Slashdot Mirror
McCain Wants Ballmer For His Cabinet
While many people jumped all over presidential hopeful John McCain's wrong-headed view on network neutrality, few noticed his infuriating love for Microsoft. "[T]he 70 year old presidential hopeful also said that he would ask Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to serve on his cabinet to deal with technology issues if elected. He did not however say what position Ballmer might be hired in, but did joke that he might consider him for a diplomatic position, such as ambassador to China."
So a presidential hopeful wants somebody who at least knows how technology works to be a technology adviser? Say it ain't so! However, I do hope this happens so he is able to re-use the "Developers, developers, developers" presentation.
"It's a reverse vampire...they....they crave the sun!"
Well. Better the devil you know than the usual political hack that doesn't know anything about tech. :)
Seriously, it's got to be mostly a symbolic move to lure some business/tech folks. I think McCain is probably just throwing a name out there, and that Ballmer would be a poor choice due to his personality and the small fact that he already has, you know, a pretty full-time job. But if McCain's announcement gets voters and candidates thinking that yes, tech policy actually does matter, that's a very good thing.
Not because I think he's become crooked,
Oh, he was crooked a long time ago. Google the "Keating Five" to see the sorts of people McCain has chosen to associate with over the years.
I do not understand the appeal of this simpering asstard to voters with otherwise-enlightened sensibilities.
The appointment of Ballmer would make more sense coming from a dogmatic president like Bush. Ballmer's all about preaching the Windows dogma. The cabinet should be populated with pragmatists.
So a presidential hopeful wants somebody who at least knows how technology works to be a technology adviser? Say it ain't so!
If "knifing the baby", "cutting off oxygen" and "fucking killing" is how technology works, McCain has his man. Ballmer knows NOTHING about technology and needs the kind of business ethics class that comes with steel bars on the door.
I hope the whole thing was a bad joke, but there is no mistaking McCain's stance on network neutrality. Love of M$ goes hand in hand with approval of ATT's tactics.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
A presidential hopeful wants someone who actively opposes fair competition/cooperation in the industry to advise him on tech policy.
This is not trollish conjecture, the anti-trust lawsuits didn't come out of thin air, and the anti-cooperation charge should require no explanation.
Allow me to also note the increasing movement among U.S. State governments to pursue open standards technology. You want to talk friction? What sort of leverage would MS have on this issue? They already threatened contract-infringement legal action against the state of California just because the state considered having an official conversation about open standards.
Regards.
On the other hand, if McCain is looking for someone to help build monopolies illegally and then illegally leverage those monopolies, then Ballmer's the dude.
Wouldn't there be a conflict of interest if the CEO of one of the country's biggest tech companies was helping determine tech policy? Certainly even someone who isn't tech-savvy can see that. It'd be a little bit like asking the CEO of an oil company to determine environmental policy. Even if Ballmer were to step down from his position (and I'm not holding my breath on that one), he probably still owns tons of MS stock. On a side note, McCain's opinion on net neutrality seems to be founded on a general small-government policy, not on a technical understanding of the situation. You can't just use a blanket "small government" argument for all things... some things work better when they're private companies, and others work better as public institutions. There's a reason why water is a public utility, power is often regulated, and software is produced mostly by private companies. Politicians should think that through before they parrot the party line on small/big government again.
I produce electronic music and write little games. Have a look.
Simple: many people have decided that he can't be as bad as Bush (generally ignoring his voting record) solely because he lacks any obvious mental defects, and at least has some personal knowledge of why torture's a stupid method of intelligence gathering.
When you lower the bar enough, anyone can reach it.
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
Ballmer has a track record of taking a large, powerful empire and gradually frittering away its goodwill, resources, and internal cohesion by his aggressive posturing, constant confrontation, and wilful ignorance of what made it great in the first place.
The question is, how has he *avoided* becoming a member of the Republican administration for so long?
Disclaimer: I couldn't care less about US party politics, but the parallel is actually striking enough to mention.
