply..."

Any manipulation of the money supply artifically changes prices. Prices determine whether suppliers increase or derease production, whether consumers demand more or less, or switch to something else, whether they save, invest, or go into business themselves. Artifical price changes can cause demand to exceed supply - without motivating suppliers to increase supply, and many other similar distortions. In almost every case an artificial price change trades a short term benifit for a long term loss. The result is disbalanced and fragile economies - what we see today almost worldwide - and usually ends in crashes.

About the only thing that your post was right about is the fact that even a gold standard can have inflation and deflation - it just usually is not big enough to harm the economy - and it sometimes helps. Fiat currencies always end in disaster.

Re:Correction... if only you were correct?

[coaxial]

I am sorry , I do not find any references or facts to back up your claim that Slavery is a right wing "thing" nor did you provide any.

Perhaps, but serfdom definately is. And serfdom vs slavery is a distinction without a difference.

Re: bRon Paul

[FractalZone]

What a go, Ron Paul.

For those who don't realize it, Ron Paul ran for President once as the Libertarian Candidate.

Yeah, then he began to understand Realpoliticks. Paul can be more effective as a libertarian-leaning member of the GOP's controlling Congress than he can as a Libertarian Party candidate that the ignorant Demmie or GOP masses will not vote for because he doesn't belong to "their party".

Ron Paul isn't a perfect legislator, but he comes closer to what I want in a representative than almost any other Congresscritter in my adult life...too bad he is from TX (a nice place to live) and not a decaying leftist state (where I happen to be at the moment). He could right more wrongs in a place like CA, IL, or NJ.

Ron Paul's essays

[dark_requiem]

Ron Paul has written an extensive collection of editorials and essays which can be found at his archive at lewrockwell.com. He's the one politician I actually respect, and typically reasons and expresses his viewpoints extremely well. The above link includes articles covering everything from technology, to economics, to freedom. Highly recommended reading.

Re:Counter-intuitive Rating...

[dark_requiem]

The obvious question: why? You make a blanket assertion that the rights of some are to be subjugated to the "good" of others. You fail to (1)identify who's good you refer to (for the children, I assume), (2)exactly what constitutes the good for that group and why, (3)why the good of that group should trump the inalienable rights of everyone else, and (4)exactly how you expect this restriction to achieve this goal.

Re:John Kerry is Satan...

[haplo21112]

You were supposed to read it as John Kerry who is unfortunately my senator, is a dickhead! I am positve that he takes bribes of one sort or another from big business. These are taken to encourage him to vote exactly the way that they want him to vote and he doesn't give a crap what the people he is actually representing want. Is the Broadcast flag in the best interest of the American public, NO...John the Asshole Kerry Supports it. Is the DMCA in the interest of the American public, NO...John "son of Satan" Kerry supports it.

Re:Where's Ted Stevens and his tubes?

[Rakarra]

I tend to have a strong dislike for Senator Stevens. He's made quite a name for himself, but not in a good way. He's possibly the senator I would most like to see leave office, and that even includes the two senators from my state (Boxer and Feinstein). Yet the tubes analogy is what people pick to jump on? Steven's analogy was not terrible and it seems that the strongest criticism of it comes from people (like the Daily Show writers) who don't really understand how the Internet works. ISPs and network admins have been calling Internet connections "pipes" for many years more than Senator Stevens has, and the notion that P2P traffic can fill the connection and bog it down for anyone else should be obvious to anyone who's had a home network with a roommate that uses BitTorrent.

Re:Correction... if only you were correct?

[Darby]

Apparently you are so smart you don't need to check the definition of "right wing" before you declare that your opinion is the definition

That's an entirely worthless definition you linked to.
I already gave you the definition that I am using, and unlike yous it's actually useful for discussion.


Instead of using your false statements and opinions as proof, maybe you can cite an example showing your definition of "right wing". Specifically your assertion that it is a person that inherently believes they are better than another. I have yet to see you cite a single source.

I gave many examples illustrating exactly how the definition applies.
Here is a good article running through the various similarities and differences.

