Examining Presidential Candidates' Tech Agendas

Aaron Ricadela writes to mention that BusinessWeek is taking a look at the tech agendas for several presidential candidates. The amount of attention being paid to Silicon Valley especially is unprecedented with the computer industry citing contributions of $2.2 million up from just $1.2 million in the first six months of the 2004 and 2000 primary campaigns. "So even while the general election is likely to be dominated by the war in Iraq, the continued threat of terrorism, and economic issues, candidates have staked out early positions on topics dear to the tech industry, including increasing federal spending on research and development, allowing more highly educated foreign workers into the country, widening the availability of high-speed Internet service to create new markets for hardware and online services, and improving the state of U.S. math and science education."

Comments

I hope

[Etrias]

I hope one of their goals is to get bigger tubes for this new "inter-web" thing.

I hear it could be big.

Re:I hope

[thatskinnyguy]

Tubes? I like to think of it more as a web. A world wide web perhaps. Nahh

Re:I hope

[The Great Pretender]

Well then they need bigger spiders, perhaps mechanical ones...with lasers on their heads

Re:I hope

[Anonymous Coward]

See, if Al Gore would have thought ahead when he was inventing the internet we wouldn't have this problem now.

H1-B

[Anonymous Coward]

allowing more highly educated foreign workers into the country

I guess Aaron Ricadela has no problem with the industry bulking up with people who are accustomed to earning under $1USD per day in their home country.

Re:H1-B

[morgan_greywolf]

It's all a part of the plan described by Michel Chossudovsky, a professor of economics at the University of Ottawa. The globalization of poverty puts less money in the pockets of the 'have-nots' and more money in the pockets of the 'haves'. It's all about the rich getting richer at your expense and mine.

Re:H1-B

[p0tat03]

Get a clue, and cut it out with the rampant unsubstantiated FUD.

As a Canadian I know many former colleagues who are now working in the US on H1B's, and know even more who have returned to Canada (for one reason or another) after working in the US for years in the same capacity. I also know a great number of work visa immigrants in my home country that I work closely with every single day.

All are highly educated individuals who are very capable in their work, and amongst the elite in their home countries. None come from sweatshop environments, in both the literal and metaphorical senses. All were very well paid in their home countries and enjoyed a quality of life similar to what we enjoy here.

All of the Canadian H1B's that went to the States that I know were brought in because of their unique skillsets, not because their salary demands were low. When they were hired their salaries were on par with their American colleagues, and none ever felt that they were there as cheap labour, as opposed to highly skilled additions to the company.

America is built upon these people, and thanks to you and your xenophobic brethren, it is being threatened. The hostility towards Muslims, minorities, and generally anyone out to "steal your job" is making the US plummet on the list of desirable places to move to. The vast majority of my colleagues who went to the USA have since returned, as economic conditions at home improve, and social conditions in your country worsen. Your great nation was built upon the importation of top-notch talent from around the world - Bohr, Einstein, all were immigrants. The openness and inclusiveness of America was what made it a shining beacon for the top people in the world to gather, and your little lighthouse has fallen into ill repair thanks to attitudes like yours.

Expect more inclusive countries to overtake yours soon - countries that embraces importing talent from overseas to strengthen themselves, instead being morbidly afraid of it.

Re:H1-B

[TubeSteak]

My thoughts exactly.

Even though H1-Bs are supposed to be paid 'market rate', the net result is that bringing them into the country depresses market rates.

Good for business, bad for workers.

Re:H1-B

[bhmit1]

allowing more highly educated foreign workers into the country

I guess Aaron Ricadela has no problem with the industry bulking up with people who are accustomed to earning under $1USD per day in their home country.

Personally, I don't have an issue with someone coming to the US that was accustomed to earning under $1/day. But they should play by the same rules, and not the "do what we say or you'll be deported" semi-slavery we have now. If someone is willing to do the same work under the same conditions and terms for less money than me, then I should be finding something better to do.

After all, if the US didn't believe in getting the best scientist from other countries, Germany would have had the atom bomb first and Nasa would have been set back years.

Re:H1-B

[russotto]

Expect more inclusive countries to overtake yours soon - countries that embraces importing talent from overseas to strengthen themselves, instead being morbidly afraid of it.

Like which countries? Any Western European one? Har, har, har. Japan? Guffaw... China? You've got to be kidding. I actually don't know of any country which really embraces importing talent from overseas. No, not even Canada.

I don't think too many Americans are upset over Canadian H1B or NAFTA visa workers. It's workers from third-world countries who are perceived to be the problem. Personally I'd rather they be working here than in their home country; if they're working here they have expenses more similar to mine, and therefore will not settle for nearly as low a salary as they would if they were working as outsourced talent in their home country.

Re:H1-B

[Rotten168]

Slashdot is filled with whiny crybabies. These folks can write a Java program and for that they don't think they should have to compete with people the world over. Ignore these idiots.

Re:H1-B

[MightyMartian]

You have to translate all of that out of Washingtonian-double-talk back into Southern-Dixiecrat-cum-Republican talk. So, for instance, "The American worker must be protected from cheaper imported labor" actually means (and say this in a good Foghorn Leghorn voice) "We here don't want none of those funny brown-skinned peckers with odd last names coming here and takin' any of our lazy-ass good ol' boys jobs they ain't never gonna work at anyways."

Re:H1-B

[frank_adrian314159]

The openness and inclusiveness of America was what made it a shining beacon for the top people in the world to gather, and your little lighthouse has fallen into ill repair thanks to attitudes like yours.

Oddly enough, I tend to think you have it backwards. Because our workers' political and economic lighthouse has gotten into such ill repair (real wage loss, especially when computed with non-core inflation; loss of social safety net; loss of political power for common people; etc.), a backlash against someone should hardly be unexpected. It is a shame that we always find the alien at fault rather than the corporate and political leaders who actually allowed this to happen, but when you see your own potential for economic advancement being washed away, you're not going to feel too happy about sharing what little you have with others.

Re:H1-B

[Lord Kano]

When they were hired their salaries were on par with their American colleagues, and none ever felt that they were there as cheap labour, as opposed to highly skilled additions to the company.

Have you considered that they were depressing wages because the additional supply of labor drove down what they were being paid?

Your great nation was built upon the importation of top-notch talent from around the world - Bohr, Einstein, all were immigrants.

Not to mention Tesla.

H1Bs aren't about bringing the best and brightest. They're about increasing the supply of educated labor to drive down prices.

Einstein, Bohr, Tesla, et all were not brought here on "Worker" visas.

LK

Re:H1-B

[w0lfire]

I wouldn't say it will be "overtaken" but it will certainly reach a breaking point as a system [as all systems do]. That being said I'm looking into moving to Canada because of the education being less expensive and better, most countries put more emphasis in math and science instead of just sports [or at least are on par] and you actually get to learn the stuff from the very basics, High School was a joke in that dept, and I supposedly went to a very good school, the amount you have to pay to go to a good college [or maybe it's just the name] is ridiculous. So yeah, give more monies to math and science, maybe we will bridge the gap.

Re:H1-B

[evronm]

I actually don't know of any country which really embraces importing talent from overseas.

I actually know of precisely one: Dubai. They import essentially their entire workforce. And they're doing pretty well :).

Re:H1-B

[db32]

So, I would be interested to see your comments on the lawfirms that give seminars on how to cheat the system to hire on H1B instead of hiring available local talent. You brush this off like its not a problem because a few Canadian friends of yours weren't part of the masses of cheap labor imported by companies doing illegal things to avoid hiring Americans.

Here is a question for you. What motivation does an American have to become a "highly skilled individual" when the tech sector has become so notorious for importing replacements and using the highly skilled individuals to train them on their way out the door.

Our shining beacon going out has precious little to do with being xenophobic. It has more to do with profit mongering whores doing sheisty things to make an extra buck. Incidentally, you even missed some big ones. Not to destroy your point but I would like to mention the guys like Einstein and Oppenheimer and such weren't here on H1B visas... You want to move here, join society, great, welcome to America, we are glad to have your contributions, you want to come here on a visa and ship your paycheck home, we have plenty of leeches that we can't deal with that are natives, we don't need more.

Personally I would rather take all the illegal immegrants that snuck across our borders and got jobs and are trying to integrate and be productive and give them all of the SSNs of the worthless welfare leeches that aren't immegrants. Then take those leeches and deport their asses instead.

Re:H1-B

[FedeLebron]

I had this debate a few days ago. I'll start off by saying I'm argentinian. Born here, lived here all my life. I embrace legal immigration from every country to ours, and I think it's racist to be against it.
Here's my reasoning. I'm offered an H1-B visa from someone in the US for my knowledge and skills in a particular area. I move there legally, acquire a home, pay taxes, do everything a normal citizen should. This is immigrating there.
However, many people have issues if I charge less money than a local for a comparative or better job or particular task. How can someone be against me doing that, when I'm paying the exact same money you are for living there, my living expenses are the same if not higher, I'm contributing to the government by paying my taxes, and I'm willing to take the job for less money?
These same people, I doubt would complain had I been born in US soil. The only difference is, then, where I was born, since my other activities are the same as that of someone born there. Therefore they are discriminating against me based on where I was born. That is racism.
If I'm willing to do the same job with comparative quality, while paying the same taxes as you, and charge less, and a company there hires me, it's because I deserve it. If I'm willing or not to live in the same conditions as a local working the same job (I'm talking neighbourhood, food, social habits, etc.) it's my own issue, not yours. If you are willing to charge less for the same quality job, and live in a worse environment than I do, go right ahead. It's your prerogative, you've earned the job and are more what the company is looking for than I am. If I have to pay the same living costs as you do, pay the same taxes, and manage to live legally while asking for less money than you do, it's simply that I'm more fit than you are to survive.

That being said, I'm against illegal immigration, and don't justify it. We do have illegal immigration problems here in Argentina, especially in the textile and construction industries, from most of our neighbours. I completely disagree with that. But you'd be quite wrong to think that I would pick an argentinian that wants $2500 a month, to a legally immigrated bolivian wanting $2000 a month for the same quality job, if both are presenting similar qualifications. Choosing the argentinian one would make me racist.