Meta-Disclaimer: I am aware of the locution 'could care less' and I consider it WRONG WRONG WRONG!!! *throws chair*
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
You're not really explaining why that would be a bad thing...
"Oh please not Ron Paul..."
I've heard what the man has to say, and yeah, a lot of it is typical Libertarian wacko BS.
As the same time, he hasn't been bought off by the usual suspects. Like the poster above, I would have voted for McCain in a HEARTBEAT in 2000, even knowing what I do now about Gore (Gore 2000 is a different man than Gore 2007 regardless of what he'd like to say...I still think he has been one of the most consistently smartest people in politics for 20 years, just not a great politician).
But I'll take a president that offers wacko ideas just to break the monotony. No party is going to get lockstepped behind him the way the Republicans did Bush, or partly the way the Dems did behind Clinton before the Republican uprising. Which brings up another thing -- one of the greatest things of the Clinton era was that EVERYONE had to compromise. No one got what they wanted. And because of it, there was discussion and debate and things had to happen because everyone found a common platform that they could agree on and the country had some of the largest gains because of it.
With Ron Paul, I could see the same thing happening again. I'd LOVE to see a president that actually understood how to veto. And knew when it was appropriate. Clinton understood how to do this and even tried to get a line-item veto in that would allow his to use his pen even more (unfortunately, it was passed in an unconstitutional manner...I bet if they did something like this with Riders it might actually pass the supreme's muster...errr...then again, maybe thats what it was...it was a long time ago that I read up on this stuff).
I'd love to see a real maverick running the country. I could care less if his politics match mine or not. I just don't want some jingoistic motherfucking corporate whore that seems to be able to convince the lower half of the bell curve that something is right and thus you shouldn't question nor educate yourself about such matters (you only need 51% in the US of A).
Among the Republican candidates, both John McCain and Ron Paul are the least dishonest candidates -- even if you disagree with their political positions. McCain is honest in saying that a substantial increase in troops in Iraq can transform the country. He is correct. Increasing the number of Western occupying soldiers to 400,000, pushing aside the Iraqi government, and running Iraq as a colony on the basis of Western values (e.g., equality for women) will transform Iraq into a prosperous, liberal Western nation. At the end of 20 years of occupation, we can relinquish control to democratically elected Iraqi politicians who spent most of their youth in a Western-value-dominated colony.
At the same time, Ron Paul is correct when he says that American foreign policy (like deposing the democratically elected government of Iran in the 1950s) is, at least partially, responsible for Arab attacks (like the 9/11 incident) against American citizens.
Note that neither men can win this election. American voters do not want to hear truth. Neoconservative voters especially do not want to hear the truth. They wanted war on the cheap and cheered using a pathetic force of 160,000 soldiers to occupy Iraq. Of course, these voters refuse to support making sacrifices for the war; their attitude is, "You make all the sacrifies for the war. You die for the war. As for me, I make no sacrifices. I will not support even a tax increase to pay for this war. Excuse me! I must hop in my SUV and head off to the baseball game!"
When Ron Paul told the truth during the recent debate, the Republican voters booed and condemned him. They do not want to hear about American responsibility for the 9/11 incident. In the debate, Ruddy Giuliani viciously attacked Paul and his utterance of the truth. Few politicians are as dishonest as Giuliani, so he has the best chance of being nominated as the Republican candidate. The American voter prefers hearing lies.
On the Democratic side, the least dishonest politicians are Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, and Barack Obama.
Okay. Clinton has a good chance of being president. However, she keeps saying the truth. She refuses to apologize for her vote authorizing the use of force against Iraq. Although we now know that the CIA intelligence data was wrong, supporting the use of force was appropriate since, in 2003, we believed that the intelligence data was correct. If a nation with a leader making violent threats does have weapons of mass destruction, authorizing the use of military force against this nation is appropriate -- maybe, even, desirable. Clinton voted correctly. She correctly refuses to apologize for the vote.