Further more, these are really pretty simple concepts which I've explained to you several times. The fact that you keep spouting the same nonsense without a grasp of the definition of "right wing" even though the dictionary clearly states this definition does say a lot about you, none of it good, that is my opinion, not a fact like you would claim.

Like I said, the definition that you gave is completely worthless in any sort of discussion, and doesn't address anything in terms of what sort of behavior or actions are associated with such a stance.
It also creates a fasle dichotomy by casting the political spectrum as a "left/right" divide when it's more complicated than that. Specifically It completely ignores the whole idea of Liberalism which is what the left and the right are both violently opposed to.


Actually I was stating that the Democrats have not changed over the last generation, say 50 years. Proof as indicated by continually promoting racist policies like affirmitive action and keeping former KKK members like Robert Byrd in there ranks. You fail to acknowledge either fact or cite any facts disproving said points other than your eloquent opinions like:

And you completely fail to acknowledge the simple basic fact that was pointed out to you many times that the vast majority of the blatant racists left the Democratic party en masse and went to the Republicans when the Democrats started standing up for civil rights. Whether or not there is one hanger on you can point to is irrelevant.
The fact that you continually try to hold up one bad example to stand up against millions shows for far outside reason you're going with this.


Actually sir, that is your opinion, not a fact. Oh and here are your other "facts"


No, it is a fact that you are a deeply ignorant person. You have proved that beyond the shadow of a doubt by continually repeating nonsense after several people have already pointed out exaclty where and how *you* screwed up.
Had you just been wrong once, then you would have been ignorant of that point and had you acted with integrity and stopped repeating idiotic nonsense you would have shown yourself to be a reasonable person.
As it is, you have shown yourself to be a deeply ignorant person just as I said.
It's a fact, not an opinion.


I could possibly be convinced of this if you would provide maybe some numbers, some links, anything will do, other than your baseless claims and opinion... At least qualify your statement with "One of the most corrupt" so you don't look dumb when someone else proves your opinion wrong with REAL proof other than an opinion.

Well, if you're that out of touch with reality nad current events then there is no way to have any sort of a rational discussion with you. Just look at how many of your scum are in prison, on trial, or under investigation right now.
These aren't difficult concepts, Sparky.
The fact that you're afraid to deal with reality as it is is the only thing holding you back from being a decent citizen.

Perhaps you are, I will not speculate your an idiot or ignorant like you so aptly like to

Re:Amending the correction.

[Shadowmist]

Affirmative action is NOT about racism, it's about fixing the mess that 4 centuries of racism in this country have caused. It's the recognition of the fact that women and minorities have been put into artficial ceilings on acheivement and that postive action is needed to correct an unjust situation. It does take these kind of measures to end dicrimination in the wider society.

Re:Correction... if only you were correct?

[Darby]

Outside the United States (where capitalism is supported by a broad range of politicians and people from the left and the right), the most notable distinction between left and right is in economic policy. The right advanced capitalism, whereas the left advocated socialism (often democratic socialism) or communism. Some on the right advocate laissez faire capitalism, tending toward minarchism,

What, you need more examples of how the definitions you are using are wrong or worthless?

Where, in that paragraph above does it put Liberalism?

Oh, it doesn't? You mean it completely leaves out an entire spectrum of thought instead arbitrarily lumping it in with one of the others with no mention?

That right there is a crystal clear example of how completely broken the definitions you are trying to use are. They ignore a large chunk of reality and incorrectly lump that philosophy in with one that violently opposes it.

Right wing and Laissez Faire are diametrically opposed.

Right wing believes in corporate welfare. Liberalism supports Laissez Faire.

Your definition does not address this basic fact and it tries to completely erase the very idea of Liberalism reducing it to a false dichotomy between the two pro big government anti-individual parties.

Re:Correction... if only you were correct?

[Darby]

Unlike your failed notion that "right-wing" means your pro-slavery....

Wow, not only are you ignorant of basic political philosophies, but your reading comprehension skills are deplorable.

Supporting slavery is a right wing ideal absolutely by definition.
Being "right-wing" unless you make it clear that you support every single *possible* right-wing ideology doesn't mean you're pro-slavery.

Seriously, if you can't even read, then there isn't much point in expecting you to be able to learn.