Perhaps I'm being obtuse - would someone mind explaining me why a paraguayan person immigrating here, living here, paying his taxes, and asking equal or less than a local person, with similar qualifications, is less fit for the job?

Re:H1-B

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, because I live 15 minutes from an Indian ghetto. H1-Bs, all of them. I've talked to many of them as part of my job. Most work 70+ hours a week and make less than I do. I'm in retail sales and I work about half as many hours. They buy the cheapest products we carry. They can't get my job, because they H1-B is specifically for their tech job. Good for me, because they'd quit and work retail if they had the chance.

Re:H1-B

[coaxial]

You're right that the H1-B debate is dominated by xenophobic fud. The majority of H1-B recipients end up getting a green card and then naturalize. Like pretty much all immigration, on the whole, they're a net-plus. I'm all for immigration. The US (and Canada have been built on immigration. The constant in American history is last generation's immigrant communities becoming fully assimilated and then ironically turning against the new wave of immigrants. ("We can't let the Catholics in!" "We can't let the Germans in! Afterall, they're not like the Catholics!" "We can't let it Italians in! They're nothing like the Germans!" and on, and on, and on....) The irony of this, is not lost on some of us.[*]

Unfortunately like all fud, there's a bit a truth to it. A friend of mine with an H1-B is getting screwed. I'll even tell you what company it is. It's LG. LG hired my friend with a masters, but pays my friend bachelors wages, thus making the position less than the prevailing wage. HR has even admitted this to my friend, when my friend talked to them about green card sponsorship. HR's answer? "Let's change your title to match your wages, and then we'll throw you in the slowline for green card okay?" (Apparently MS holders have their green card apps processed faster by USCIS)

Now my friend has waited way too long to begin this process, and I fear my friend will run out of time, and ICE will deport them back to Korea, a country she hasn't lived in for almost 15 years.

Now that sucks.

Does this anecdote prove that H1-Bs are an attempt to drive down wages? No, and I never intended it to be one. In fact this is the only instance of this I've seen, and I know several immigrants that have/had H1-Bs. What it does show is that some companies do use it like that. I suspect LG is doing it in this case, because they're a Korean company, with an office filled with Koreans, and my friend is a Korean-American woman, and figured that being "Korean" she'd fit in, and being a woman in a highly patriarchal environment, they could push her around, and take advantage of the situation. And given that my friend isn't nearly as assertive as she should be, they found the perfect victim^H^H^H^H^H^Hemployee.

Fuck LG. After how they're treating my friend, I would never recommend LG to anyone.

Anyway, Canada's plan to undermine the American economy is to flood our vending machines with their lesser valued coins. ("65cents for a coke, eh? More like 40cents you yankee bastard. This is one is for stealing the Oilers." *clink*)[**] ;)

[*]I'm waiting for Chinese New Year to get assimilated/co-opted by the dominate culture. Everyone likes Chinese food (Well, Chinese-American food anyway. I don't know anyone except the Chinese that like to eat pig ears.), it's a holiday where you can drink, and it has fireworks. It's like St. Patrick's Day, and Oktoberfest, and Cinco de Mayo, and the Fourth of July all rolled into one. So pour the Tsingtao and pass the M80s! ("This year's Chinese New Year's Celebration is brought to you by Dr. Michael Hsiang of the Plastic Surgery Institute. Ask about the special finger re-attachment discount running all this week!")

[**] Oh shit! I just did the currency conversion, and the actual conversion rate between USD and CAD is 1.00:1.014. Thanks a lot GWB!

Re:H1-B

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, I'm not going to disagree with what you're saying (I do, in fact, agree with almost everything you are saying), but you also have to remember that there are other corporate agendas at hand - that is to say that many companies hire immigrant workers over others based on the fact that they are immigrants as a promotion of "diversity." In many cases, organizations, companies, and universities have "quotas" for "diversity" and will overlook some other factors to meet this quota. This is affirmative action, and is also racism. It is not law, but is private policy in many places. Now, I agree completely with the ideals of competition and legal immigration, and when an immigrant is granted acceptance from a university or a job from a company here it quite often is because they deserve it - but you can't completely disregard the exceptions to that case. "Diversity" should not be a substitute for equality.

Re:H1-B

[neomunk]

I read your post, agreed heartily then saw your sig. My jaw dropped.

Ron Paul may have a sane foreign policy, but his economic policy leads to worsening the nightmare situation you described. Massive deregulation is exactly what makes the money pump from bottom to top.

Re:H1-B

[Watson Ladd]

Deport them to where?

Re:H1-B

[w42w42]

It's a fine line with lots of variables, and arguments. I think thought a lot of people feel that these companies are trying to manipulate the labor market in their own countries to their own benefit, through the hiring of illegal immigrants, or the over user of H1-B's.

In your two examples, in the US on an H1-B, or working illegally in Argentina, there is sometimes not a lot of difference. Both sets of workers are in a foreign country, working for a lower wage (in your example) than what domestic workers would require. Shouldn't it be the right of people in those countries, native citizens and currently legal immigrants, to have first crack at those jobs?

Re:H1-B

[db32]

I honestly haven't decided. I mean the bottom of the ocean sounds nice. Or maybe send them to whatever country of origin the new owner of their SSN came from. I mean its only fair if people are sneaking out of a country that we send SOMEONE back to replace them right? Hell maybe we should send them out on the C Ark Douglas Adams style.

Re:H1-B

[megaditto]

Thanks to Senator Kennedy (D-MA) and his 'leadership' 40 years ago, the only two ways for a skilled foreigner to work in this country is to either marry a citizen, or wage-slave for 6+ years as an H1-B.

I for one cannot thank Ted enough...

Re:H1-B

[Eli Gottlieb]

The real problem is that domestic employers try to gain the legal system so that they can avoid looking for qualified workers in the domestic labor market entirely and skip straight to hiring a foreign immigrant, thus lowering wages.

The laws governing H1-B visas state that US companies must make every attempt to fill jobs with an American worker, but all American companies ever do is bitch about our education system (yes it's godawful, so why aren't you fixing it?) and go straight to H1-B.

Re:H1-B

[db32]

I think our entire immigration process is totally fucked. It absolutely should not take so long and so many backflips through flaming hoops to become a citizen. The real problem with illegals isn't that they are here, its that they are here and not paying taxes. I personally believe rather than building a fence, or arming guards, or any silly shit like that...we should just line up IRS workers along the border so they can hand out SSNs. "Welcome to America, here is your SSN, enjoy the services we have to offer, oh...and thank you in advance for paying your taxes."

Remember kids. Illegally entering our country gets you little more than media attention and some rednecks yelling at you. Tax evasion and you are going to jail for a long long time. Enjoy your stay. :)

Re:H1-B

[piojo]

You have good points, but I think you are wrong to call this racist. It's not, because favoring those who were born in my country over those that weren't has nothing to do with race.

Re:H1-B

[lxw56]

I don't know about that. Unlike many Republicans (and Dems), Ron Paul when deregulating would take away incentives, subsidies and loopholes for large corporations, and remove impediments to small enterprises, which would counter any increased power of the big people over the little.

Re:H1-B

[aichpvee]

I don't know if that would help across the board. There are a ton of Americans being raised to not even believe in science. I think they believe in math, but it's hard to tell because they don't seem to know any.

Re:H1-B

[neomunk]

I see where you're coming from, but I -SERIOUSLY- doubt that those relatively minor (not to say that they aren't good ideas, they are) offsets could compare to the giants like microsoft, google, walmart (especially walmart, they'll figure out how to reintroduce indentured servitude) etc unleashed from accountability.

Oh, you can say that they're accountable to the stock owners, but let's face it, in today's Ameritrade, mutual fund, 401K, blind investment world stockholders become more and more irrelevant when compared to company officers. Oh, the BIG stockholders count, but those big dawgs are as likely as not to take a loss on company A (where they own 12% and have significant influence) to double the stock on company B (where they own 55%) or dump tons of toxic waste in a river because it saves them massive cleanup costs and they know they'll be shutting that plant down in 6 months anyways. It's all shell-game strategy. This is already a problem due to under-regulation, no regulation will exasperate the problem, in my opinion.

Either way, you seem to believe what you say, and what you say (regardless of my doubts) makes sense. I can at least respect that. Hey, at least your guy doesn't think paying companies to ship jobs overseas is a good thing. :-)

Re:H1-B

[iminplaya]

You have to translate all of that out of Washingtonian-double-talk back into Southern-Dixiecrat-cum-Republican talk.

It's been done already.

Re:H1-B

[KevinIsOwn]

Dubai is not a country... it's a city (and an Emirate) within the UAE. However, you are correct that they do this, and they do it across the board- from low paid construction workers to university professors.

Re:H1-B

[morgan_greywolf]

First off, I agree with the parent. Secondly, I think regulation doesn't solve a whole lot of anything. Even on environmental issues, regulation works only in that it the laws are abided by and enforced. Unfortunately, the enforcement record -- or more precisely, lack thereof -- of environmental regulations by the federal government stands for itself.

The answer isn't entirely market forces, either, though, as the Libertarian Party would have you believe (I am a small 'l' libertarian). Market forces only work if people are educated and understand what's going on. If that were the case, Wal*Mart wouldn't be the #1 retailer in this country.

Ron Paul is not my 100% ideal candidate, but you have to be realistic and say probably nobody will ever fit your politics 100% unless you are a drooling idiot, in which case anybody will do. But as far as the field of candidates goes, he's the only one I would cast my vote for were he on the ballot in Novemeber 2008.

Re:H1-B

[bilabrin]

>Ron Paul may have a sane foreign policy, but his economic policy leads to worsening the >nightmare situation you described. Massive deregulation is exactly what makes the money >pump from bottom to top. Only the way we have it set up now. The rise of the modern day robber barron is actually due to anticompetitive legislation passed at all levels of government. It could be much more fair under a Paul system if much of this garbage legislation is overturned or if judges can set precident against it. Dr. Paul would only be able to fix the federal level abuses. But at least it you could pack up and move to the best states when yours fails the test. Or elect Libertarians to state and local office. Bottom line, any way you slice it, Free market econimics is the only path to true prosperity. We just have to be vigilant against influence!