However, if she keeps sticking to the truth, she will ruin her chances to win in the election. The dumb American voter does not want to hear the truth. So, henceforth, Clinton should avoid talking about her vote on the use of force -- if she wants to win. She must focus on flashy superficialities -- just like Giuliani.
Of course, Fred Thompson has an excellent chance to win. Nothing is more superficial and flashy than an actor.
Maybe there's some third party candidate who's palatable to you. Vote for them. Or write in yourself. Sure, it doesn't actually make any difference in who gets elected, but I figure it shows analysts that there's people willing to vote, just not for the two bought-off clowns that they assume everyone'll vote for, so maybe they'll run someone a little less evil the next time (unlikely, I know). In my opinion, not voting at all just tells them that fewer people care about politics, but the ones that still do don't mind the poor selection of candidates.
Personally, I'll probably be voting for Stewart/Colbert in 2008. They and their writers seem to have a better grasp on reality than most politicians.
McCain is a veteran and a P.O.W. who experienced torture first hand.
From his perspective: If you're going to commit to a war, commit to it.
He's admittedly avoiding questions about whether we should have gone in the first place (realities being what they are, there's absolutely no way he could get the republican nomination if he went that far against the republican president.
Still, accepting that it has happened, there are basically three choices: get the hell out and deal with the fallout (becoming the more popular view), stay with your head burried in the sand (the administration policy for the last 4 years), stay and do what needs doing to do it right (McCain's choice). That's pretty common amongst Vietnam vets who are largely convinced Vietnam was winnable had the politicians not hamstrung them at every turn.
The interesting thing about McCain is his ethics on how you go about winning that war. Month on month, the war in Iraq has become more of a failure and more insurgents are turning up. Surely if you kill or capture the numbers the U.S. do, that number should go down? No, you piss away all credibility by torturing people, you piss off far more people who would never otherwise have been insurgents - torturing and abandonning ethics recruits for the other guy far better than anything he could do. As a P.O.W. who was tortured, McCain's been vocal that it's never justified (sure, you might prevent an attack that kills 5,000 now but you radicalize enough people to kill 50,000 over time).
Personally, I think the war in Iraq was an horrific lie fed to the American people - Bin Laden never had real ties, Saddam never had real ties to 911, they never tried to buy yellowcake uranium and the chemical weapons that we sold to them were destroyed after the first gulf war. I think the current method of occupation is a great way to make the situation in the middle east worse and kill a lot of young Americans along with thousands of Iraqi civilians. I also think that getting out [sensibly] is the right thing to do...
So, I'd prefer a democrat that gets us out of the war entirely. Still, if I have to have a republican that keeps us there, let's get one with an actual clue about how to do something positive.
THANK YOU.
No, really, thank you! I get sick of hearing these humorless fuckwits who get all pissed off and act like somebody using "M$" just violated Godwin's Law. I haven't used that particular abbreviation in years, but there's nothing wrong with doing it once in a while. Some people just need the stick removed from their asses.
The scary thing about Mc Cain is that he make George bush look SMART... Ewwwwww
Vote Bull Moose in 08
McCain, Clinton, Rudy, Obama, it does not matter. Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between" Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like "America Deceived' from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason.
Vote for Dr. Ron Paul and stop this nonsense.
Last link (before Google Books bends to gov't Will and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)
Does "Conflict of Interest" have any meaning in US politics?
I thought it would be an utterly obvious case of No, he can't help formulate technology policy for the government because, obviously, he's a bit biased towards one particular company.
Funny, I'd vote him precisely for that short-sighted candor. Maybe that has to do with my belief that Putin is a fucking pussy, after all.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Software patents are not on any candidate's radar this election cycle. There is the war, there is health care. A hundred other issues that draw more passion then anything the geek can offer.
IT is one of the most stressful things people have to deal with. Computers are part of everyone's daily lives and the suck of non free software is too. A politician that does not realize this is out of touch. One that can't harness it is not a leader.
