Slashdot Mirror
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."
What a go, Ron Paul.
For those who don't realize it, Ron Paul ran for President once as the Libertarian Candidate.
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.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
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.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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/
-Tom
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.
Apparently they aren't ranked?
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.
--
make install -not war
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.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
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.
-- Under/Overrated is meta-moderation, and therefore is Redundant.
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.
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.
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
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.