Re:H1-B

[neomunk]

Just for the sake of completeness, I'd like to point out that I'm a Kucinich supporter myself. No, he's not 100% what I'd like, but he's honestly closer than any other politician I've ever heard.

And I would vote for Ron Paul myself if he were up against the Hillary or Obama. I'd rather not be drafted into a war with Iran thank you very much.

Kucinich / Paul '08 ;-)

Re:H1-B

[HiThere]

I don't expect Canadian or even Mexican H1B workers to give you a fair idea of the problem. Those are people who could leave for home is they were substantially abused. But their contracts are probably not fair examples of normal H1B contracts. And H1B workers reportedly are treated as indentured servants, aren't allowed to change employers, have their contracts misrepresented before they leave home. (Possibly not actually. It could be that they just have no concept of how expensive it is to live in an apartment in a US city.)

Note that H1B contracts aren't standard worker contracts. These are people who aren't being given permanent resident status, and can't earn it without returning home and applying from scratch.

Being against H1B workers is rather against being against slavery...only that's a bit of an overstatement. E.g., I'm not aware of rules that state that if an H1B worker gets married, then any kids are bound by his contract. (They better have dual citizenship, though, or they'll be in a hard way when their parents are deported at the end of the contract...and that's dependant on the rules of the country of origin.)

I'm against H1B workers because it's unfair competition in the same way that slavery is unfair competition. But as I said, I doubt that much of this applies to workers who can leave and return home under their own power. If you treated them the same way, they WOULD leave and return home.

Re:H1-B

[jdelisle]

making the US plummet on the list of desirable places to move to

According to whom? Statements like these need to be supported with references in order to be taken seriously.

Re:H1-B

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey you insensitive clod! I'm a drooling idiot! What's a vote?

Re:H1-B

[kmweber]

Liberty is desirable for its own sake, regardless of its consequences.

Practical arguments are irrelevant.

Re:H1-B

[Evtim]

I know another - The Netherlands. Amsterdam, with its miserable population of below 1 million is more culturally diverse than New York (177 nationalities vs. 150). If you look at the history you will see that the great success of Holland in the past is due predominantly to their willingness to accept people who would not be accepted in other countries. When Galileo was threaten by the Church, the ruler of Holland offered him a position in the Leiden University. IMO, America is becoming increasingly xenophobic and afraid of everyone, it is certainly a place where I would not go to live.Pity!

priorities?

[michaelmuffin]

I for one would be more than happy to give up my Internet connexion so Iraqis/Haitians/everyone else can have some food on their table. Are any candidates actually addressing Human Needs?

Re:priorities?

[AuMatar]

A large subset do, they're called Liberals. They only matter in the Democratic primary though.

Re:priorities?

[lionheart1327]

Thankfully the world doesn't work that way.

Re:priorities?

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one would be more than happy to give up my Internet connexion so Iraqis/Haitians/everyone else can have some food on their table. Are any candidates actually addressing Human Needs? I think you nailed it. The one bottleneck for world hunger apparently was just your Internet connection. Who would have thought?

Re:priorities?

[JesseL]

Go ahead and give up your internet connection and donate the money to whatever cause you like. That's an admirable notion and I don't think there's any candidate that would try to stop you.

It's a completely different story if you want to force someone else (via the government) to make sacrifices to fund the cause of your choice.

Re:priorities?

[michaelmuffin]

I haven't heard any Democratic Party candidates talk about ending The War. I've heard them talk about moving it to Afghanistan and Pakistan, "Fighting the Right Fight" and all that. I haven't heard them talking about housing, food, public transport, or seriously talking about health care either.

Human Need doesn't mean shit to the Democratic Party candidates.

Re:priorities?

[michaelmuffin]

No one would have thought that because that's silly. The bottleneck is our backwards priorities.

Re:priorities?

[morgan_greywolf]

Offtopic? How is this post offtopic? TFA is about presdiential candidates, right?

Mod parent up!!! Meta-mods: Mod that moderation unfair if you see it!

There is only one candidate -- from either party -- talking about ending The War, and that's Ron Paul. I care as much about he's a Republican as I care about Hillary being a Democrat. I don't vote on party lines, I vote on the issues.

Re:priorities?

[michaelmuffin]

I don't want to force anyone to do anything, but I think there are many others like me who think we should be addressing food before the Internet. The Internet and problems too and I want them fixed, but there is no public discussion about Real Problems, and the presidential candidates are more than happy to keep it that way. Candidates should be forcing anyone to give money to anybody, but the Real Problems certainly deserve more attention than they currently receive.

Re:priorities?

[Anonymous Coward]

You act like it is an either/or proposition. Money to fund social projects like this come directly out of the abundance of wealth produced by American labor. Without our technology, our collective productivity goes down as does our wealth. When Americans wealth goes down, international charity suffers. If your concern were really bettering the rest of the world, you would want technology in America to be improved.

Re:priorities?

[AuMatar]

Liberals!=Democrats. Liberals are a proper subset of democrats- we vote democratic because they're closer to us than republicans. But the vast majority of democratic candidates just give lip service to liberal ideals, sort of like how repuiblicans give lip service to fiscal responsibility to keep that base around. Since we'll vote for the democrat anyway, after the primaries they just ignore us.

Re:priorities?

[Tsiangkun]

If the candidates response to the Jena 6 is any indication,
no, there are no candidates stepping up to address human needs
in America, let alone globally.

Re:priorities?

[vertinox]

I for one would be more than happy to give up my Internet connexion so Iraqis/Haitians/everyone else can have some food on their table. Are any candidates actually addressing Human Needs?

There is nothing stopping you from canceling your ISP service right now and sending all that money to the Red Cross or Unicef.

I'll be frank with you... I don't give a damn about most of the human race and would rather not see our nation's over burdened budget used to feed other people who may or may not deserve it. Hell... They probably aren't bad people, but we can't solve the world's problems by throwing money at it.

To be fair, we can't solve the worlds problems by throwing soldiers at it either and I'm sure Iraqis would rather have my tax dollars not used to bomb them either. Bring the troops home and solve our looming financial crisis. Then we can talk about solving other people's problems.

Otherwise in 50 years we'll be asking for donations too.

Re:priorities?

[Quiet_Desperation]

I for one would be more than happy to give up my Internet connexion so Iraqis/Haitians/everyone else can have some food on their table.

So what's stopping you? Go ahead. Just don;t try to cram it down my throat.

Are any candidates actually addressing Human Needs?

Are you?

Re:priorities?

[daem0n1x]

Giving up on progress doesn't help a little bit the ones that don't have it yet.

Hmmm....

[Otter]

She also plans to provide incentives for women and minorities to enter math-, science-, and engineering-related fields by making diversity a requirement for federal education and research grants.

Not that such a thing would ever be meaningfully implemented anyway, but I can't imagine the second half of that *helping* research.

Re:Hmmm....

[3p1ph4ny]

My thoughts exactly. I want the smartest man for the job doing research, not someone who was selected because of their race or sex.

Re:Hmmm....

[TubeSteak]

Not that such a thing would ever be meaningfully implemented anyway The worst part is, even if there's no meaningful implementation of their plan, there exists the very real possibility that whatever they do will be implemented poorly. And I cringe whenever I hear about creating diversity just for diversity's sake.

Some of you may have caught this Wall Street Journal article talking about a study (PDF) which looked at the drop out rates of minority law school students. Long story short, affirmative action didn't do those students any favors, it actually hurt them by putting them into an academic environment they were not going to succeed in.

At least in law school, the only person losing out is the student. If you pull in unqualified researchers just to meet some diversity quota, there is a real possibility that science is going to suffer.

P.S. I know all the arguments for and against 'diversity', I just think it's worth looking at the potential fallout before requiring it.

Re:Hmmm....

[bhmit1]

My thoughts exactly. I want the smartest man for the job doing research, not someone who was selected because of their race or sex.

Not to go overly PC, but considering the context of the comment, you should want the smartest person for the job.

Re:Hmmm....

[siwelwerd]

Not that such a thing would ever be meaningfully implemented anyway, but I can't imagine the second half of that *helping* research.

It's not supposed to help research. It's supposed to help women and minorities.

Re:Hmmm....

[Intron]

Instead of affirmative action, I think we can all agree that the present system is much superior, where the non-merit seats go to the children of the richest alumni.

Re:Hmmm....

[Logic and Reason]

Don't you mean the smartest sentient being for the job?

Re:Hmmm....

[Otter]

The scientific, math and engineering research Clinton is proposing to restrict is not currently done by "the children of the richest alumni".

Re:Hmmm....

[kmac06]

The second half is already causing problems. When I applied for an REU (research experience for undergraduates) in physics a couple years ago, I noticed that all of the applications specifically said something like "women and minorities encouraged to apply". One of the programs I didn't get in to sent me a little card and asked me to fill out my sex and ethnicity, along with something like "please fill this out so we can make sure we're not making a mistake." They didn't say it quite like that, but did openly admit that their funding forced them to give advantageous consideration to women/minorities. Whether or not this actually changed the outcome of my acceptance I don't know, but still...

Re:Hmmm....

[Stradivarius]

Allowing in another group of people who can't get in on their merits wouldn't make the system better, it would make it worse.

And affirmative action in college admissions isn't doing anyone any favors. Recent research shows that those who get in someplace because of affirmative action are actually worse off than if they'd have gone to a school matching their abilities. It seems to be because they tend to fall behind their classmates who got in on merit, when if they'd gone to a slightly less selective school they would have had classes at an appropriate pace, and thus learned more. (The study was with respect to law students and odds of passing the bar exam, but it seems likely that this would apply to general college admissions as well).

The real solution is to make admission purely merit-based.

Re:Hmmm....

[megaditto]

Well, perhaps giving some additional funds (on top of whatever we have now) for female-only scholarships/fellowships might not hurt, in the same way that throwing extra money at a problem never hurts...

But that's not really what they are proposing, is it?

Re:Hmmm....

[jimrob]

Just play it safe. Smartest object of carbon, silicon, or YTBD chemical makeup for the job.

You discriminate against rocks, you granite-phobe.

Re:Hmmm....