How can I convince you that software patents are important? Easy, it's your freedom, wellbeing and prosperity. The war is important. Declining standards of living is important and healthcare is part of that. Computers touch on these and all 100 of your other issues, but the bigger connector is run away corporate power and greed. Your computer needs to be free if you are ever to learn the truth about wars, healthcare and standards of living. Without a free press to inform you of your leader's dirty work, you will continually suffer unjust laws, wars and declining standards of living.
Laws like the DMCA and other crazy copyright attacks are both a symptom and a cause of corporate power. They are a symptom because free people would never knowingly vote their rights away. People voted that way because they were lied to. They were told that copyright and patent laws were "enablers." We understand the lie because our computers and the internet are a relatively free place. They are a cause because they can be used to take your freedoms away, which will leave you ignorant. Make no mistake you can worse off even than people before the internet if the internet is made non free. Before the internet, people had printed newspapers but you will only have broadcast and non free internet.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
For politicians of course the political party is different as political parties represent like minded individuals working together to win (too often their win and our loss) and in the case of the evangelical corporate bunko artists party (aka republicans, they will eventually become actual conservative republicans again it is just likely to take a decade or so).
This guy Mcain is obviously a fool, left to their own devices, corporations drift to the lowest conmen denominator and become total destructive in their greed. Anti-trust did not invent itself but purely came about because of monopolistic tendencies of corporations, if fact every single law that limits the competitive behaviour of corporations came about as a result of the harm being done to the general public.
What of course is really pathetic in the McCain case is the virtual public begging for campaign funds from Steve Ballmer, oh so sickeningly weak, but then Ballmer fawned all over the Chinese president so that China would favour Windows, so he most probably loves it. Could you just imagine Ballmer as VP, windows compulsory on all PCs, it would be considered they act of a traitor to criticize M$ and it would be $1000.00 for the compulsory annual licence renewal fee (unfortunately this is not a joke).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Being a professional political candidate (which is all elected officials are these days) is not unlike being an actor. It's even more superficial and flashy than acting, except you never admit it's fake. Come to think of it, no wonder Jesse Ventura was so qualified.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
I thought Taiwan was a full-blown prosperous democracy.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Professional political candidates do exist, and I don't think that they're that great of a thing. I think a leader should have experiences outside of government from which to draw upon to make them more effective. The problem I have with someone attacking a candidate simply for being an actor is in this case two-fold. First of all, Thompson has been an attorney and lobbyist which means that he has held other careers which give him direct insight into dealing with government... But most of all...
The first comment effectively is the same thing as "You're a drama geek, you can't be smart, and you cannot be trusted." What the heck is that?! Do we neccesarily need a governement full of professional statesmen, plumbers, or car mechanics? I'm sure no one here would endorse a government full of lawyers. So why look at someone's job and make a snap judgement on what kind of leader they would be?
The majority of the Slashdot community would all be insulted if someone said... You work in IT... You're a geek... You're ugly... probably live with your parents, don't have a girlfriend... you're going to die alone... and you don't make a difference in anyone's life. Those statements wouldn't be any less outrageous if you replaced IT with carpentry, banking, or any other profession including acting.
I love the fact that my original comment has been moderated "over-rated" by most of the people out there. I guess some people are more interested in censoring good discussion and thinking that makes them "right".
Before you flame me, you have to see the abysmal state of federal IT systems. A federal CTO that REALLY understood what was going on and could reallocate the resources to fix the problems would be a HUGE boon to efficient government. Feds are like 90% MS anyway, so it's really not a huge conflict of interests. Somebody like Balmer (might?) get it. Personally I would prefer some sharp Google exec that understood the nature of information, but I'll take what I can get.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
Where was the civil war in Germany after World War II? Where was the civil war in Japan after World War II? It didn't happen.
The circumstances are completely different. In Iraq you have three very different groups of people in one country where the minority government was just overthrown by outside forces. I knew that was going to be a recipe for disaster before we even invaded. A lot of people knew this outcome was likely.
Time makes more converts than reason