[Mongoose Disciple]

In the short term, that's absolutely true.

In the long term, it's probably beneficial to encourage groups that typically don't go into high tech to do so, just for the purpose of changing the culture around it. Probably, there are women (for example) alive today who, based on their intelligence/aptitudes would've made great engineers, but who became housewives or chose other fields because they didn't grow up around women engineers and weren't exposed to that kind of culture. Most people make most of their choices based around what their peers are doing.

Granted, that's not the argument I've generally heard for affirmative action, and for the investment to pay off there and not bone things up worse, eventually affirmative action needs to go away so that you really are picking the best people for the job, if out of a bigger pool than you might've had to pick from otherwise.

Re:Hmmm....

[Anonymous Coward]

Top schools are not "harder" than lower ranked schools and they certainly don't have better teaching. What they have is the top researchers in their field. If anything, the top professors at Ivy League schools teach less than professors at lower ranked schools. If you look at the curriculum and textbooks used at lower ranked schools you will find they are the same. The difference is mostly in the competition for class rank. Graduating with a high class rank from a top school doubles your initial salary relative to graduating with a lower class rank from a lesser school. The reason AA for minorities is not as effective (which to WSJ means starting salary) as AA for rich kids should be obvious.

Re:Hmmm....

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comment is simply incorrect.

Re:Hmmm....

[ProfBooty]

When I was in engineering school, there were plenty of minorities in school, plenty out in the engineering world, just not the "right" minorities.

Re:Hmmm....

[Anonymous Coward]

That clears everything up. Thanks for setting me straight.

Re:Hmmm....

[Thuktun]

Never underestimate the intelligence of a troll whose brain is cold enough to superconduct.

Re:Hmmm....

[Anonymous Coward]

First year Physics at MIT, UT and WSCC http://web.mit.edu/8.01t/www/syllabus.pdf http://dox.utdallas.edu/syl8645 http://www.wscc.cc.tn.us/science/Science%20Dept/Physics%20Dept/PHYS2111SYL&ATT.pdf

Funny how "Tech Industry Issues"

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Gets twisted to mean "Corporate Tech Industry" instead of mere "Tech Industry" when money is involved. More H-1b visas only helps those hiring techies, it depresses the wages of the techies themselves, for instance. And of course, they look towards more closed source options as well- you don't see any of this money trying to provide policy for alternative energy or open source projects.

Re:Funny how "Tech Industry Issues"

[stoolpigeon]

More H-1b visas only helps those hiring techies, it depresses the wages of the techies themselves, for instance.
 
This is what I thought too. I did some digging but come up with a single study that supports this assertion. Are you aware of any?

Re:Funny how "Tech Industry Issues"

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Only Norm Matloff's work and the Programmer's Guild's own internal surveys, which I assume you've already found since those are the two most popular sources, and only one of them is a formal study.

The second, if you're not familiar with it, was a secret on-site survey done at several workplaces by techies who are working with H-1b visa holders, and it showed a $12,000/year salary difference ($6000/year if you discount by the fact that the business has to spend a lot of money to get an H-1b to begin with, but the difference in cost is obvious).

The actual effect on wages is somewhat discounted by the current caps in place, of course (65,000 regular H-1bs, 144,000 exempt from cap H-1bs, is a very small percentage of the total American workforce, and that's across all skills. Second after techies is nurses.).

Re:Funny how "Tech Industry Issues"

[Billly Gates]

The law of supply and demand.

If supply increases then so does demand as the buyers have more bargaining power to select those with the lowest price. In other words if the quantity is more limited then techs can demand more in salary as they have the bargaining power. But artificially changing the supply has the same adverse effect with the wages as if you dont do x for y wage then this Indian will. Take it or leave it?

I wonder if we had h1b1 employers to help us bring some more foreign firms to hire to artificial increase the demand if these politicians would feel the same?

Its not the governments job to change teh supply and demand curve of markets.

Re:Funny how "Tech Industry Issues"

[stoolpigeon]

I haven't really seen all the stuff from Matloff. So thanks for that, I'll read through it.
 
I've read arguments both ways on the issue and I would just love to see some solid work that might give some objective proof one way or the other.

Re:Funny how "Tech Industry Issues"

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Objective proof is something that is rather elusive in economics- since economics is usually based on some implicit axioms that may or may not be true, it's hard to be objective about such things.

In fact, I think the cheap labor movement comes down to a single pair of completely irreconcilable beliefs about labor. The first is the supply/demand theory of wages, in which whenever you raise the supply of something the price MUST go down, thus increasing the amount of labor available will depress wages. The second belief is the skills/efficiency belief, in which cheap labor merely frees up money for more expensive labor to go elsewhere, and skills are always in demand regardless of supply. These two axioms are diametrically opposed- those who believe one are implicitly denying the other.

I'm not sure which is true myself, but for any given skill that has become a commodity, as technical engineering and computer programming has, I tend towards the supply/demand theory- that a skill can only demand a wage that fits the supply of that skill in the marketplace, thus increasing the size of the marketplace will increase the supply of that skill and drive real wages down. Skills this doesn't apply to are rare enough skills not to be commodities YET- but given 6.5 billion human beings and limitations on human ability, I personally think we could commoditize just about any skill you can name- including C-level executives.

Re:Funny how "Tech Industry Issues"

[Anonymous Coward]

There are lots of anecdotal results that H1Bs are the problem, and lots of not-so-anecdotal results that that something is wrong with tech wages (eg, compare skilled salaries to the recent spike in unskilled labor wages and the wailing from most sectors about record low unemployment forcing them to have to pay more for labor).

The problem is that there's little to show that H1B's are what's wrong with tech wages (as opposed to outsourcing. Or that there is a shortage of potential employees in all fields except the tech ones. Or a dozen other reasons), and probably very little that can be done to prove it either way. Thus, tinfoil hattedness abounds.

Re:Funny how "Tech Industry Issues"

[WaltBusterkeys]

Right -- but the supply is present no matter what. If there are no H1-B visas then a lot of programmers who would be here on H1-Bs are going to be doing the same work, but doing it from Banglore rather than Burlingame.

The programmers exist no matter what and location isn't --that-- important. It's important, but not enough to eliminate the supply of offshore programmers.

The choice is to have H1-Bs in the US--paying income tax, being supervised by US managers, and subject to US labor laws--or to let them work offshore. If they stay offshore then they don't pay US tax and don't generate US management jobs.

Globalization of the technology economy is a fact, just like continental drift. It's an overwhelmingly positive thing for workers in developing countries (to get paid in hard currency for "clean" non-industrial work is a god-send) and generally positive here (new products, services, and goods at lower prices). All we can do is to try to do it on terms that are favorable to as many as possible. Allowing the labor to come here means that we get to set the terms of the labor. I'll take that deal any day of the week.

I'm open to new argument, but that's how I see it now.

Re:Funny how "Tech Industry Issues"

[siwelwerd]

More H-1b visas only helps those hiring techies, it depresses the wages of the techies themselves, for instance.

Hiring someone who does as good or a better job than you for cheaper instead of you means your company can save money; hence, your company's customers can save money. The only person who isn't benefited is the person who only had a job because government regulation (via H-1b visas) restricted the market.

Re:Funny how "Tech Industry Issues"

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Hiring someone who does as good or a better job than you for cheaper instead of you means your company can save money; hence, your company's customers can save money.

Ah, yes, the skills/efficiency argument. See the other post on why this is a denial of classical microeconomics.

The only person who isn't benefited is the person who only had a job because government regulation (via H-1b visas) restricted the market.

Which is just about every American, since our standard of living has pretty much priced us out of the global market.

Re:Funny how "Tech Industry Issues"

[Bobzibub]

Not to doubt double secret salary studies...... but.....

Phone: Ring Ring.....
Abdul: Hello? Abdul Speaking.
Billy Bob: Hey Abdul, Billy Bob here... Which way to Mecca? HA HA HA HA!!!! Bye the way, how much are you making?
Abdul: Seventy-fi..---uhh, fifty five K. Why do you ask?
Billy Bob: Thanks a million swarthy bastard!

Re:Funny how "Tech Industry Issues"

[Brandybuck]

Objective proof is something that is rather elusive in economics- since economics is usually based on some implicit axioms that may or may not be true, it's hard to be objective about such things.

That's not the reason. The axioms in economics are few, and widely agreed to. The reason that objective proof is elusive is that human beings are not at all objective. Trying to predict the exact number of jobs created/lost due to a specific tax change is as futile as trying to predict the exact population of caribou in the arctic due a specific wolf protection policy. But the impossibility of such predictions does not invalidate population biology!

There is a major school of economic thought (Austrians) that rejects rigid empirical methodology for precisely this reason. This drives the empirical Chicagoists nuts, of course.

The first is the supply/demand theory of wages...

Sorry, I am not aware of that theory. But wages are like any other price. Valid theories of prices will of course apply to wages. I myself am partial to the marginal utility theory of prices, because it explains prices better than anything else out there. But to be fair to you, the supply/demand curves we all know from Econ 101 actually arise from marginal utility. ...in which whenever you raise the supply of something the price MUST go down

If everything else in the economy were equal, then that would be true. But everything else is NEVER equal. You will never find static supply/demand curves outside of college textbooks. Dozens of variables are continuously changing over time. On average, an increase in programmers will tend to lower the wages of programmers. But what if that increase were due to a greater demand for programmers?

Re:Funny how "Tech Industry Issues"

[Marxist Hacker 42]

But what if that increase were due to a greater demand for programmers?

Then I'd expect to see companies recruiting at the high school level and offering scholarships with agreement to hire in 4 years. Are you seeing that yet? I've been looking for it (especially as in my case, a proposal to fund graduate school might be accepted) and I haven't yet. No, instead we have the argument to add more programmers WITHOUT paying for the education of those programmers by poaching them from other countries, which tells me that the real attempt is to lower the marginal utility of the skillsets.

Re:Funny how "Tech Industry Issues"

[TapeCutter]

"The reason that objective proof is elusive is that human beings are not at all objective."

It's true that most of what is written about economics is mearly opinion. Subjectivity is what the scientific method (SM) is supposed to weed out but the SM itself refuses to acknowledge the existence of "objective proof". With this in mind an economist should at the very least make use of error bars.

BTW: I strongly agree with the OP, skilled immigration is not a "tech issue" it's an economic/social one.

Re:Funny how "Tech Industry Issues"

[Copid]

You know, I hate to be anal, but continental drift is NOT a fact. It's a theory.

I'm almost sure you're trolling here, but come on. Continental drift is a measurable phenomenon. That's about as close to "fact" as one can meaningfully be.

And there are quite a few people who disagree with it.

Yes, and we call those people crazy. Fortunately, I don't think any of them are working as professional geologists, so I guess we're OK. Alternately, I suppose you could be posting this from the 1970s.

Or are you referring to the mechanism behind it?

And yet again...

[JesseL]

...Ron Paul gets ignored by the media.

Re:And yet again...

[stoolpigeon]

what is this, digg? :)

Re:And yet again...

[XxtraLarGe]

...Ron Paul gets ignored by the media. Probably because Ron Paul's tech agenda is called the Free Market, which "Business Week" really has no interest in.

Re:And yet again...

[XxtraLarGe]

what is this, digg? :) No. This is Slashdot!

Re:And yet again...

[morgan_greywolf]

And he shouldn't. If only because he's the only candidate -- on either side of the fence -- talking about ending the farsical 'War on Terror.'

But maybe that's the why the media are ignoring him.

Re:And yet again...

[Scrameustache]

...Ron Paul gets ignored by the media. Probably because Ron Paul's tech agenda is called the Free Market, which "Business Week" really has no interest in. Ron Paul on Technology

Because it's ever so on-topic : )

Oh, and there's this thing about him on Wired: http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/09/ronpaul_supporters

Re:And yet again...

[Anonymous Coward]

can't cover every marginal dingbat with zero chance of winning.

Re:And yet again...

[Arthur B.]

Ron Paul is anti-immigration, bad bad bad for tech. (as well as unconstitutional, unlegitimate, immoral, unethical, etc)

Re:And yet again...

[TubeSteak]

Probably because Ron Paul's tech agenda is called the Free Market, I'm sorry, despite all the wonderful positions Ron Paul has... his foreign policy is a mess.
Withdraw from NAFTA, the WTO, the UN, NATO, and to top it off, stop foreign aid.
There's no doubt doing those things will affect his free market policies.

It's really not a credible position to take, unless you want to disrupt foreign economies, which will in turn disrupt the U.S. economy.

What do you think will happen to the "free market" when Russia & China move into the power vaccuum left by a U.S. retreat? Markets will close, resources will get diverted, the dollar will drop, etc etc etc.

Isolationism is not possible in the global economy.
You want an example? Try North Korea.
And even the DPRK isn't 100% isolated.

Re:And yet again...

[JesseL]

Would you care to back that up?

His immigration policy looks entirely reasonable to me.

Re:And yet again...

[rolfwind]

He's not an isolationist, he's a non-interventionist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism

"Not to be confused with the non-interventionist philosophy and foreign policy of the libertarian world view, which espouses unrestricted free trade and freedom of travel for individuals to all countries."

As for the rest of your fear mongering prattle, he is for free trade - just not the corporate welfare protectionist trade like NAFTA represents.

And no, when your country is $9 trillion in the hole and $50 trillion of entitlements is looming on the not-too-far away horizon, foreign entitlements (foreign aid) should not be the first priority. Besides, I bet a lot of countries can do without us sending foreign aid (why shouldn't they be able to stand on their own two feet?)

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html

Re:And yet again...

[Khomar]

Not to mention the fact that since most Americans will end up with more money in their pockets (no IRS), charitable giving is likely to rise. It is the vast outpouring of charitable gifts from individual Americans that often do the best to actually help the citizens of other countries as opposed to their governments. With this money, wells are dug, farms are planted, and children receive education and proper nutrition. This results in a much better long term picture for third world countries.

Re:And yet again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, tricke-down economics. Any more pie-in-the-sky ideas for your pie-in-the-sky candidate?

Re:And yet again...

[J.R. Random]

Ron Paul is all in favor of free trade, he's just against the bureaucratic "managed" trade of NAFTA and the WTO.

As for the UN, I'm indifferent as to whether we stay in or get out. I'm not sure what we get out of it other than foreigners using their diplomatic immunity to park illegally in Manhattan.

I think we should have gotten out of NATO long ago. American leadership of NATO made some sense when Europe was shattered by WW II and there were serious concerns that Stalin would extend his empire further west.

But Europe has long been capable of defending itself from any conceivable military threat. NATO is now an expensive anachronism and it's time to stop spending billions to defend people who don't need us defending them. Also, NATO has nothing whatsoever to do with free trade. The Japanese manage to trade with lots of countries without having to keep their troops in other nations.

As for foreign aid, I would prefer that the government let me keep my money and let me decide for myself which charities to contribute to. (And yes, I give away thousands of dollars to charity each year, even with my current tax load.)

The proper country to compare us to if you want to understand what Ron Paul seeks is not North Korea but Switzerland. The Swiss don't keep troops in foreign countries and don't try to rule the world, but do trade successfully with numerous other nations. You may have noticed that a lot fewer people hate the Swiss than hate Americans.

Re:And yet again...

[Scrameustache]

Ron Paul is [...] unconstitutional, unlegitimate, immoral, unethical, etc) This is a prank comment intended to provoke indignant (or just confused) responses. A Troll might mix up vital facts or otherwise distort reality, to make other readers react with helpful "corrections."

Re:And yet again...

[enjerth]

And he wants to get rid of the Department of Homeland Security, CIA, FBI, Department of Education, Department of Energy, and a whole bunch of other departments.

But if you stop your knee-jerk reaction for a moment and look through the haze, you'll see that he's not against national security, intelligence gathering, federal law enforcement, education or energy. He's against the BUREAUCRACY of these departments that have made them wasteful, inefficient and sometimes just plain unconstitutional.

Re:And yet again...

[Brandybuck]

Part of the reason my be that Ron Paul has not made any bold dramatic "plans" for the intertubes. He's not going to regulate them, not going to subsidize them, doesn't promise a taxpayer funded last mile, isn't going to pave a superhighway into every living room, isn't going to excoriate Bill gates, etc.

His philosophy is too simple for the modern media: leave the internet alone.

Here's his talk at Google. He does talk a bit about some tech issues.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg&mode=related&search=

Re:And yet again...

[eggnoglatte]

The proper country to compare us to if you want to understand what Ron Paul seeks is not North Korea but Switzerland. The Swiss don't keep troops in foreign countries and don't try to rule the world, but do trade successfully with numerous other nations. You may have noticed that a lot fewer people hate the Swiss than hate Americans. Note, however, that the Swiss are part of the UN. One reason the Swiss aren't hated as much as Americans is because they submit to the notion of international law, which is precisely what Ron Paul and the likes propose to eliminate.

Re:And yet again...

[mrlibertarian]

What do you think will happen to the "free market" when Russia & China move into the power vaccuum left by a U.S. retreat? Markets will close, resources will get diverted, the dollar will drop, etc etc etc.

Conflicts are often created when two parties try to reach for power. Perhaps by "withdrawing" from the world stage, we might stop a lot of international conflicts before they start. We have to stop focusing on the so-called "rights" of nations and communities, and start focusing on the individuals, whose rights and property are trampled on in these global conflicts. If you want to give private charity, or provide private security for individuals in other countries, then I'm all for it. But, let's get out of the nation-building business. It only leads to destruction of property and life, which is never good for any market.

And before anyone mentions Blackwater, let me add that any private security firm should be bound by standard laws...a private contractor who kills an innocent civilian should be treated the same way we would treat a police officer who kills an innocent person over here.

Isolationism is not possible in the global economy.

How is it "isolationist" to freely trade with every other nation in the world? We might not be engaging the world with bullets and bombs, but that doesn't mean we've isolated ourselves from it.

Re:And yet again...

[Mongoose Disciple]

Not to be offensive, but I'd consider that theory of increased charitable giving and it solving lots of problems about as credible as the idea that communism works flawlessly because all people will naturally want to do their best and work hard at their jobs despite there being no incentive for it.

You're on opposite ends of the political spectrum in either case, but you're still presupposing something a little naive about human nature that history has never borne out in practice. It's a nice idea, but real people overall just don't work that way.

Re:And yet again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey there,
I ride my bike around la jolla sometimes. ARe you that homeless guy wearing a dress and stands hunched up on the sidewalk, often near some coffee shop on the way to the ocean, all day with a grocery cart. Somebody said he's really got millions in the bank and gets his kicks playing homeless.

Re:And yet again...

[mike2R]

As for the UN, I'm indifferent as to whether we stay in or get out. I'm not sure what we get out of it other than foreigners using their diplomatic immunity to park illegally in Manhattan.

I think we should have gotten out of NATO long ago. American leadership of NATO made some sense when Europe was shattered by WW II and there were serious concerns that Stalin would extend his empire further west.

....

what Ron Paul seeks is not North Korea but Switzerland

Switzerland is a small European power, the US is the world superpower. This makes a difference.

Look, I'm not arguing with you about the deficiencies in these organisations, but this "pick up our toys and go home" attitude is wrongheaded and dangerous. You are part of this world, do you really want to leave the rest of the world to the political leadership of China and Russia?

Re:And yet again...

[dragonturtle69]

On one hand, maybe they just look at the polls and run stories on the top three from each party. That is all the time they have in their "In Depth" political segments, or all the time they think they can hold a viewers interest.

On the other, maybe its all about the advertisers, as the advertisers control Who will show What. Going big on following the letter of the Constitution does not get the same attention as the "Free Stuff for Everyone" and "Everybody Wins First Place" stuff. Fewer viewers results in fewer advertising dollars. So, in the end, whoever makes the most folks watch the commercials gets name recognition and a shot at their parties nomination.

Re:And yet again...

[Carewolf]

Withdraw from NAFTA, the WTO, the UN, NATO

So he is an anti-UN nutcase?

Geez. You americans really gets the worst of political candidates.

Re:And yet again...

[rolfwind]

Bill Gates and his friend Warren Buffett are giving almost all their money away. And they aren't anomalies, enough early industrialists were philanthropist. Incidentally, these are the people who paid the least taxes percentage-wise to their income because of good accountants, lawyers, and loopholes - Bill Gates never had to pay a dime on a big portion of his fortune because it's in stock and he only pays capital gain once he sells.

Also remember the big Tsunami years back? There was an outpouring of charity when that happened.

It's also odious to me that the government owns 100% of our income and allows us to keep 60-80% of it meanwhile they are doling out money to noncitizens/taxpayers around the world as if they are entitle to it.

Re:And yet again...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, HomelessInLaJolla is not really homeless. I doubt he's even in LaJolla. He claims to be posting from the Public Library there, but he's never there at times he posts, so he's lying.

Re:And yet again...

[Khomar]

Not to be offensive, but I'd consider that theory of increased charitable giving and it solving lots of problems about as credible as the idea that communism works flawlessly because all people will naturally want to do their best and work hard at their jobs despite there being no incentive for it.

There is a key difference here. In communism, the economy basically requires everyone to work hard and do their best to benefit society. However in the case of tax savings, those who are already philanthropic will be enabled to give even more money to charity. There will be some who would like to give to charity but do not think they can afford to on their current salary. With more money in their pocket, they too might be more inclined to give. The key here is that it does not require everyone to give to increase charity -- only some. Charitable giving certainly won't decrease because there is not likely to be anyone who would give less because they have more money. By allowing people to keep their money and spend it as they see fit, there will be an increase in charitable giving.

The other huge key to consider here is the inordinate waste that is inherently involved with government spending -- especially when compared to personal charities. For example, Compassion International reports that 83.8% of their giving goes directly to help children around the world in providing food, education, and health care. There are many charities (both religious and secular) that have comparable efficiencies. Out of the billions of dollars spent by the United States government, how much of it actually reaches the people who need it most. Does anyone seriously think the government ratio comes anywhere near 80%? Even 50%? If you have any doubts, consider the fiasco in Katrina relief we have witnessed lately.

Therefore, by eliminating wasteful foreign aid and allowing individual Americans to donate to world causes directly and efficiently, the net result is a gain for the rest of the world.

Re:And yet again...

[Mike]

It's a nice idea, but real people overall just don't work that way. Perhaps, perhaps not.

Either way, it's my money (not the government's money) to decide what to do with it.
It's hypocritical and unethical for my money to be confiscated and given to other people against my will, period.

Re:And yet again...

[Anonymous Coward]

"You are part of this world, do you really want to leave the rest of the world to the political leadership of China and Russia?"

Honestly, yeah I kind of do.

Every once in a while it's important for the people complaining about us to see what the rest of the world is really like.

Re:And yet again...

[yooy]

"So he is an anti-UN nutcase?" Yes, as far as you are a pro-UN nutcase. "Geez. You americans really gets the worst of political candidates." As a European living in the US I can assure you that Europa (and probably the rest of the world) would need people like Ron. He is the only politician who has credibility, honesty and integrity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

Re:And yet again...

[Mongoose Disciple]

I actually don't have a problem with that argument.

If you want to keep your money or think you should keep your money, there's not much I'd want to say about that. Just call it what it is and don't try to pretend it's for altruistic or humanitarian reasons.

Re:And yet again...

[J.R. Random]

Switzerland is a small European power, the US is the world superpower. This makes a difference.

I have no desire whatsoever to be a citizen of a "superpower".

I want to be a citizen of a free republic.

Let some other bunch of facists play the "superpower" game. We are a bankrupt nation. We can't afford to play "superpower", even if it were good for our souls, which it isn't.

You are part of this world, do you really want to leave the rest of the world to the political leadership of China and Russia?

You are far too paranoid. Do you really think Russia and China would take over if we brought our troops home? If they try, they'll suffer from the same imperial overstretch that we face now. They could then join us in bankruptcy.

Re:And yet again...

[mike2R]

I think you have to deal with the world as it is, rather than as you want it to be.

Let some other bunch of facists play the "superpower" game. We are a bankrupt nation. We can't afford to play "superpower", even if it were good for our souls, which it isn't.

Yes the US has at times overused and misused it's power, but so do all nations; and those that are powerful do so more. America's record really isn't bad when compared to previous superpowers. At it's heart America is a mature democracy with a very strong culture of individual freedom and good government. With America playing an active role, democracy and the rule of law become the majority opinion on the international stage. If America goes isolationist again the whole thing is very much in the balance.

Do you really think Russia and China would take over if we brought our troops home? If they try, they'll suffer from the same imperial overstretch that we face now.

China; no. Russia, I don't think has any ideas for military takeover in Europe anymore, but Russia worries me a lot. Russia could go fascist easily over the next few decades, and I don't mean slashdot fascist but proper old-school Nuremberg rally style nationalism gone mad.

To be content with the current state of the world IMO shows a real lack of imagination. At the end of the cold war there was a real chance to move things on - that clichéd phrase "New World Order" could have changed the world decisively for the better if the US had been willing to show leadership. That chance was missed, but there is still a chance to move the world forward and this *needs* the US to take an active role. There isn't any other nation that can fill those shoes.

The US has massive power. Like it or not there is an ethical decision made when you choose not to exercise it. If you have the power to prevent an evil, and you do not do so, you take on a degree of responsibility for that evil. To sit at home and ignore the world is a tempting, and often taken, path in US foreign policy. I'd ask you to avoid that route.

Re:And yet again...

[mike2R]

There's a story about babies and bathwater that I think is appropriate here.

Re:And yet again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Then practice what you preach and call what YOU advocate for what it is: Theft, and redistrobution of wealth, and "don't try to pretend it's for altruistic or humanitarian reasons."

Re:And yet again...

[Mongoose Disciple]

It's somewhat more entertaining to watch you beat that straw man.

Just because I have a problem with a shitty justification for a position doesn't mean I hold the opposite position.

Re:And yet again...

[J.R. Random]

The US has massive power. Like it or not there is an ethical decision made when you choose not to exercise it.

Now there's the best possible argument for drastically downsizing the military industrial complex. If we no longer have "massive power", there there will no longer be any ethical obligation to meddle in everybody else's business.

Re:And yet again...

[mike2R]

Well, I hope you'll forgive me if I don't root for your guy come 2008.

Re:And yet again...

[Arthur B.]

The government steals money from the people, sometimes it give money to immigrants. Stealing is bad so... we should restrict immigration ? That sounds reasonable to you ? Muggers buy beer with mugged money, let's outlaw beer ! What about that ?

Re:And yet again...

[Arthur B.]

What do you mean a prank? I am dead serious.

  - Ron Paul is an authoritarian power-freak opposed to immigration. Sure he is not an über-authoritarian-power-freak like most candidates but the fact remains that his position on immigration make him despisable.

  - Immigration is very important to the tech industry. Recently MS moved a research center to Canada for lack of H1B visas in the US.

Re:And yet again...

[JesseL]

Show me where RP wants to restrict immigration.

I read RP's position on immigration as:
1. Stop subsidizing illegal immigrants.
2. Enforce existing laws against illegal immigration.
3. Expand options or legal immigration.

So either present some real facts and arguments or STFU and stop trolling.

Re:And yet again...

[Arthur B.]

> Show me where RP wants to restrict immigration.
easy...
> 2. Enforce existing laws against illegal immigration.
there ya go

check his campaign web site as well:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform/

He wants immigrants from all countries to face (the same) delays and procedures. Currently some country (Canada) don't have delays, you can get a TN in 3 minutes at the border. I highly doubt this is the standard he has in mind when he says immigrants should face (the same) delays and procedures, therefore he plans to toughen procedures on Canadians.

Re:And yet again...

[JesseL]

So you support an open borders policy? I can sympathize with that philosophically, but it's not going to fly politically. Even the (big L)Libertarians are split on that point. Personally I think immigration needs to be heavily restricted until we can get rid of some of the incentives to abuse currently luring the less scrupulous immigrants.

But tell me, is there another candidate you think better fits your ideals?

Re:And yet again...

[Arthur B.]

I do support an open border policy and I fully realize it's not going to fly politically, but you can at least make a step in the right direction, Ron Paul is taking a step in the wrong one.

On his website he talks about the 9/11 hijackers having expired visa... I can't believe he'd fall to such an absurd level of FUD.

Actually illegal immigrants often pay taxes and don't collect welfare benefits, they are on average more net tax payers than the U.S. citizens. the argument of welfare may hold water in France for example, but certainly not in the US. And why not simply suppress welfare for immigrants? Immigration is also great to bust union mafias.

The illegal immigrants are not *abusing* the system, they're heroes, they can work illegally, under the minimum wage, they work to diminish state power. Even an immigrant collecting welfare is doing his bit to destroy the welfare state.

If you think it is justified to prevent a Mexican to enter the US because he might go on welfare, then you should think it is justified to prevent a single jobless mother to have children, after all they are very likely to go on welfare. According to you, shouldn't we heavily restrict the demographics of the poor in the US until we fix the welfare system? Or i

I think nona better fits my ideal... seriously among all candidates Ron Paul might be the best, but his program should hardly warrant the rejoicement of libertarians.

Oh, I am a Canadian on a TN, so if Ron Paul is elected I'll be on line with millions of people, waiting for a lengthy approval which means I'll have to leave the US. Bad bad Ron Paul.

Conspicuously absent

[allthefish]

i find it interesting that Former Senator Mike Gravel was not mentioned in TFA. Although he's far from a mainstream candidate (much to my chagrin), he's been the oevrall biggest supporter of net neutrality among the candidates. From his official platform:


Net Neutrality aims to keep the Internet free from large companies who are using their networks to limit the amount of websites their customers can view, and the speed at which they can view them. Examples range from, being forced to use the search engines your Internet Service Providers (ISP), only being able to view streaming videos that your ISP deems acceptable, and charging a website an extra fee to maintain the usual connection speed. Senator Gravel guarantees a free and open Internet with no restricted access to any site, for any reason. He will do this by supporting legislation and regulation that keeps you in control of your Internet usage. Intelligent replies welcome, redirect flames to /dev/null

Ron Paul

[Anonymous Coward]

Ron Paul is not for "net neutrality", but he seems to be the only candidate who actually cares about keeping the internet deregulated and free from warrantless surveillance, and stupid bans on gambling and weird ID laws for social networking sites. Does anyone know what his views on copyright/DMCA are? I'd imagine he supports the 14 year maximum copyright term specified in our earliest laws, but I could be mistaken.

Re:Ron Paul

[moore.dustin]

Ron Paul is not for 'net neutrality' because he believes that if the government prevented business from regulating the Net, then it would unfairly jeopardize their freedom (See: Right) to do so.

Other technology votes by Paul: Source

• Trusts the Internet a lot more than the mainstream media. (May 2007)
• Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)
• Voted NO on increasing fines for indecent broadcasting. (Feb 2005)
• Voted YES on promoting commercial human space flight industry. (Nov 2004)
• Voted NO on banning Internet gambling by credit card. (Jun 2003)
• Voted NO on allowing telephone monopolies to offer Internet access. (Feb 2002)

Re:Ron Paul

[mcpkaaos]

if the government prevented business from regulating the Net, then it would unfairly jeopardize their freedom...

Voted NO on allowing telephone monopolies to offer Internet access.

Does anyone else find this a little contradictory?

Re:Ron Paul

[moore.dustin]

He does not support the telco in their endeavor to extend their monopolies into other markets. It is a vote to against the monopolies, not a vote for restricting what private companies can or cant do. Hopefully that came out right, but these votes, especially with Ron Paul, often mean more than what you may get from reading it at a glance. He was supporting the free market here where it could look as if he is doing the complete opposite.

Re:Ron Paul

[Scrameustache]

if the government prevented business from regulating the Net, then it would unfairly jeopardize their freedom...

Voted NO on allowing telephone monopolies to offer Internet access.

Does anyone else find this a little contradictory? Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act of 2001: Vote to pass a bill that would allow the four regional Bell telephone companies to enter the high-speed Internet access market via their long-distance connections whether or not they have allowed competitors into their local markets as required under the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The bill would allow the Bells to increase the fees they charge competitors for lines upgraded for broadband services from "wholesale rates" to "just and reasonable rates." It also would also allow the Bells to charge for giving competitors access to certain rights-of-way for broadband access. Certain FCC regulatory oversight would be maintained although the phone companies' high speed services would be exempted from regulation by the states.

Re:Ron Paul

[Anonymous Coward]

Ron Paul is not for 'net neutrality' because he believes that if the government prevented business from regulating the Net, then it would unfairly jeopardize their freedom (See: Right) to do so. That's all backward. The Right side of the spectrum needs to learn that the government isn't the only source of oppression. The government needs to step up and protect freedom instead of merely promising not to take it away themselves.

Like "protected speech" isn't actually protected by them. It's only "protected" in the sense that it's protected by the promise they made not to take it away directly.

Re:Ron Paul

[ClioCJS]

- Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul restated his commitment on Tuesday to overturning the landmark abortion decision that allowed virtually unlimited abortions. He said he would work to overturn the Supreme Court ruling if he is nominated as the Republican candidate for president and elected to the White House.

Paul said he was pro-life and would make reversing the decision a top priority.

He also said that more people should be exposed to what abortion does to an unborn child and women who have them.

He has also voted against public funding of adult stem cell research and is against taxpayer-funded embryonic stem cell research.

Re:Ron Paul

[eggnoglatte]

Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck) Yeah, that is pretty much the definition of bad karma.

Re:Ron Paul

[taoman1]

He voted against the DMCA.

Patent System

[geoffrobinson]

As far as these issues go:

Education is generally a local and parental matter. Not much the President can do.

Other issues are going to get lost in the shuffle of Presidential priorities. At least I think that's likely.

A good revamp of the patent system would, in my estimation, spur a lot of economic activity and decrease the amount of money wasted on lawyers.

Re:Patent System

[homer_ca]

Education is generally a local and parental matter. Not much the President can do.

Normally, I'd agree with you, but No Child Left Behind is federal law, and only the President and Congress can clean it up or, preferably, get rid of it. For all the talk of Small Government, NCLB is a huge intrusion into local control of schools and it's agenda is to sabotage public education by setting up schools to fail. I suppose if the goal is Small Government through destroying public education, then it's Mission Accomplished, but at least be honest about it. Don't dress it up as helping the kids and schools.

The one they missed is the one that counts

[Anonymous Coward]

Ron Paul stands for complete internet freedom.

Re:The one they missed is the one that counts

[taoman1]

Ron Paul is against Net Neutrality.

Re:The one they missed is the one that counts

[izakage]

Ron Paul has stated that he is not for 'net neutrality' because he believes in free enterprise.

This is distinct from being against 'net neutrality'. Ron Paul claims that he voted NO on this 'net neutrality' bill because he is opposed to regulation of the free market system, not because he is against the rights of the consumer.

'Net neutrality' is a term associated with lots of liberal slashdot-esque spin, and saying that he is against it without explaining his position can be misleading.

Re:The one they missed is the one that counts

[glwtta]

he is opposed to regulation of the free market system, not because he is against the rights of the consumer

Ah yes, that's totally different. Unfortunately in that perfectly unregulated free market wet dream of his, the consumer will have absolutely no rights whatsoever. But, you know, as long as that's just a byproduct and not the intent, it's all good, right?

I really don't get this Ron Paul fascination. OK, so he's an "honest politician" for whatever that's worth, but for the most part his platform consists of regressive social policies and insane economic ones. What's the fucking appeal?

Re:The one they missed is the one that counts

[taoman1]

I think that is a distinction without a difference. The end result being the same. He's consistent though. And as Emerson said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgloblin of little minds."

Re:The one they missed is the one that counts

[Pictish Prince]

If you consider the Fourth Reich a good thing I guess Ron Paul wouldn't appeal to you. Otherwise to see the "appeal" please consider the alternatives.

Re:The one they missed is the one that counts

[glwtta]

Aha, so he's just another "not-quite-as-bad-as-the-other-guy" - why didn't you say so in the first place? It's just that some people made it sound like they liked him on his own merits.

Re:Election? Here's how I vote.

[michaelmuffin]

I'm no law expert, but I don't believe Bill Clinton is eligible to run for a third term. But it's not like you can tell who's black and who isn't sitting at your computer, now is it?

RocketSauce

[twebb72]

If there's no internets, then theres no rocket sauce. If there's no rocket sauce, then there's no rock 'n' roll.

Prejudicial Tech Inclinations?

[Petskull]

Why should political aspirants have prejudicial tech inclinations? I look forward to a future of impartial leaders that give unfamiliar issues equal weight relying on subject matter experts from all sides. Sound, informed decisions without prejudice.

Unless they want to replace all government machines with Ubuntu- then they already got my vote.

Every major candidate's agenda

[scoser]

1. Suck up to the RIAA/MPAA.
2. Suck up to the large tech firms.
3. Make meaningless promises to support "the greater interests of the public with regards to technological issues".
4. "Think of the children!" to restrict our freedoms further.
3. Rake in the campaign contributions for next term while screwing America in the present.

Re:Every major candidate's agenda

[stoolpigeon]

sad, but true.

Re:Every major candidate's agenda

[Scrameustache]

1. Suck up to the RIAA/MPAA.
2. Suck up to the large tech firms.
3. Make meaningless promises to support "the greater interests of the public with regards to technological issues".
4. "Think of the children!" to restrict our freedoms further.
3. Rake in the campaign contributions for next term while screwing America in the present. Maybe it would be a good idea to join grassroots effort to support a minor candidate, then.
Then you can get two people to join you, and they can get two people each, and so on, and get candidates that appeal to the people, rather than to the oligopolies that own the media.

No... not maybe. Definitely! Find a candidate that makes sense to you, and do something to spread the word, vote, get others to vote!

Get up, stand up, stand up for your rights!

Re:Every major candidate's agenda

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh Hem... except Ron Paul. Your statement is like when Hillary said "all" of the Republican candidates were for the war. Total bull. Ron Paul was against the war and he is for Freedom!!!.

Re:Every major candidate's agenda

[Anonymous Coward]

Ron Paul is not a major candidate.

Re:Every major candidate's agenda

[rastoboy29]

Kinda makes you wonder why we can't have a candidate who _doesn't_ want to screw America.  You'd think one of them would want to not do that.

Re:Every major candidate's agenda

[WedgeTalon]

Read this and tell me he's not a major candidate: GOP Straw Poll Results

From the above link:

Weighted Top 3 Placings
Candidate.......Number of Times Placing (and Points)
................First...Second..Third...Total
Ron Paul........7 (21)..5 (10)..4 (4)...16 (35 points)
Fred Thompson...9 (27)..4 (8)...0 (0)...14 (35 points)
Mitt Romney.....4 (12)..6 (12)..7 (7)...16 (31 points)
Rudy Giuliani...0 (0)...5 (10)..4 (4)...7 (14 points)
John McCain.....1 (3)...0 (0)...1 (1)...2 (4 points)

Now tell me again, WHICH ones exactly are the "top three" "major candidates"?

Re:Every major candidate's agenda

[Carewolf]

Unfortunately Ron Paul is a fruitcake. I don't the lesson to be learned from electing a stupid president is electing a crazy one.

DUH

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Democrats win, we'll be living like Star Trek on January 21, 2009. If the Republicans win, we'll all instantly forget that fire and the wheel ever existed on that date.

Re:DUH

[thatskinnyguy]

And from a Republican perspective

If the Democrats win, we'll be living like 1984 on January 21, 2009. If the Republicans win, we'll all instantly forget that Hillary and Communism ever existed on that date. I know. Lame. But I'm just a Libertarian trying to keep the balance.

Easy..

[eniac42]

I here he is backing this "Intelligent design" thingy - as a scientist, I like the sound of that..

how about a bigger priority?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think there are much much bigger priorities, such as, how to keep nukes (and anything else for that matter) out of our asses. The candidate's tech agenda will have a whopping 2% impact on my choice.

Mitt Romney's tech agenda

[Mononoke]

The only technological topic addressed by Mitt Romney on his recent trip to my part of Texas was this: "We've got to get pornography off the internet!"

So basically, just more "think of the children" pandering.

Re:Mitt Romney's tech agenda

[MightyMartian]

Well, his campaign team did briefly have an ad up about the importance of importing Mormon brides from Indonesia and Kurdistan, but the focus groups decided that wouldn't play well with a lot of voters.

(Ah, but I do miss Hunter S. Thompson)

Re:Mitt Romney's tech agenda

[HungWeiLo]

Well, with his 5 healthy sons in their primes and their idle hands from the fact that none of them serve in the war that their father supports, he certainly needs to devote a lot of effort to ensure that none of them engage in anything tomfoolery with their idle hands.

Re:Mitt Romney's tech agenda

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you source this?

Re:Mitt Romney's tech agenda

[pxc]

The only technological topic addressed by Mitt Romney on his recent trip to my part of Texas was this: "We've got to get pornography off the internet!" And why not? The internet seems like the most reasonable place to get it to me.

Re:Mitt Romney's tech agenda

[paulmer2003]

Quotes please.

Re:Mitt Romney's tech agenda

[Mononoke]

What are you asking for?

I was in the room with him when he said exactly what I quoted to a crowd of about 1500 people. I feel certain he'll say exactly the same thing a few hundred more times in public.

Edwards the ambulance chaser

[MalleusEBHC]

On the other side of the issue is Edwards, whose campaign says: "Patent litigation reforms that may encourage innovation in some industries may hinder innovation in others," including alternative energy.

Not surprising from someone who made his money as an ambulance chaser. Luckily, it doesn't look like he stands a chance at this point.

Re:Edwards the ambulance chaser

[jmcharry]

Do you think Valerie Lakey should have gone without top notch legal representation? That is the case that made his reputation representing a little girl who was disemboweled by a defective swimming pool drain-- and survived. Edwards has made a large fortune as a trial lawyer, but he has made most of it representing individual clients wronged by powerful interests with powerful legal representation. He is also the only wealthy candidate I know of who did it pretty much all on his own, starting life as one of the little people and rising by force of merit. He can chase my ambulance any day.

Re:Edwards the ambulance chaser

[dbcad7]

I don't get all the Hillary/Obama hype. I like Edwards a lot, I don't know why he isn't doing better than he is.

Re:Edwards the ambulance chaser

[Supergood-ape]

"Edwards has made a large fortune as a trial lawyer"

That should have gone to his clients (the victims).

Looks Like Ron Paul is Your Boy Then

[Anonymous Coward]

Good ol' texan boy

Re:Election? Here's how I vote.

[everphilski]

sure he is

Democrat candidate talks about Health Care

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't heard any Democratic Party candidates talk about... ...seriously talking about health care either.

I've certainly heard one, and she stated that she wants to enforce mandatory health insurance as a prerequisite to be permitted to get a job. That's totally nuts!

How fitting that the captcha I had to type in to post this is "tyranny".

Arrr! Jim ladd! Get it right!

[eniac42]

Easy - Bush - I hear he is backing this "Intelligent design" thingy - as a Pirate, I like the sound of that..

And he's not even running - Avast and Shiver me Timbers! The joke just gets thinner and thinner..

Watch out for Romney

[GrEp]

Romney gave me the willies when listening to his Iowa Straw Poll speech. He advocated that every computer sold in the US be installed with government spyware to protect the children.

As usual Ron Paul isn't mentioned. IMHO he is right on that as long as the justice department does it's job in enforcing RICO statues and other laws barring ISP's from coercing their customers we should be fine. The reason our telecom system is a mess is the monopoly deals the congress entered into in the 1990s. Stop all federal funding of telecom projects and true competition should normalize the market. States are more than capable of funding basic telecom to rural areas.

Racism and Sexism is the way?

[kafkar]

Clinton has said she'll triple the number of NSF fellowships and increase the size of each award by a third. She also plans to provide incentives for women and minorities to enter math-, science-, and engineering-related fields by making diversity a requirement for federal education and research grants. So basically, being racist and sexist is the way to move our technology forward? Extra money and grants only awarded to people of certain races and sexes by the goverment is nothing more than blatant racism and sexism. How can anybody support this? The money should go to those that need it or deserve it the most, not the person who happened to be born a certain race/sex. This is ludicrous.

Re:Racism and Sexism is the way?

[Anonymous Coward]

You fogot: In Merica, it's OK to be racist against white males. In fact, it's government endorsed.

Re:Racism and Sexism is the way?

[moogle001]

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of equity that has driven America's policies of affirmative action for so long? We have long considered diversity and fairness to be worthy goals alongside productivity. One hopes that diversity allows for different perspectives, new ideas, and draws on talent that would otherwise be untapped. If that's not the case, then we hope that a little lost productivity buys us less built-in racism and sexism.

To summarize an argument that was only adequately argued to me a few years after college, the goal is not "color blindness", where everyone is treated the same way and everything is merit based. The goal is "equal opportunity", where a person's race, gender, and economic background is not a burden for them to bear. Even if racism and sexism was removed from the world, things would still not be "fair", because the legacy of less education, less money, and less connections means that certain groups are not as capable of receiving the education and experience needed to compete equally. A genius born in poverty has much less chance being recognized because they are much less likely to receive the same level of education and are more likely to be burdened by other social ills. In theory, this genius should have the opportunity to be as successful as their characteristics allow, but in reality their social circumstances are as important, if not more so, than their personal merits.

One can look at efforts to give advantages to minorities as unfair and reverse-racism/sexism. I certainly did for a long time. The truth is, though, that even when ignoring the existence of prejudice in people, white males are born into an advantageous position, and that advantageous position will likely grow without intervention, just as those with the most money are in a better position to make more money. That's not "fair" either, and will only lead to more prejudice. Just as progressive taxes are meant to redistribute wealth to the lower and middle classes in hopes that they'll be able to rise, we attempt to make it a little easier for minorities to get into fields dominated by white males in hopes that someday the advantage gap will disappear between groups.

Life isn't fair. We accept some inequalities in hopes of making the world a better place. Whether there's hope of that working, or whether it's an acceptable cost, of course, is something to yell and argue about.

Re:Racism and Sexism is the way?

[SMacD]

Racial and Gender equality... the new vast right-wing conspiracy!

Re:Racism and Sexism is the way?

[phantomlord]

To summarize an argument that was only adequately argued to me a few years after college, the goal is not "color blindness", where everyone is treated the same way and everything is merit based. The goal is "equal opportunity", where a person's race, gender, and economic background is not a burden for them to bear. Even if racism and sexism was removed from the world, things would still not be "fair", because the legacy of less education, less money, and less connections means that certain groups are not as capable of receiving the education and experience needed to compete equally. A genius born in poverty has much less chance being recognized because they are much less likely to receive the same level of education and are more likely to be burdened by other social ills. In theory, this genius should have the opportunity to be as successful as their characteristics allow, but in reality their social circumstances are as important, if not more so, than their personal merits.

One can look at efforts to give advantages to minorities as unfair and reverse-racism/sexism. I certainly did for a long time. The truth is, though, that even when ignoring the existence of prejudice in people, white males are born into an advantageous position, and that advantageous position will likely grow without intervention, just as those with the most money are in a better position to make more money. That's not "fair" either, and will only lead to more prejudice. Just as progressive taxes are meant to redistribute wealth to the lower and middle classes in hopes that they'll be able to rise, we attempt to make it a little easier for minorities to get into fields dominated by white males in hopes that someday the advantage gap will disappear between groups. So, a white male born to a single welfare mother in the ghetto of a dying city has a more advantageous position than, say, Oprah Winfrey's children (if she were to have some)? If you want to truly promote equal opportunity, neither race nor sex is are primary factors. Parent's education level and economic background, the quality of public schools in the area, undue family hardships (father died from an injury at work or maybe mom died from cancer while the child was young), the person's intellect, work ethic, ability to overcome adversity, etc are all what you should look at.

When you say "This grant is only for people who were born without a penis (or perhaps people who chopped theirs off) or are not from a pure Caucasian descent," you are saying that those people are inherently inferior to all white males and they cannot make it on their own regardless of their personal circumstances. I have friends who are minorities and women who earned coveted positions through hard work but everyone assumes that they got them just because of their skin color or gender. That, in fact, breeds resentment and hatred between white males and others as well as instills an inferiority complex in everyone that we're supposedly helping with those policies. Hillary might as well hang a sign outside her restaurant that says "No White Males" and we can go back to the days of segregation. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Re:Racism and Sexism is the way?

[dremspider]

I disagree with this and here is why.

First of all there are plenty of "disadvantaged" people in the "white male" group. The beauty of America is that you can work your tail end off and be successful from the very bottom all the way to the top. Will it be harder then the guy who has a daddy with millions in the bank? You bet it will, but it can be done. By giving benefits to any race or gender you are essentially saying, you are not as good as the other white person, who is in the same income bracket, so we are going to pay for your tuition. I can see offering more money to people in lower income families more money without a doubt, but not for their race. By giving it to people in lower income families you are doing it on an as needed basis. If it turns out to be more minorities (which statistically it will because of the legacy as you described it) then so be it. This is a great system because it is self correcting over time.

Affirmative action is really subconsciously telling people to not work because the government feels pity on you, you are after all disadvantaged because of your race/gender. Your gender is something that you can't change (well.... easily) and your race is something you can't change (without looking like Michael Jackson) and your kids really can't without racial integration. Your socio-economic status you can change though and therefore giving to people with lower incomes is not saying you are not as good as the other people, but rather you did not start with as many advantages as the person with the rich parents. These are two very big differences. If you give to people by race you are saying that they are "disadvantaged" and not as smart, but by socio-economic status and you are saying that they were given less opportunity.

If your legacy argument is true, and I believe that it is, there will be little to no difference between these two policies in terms of the numbers getting them. The policy will correct itself over time as the legacy is washed out and gets older. A lot of schools no longer do interviews for acceptance and only require a paper, high school transcripts and a few other things. It is ridiculous that they even need to know your race. Look at their academic abilities, adjust for economic status and you are done.

Re:Racism and Sexism is the way?

[Anonymous Coward]

A genius born in poverty has much less chance being recognized because they are much less likely to receive the same level of education and are more likely to be burdened by other social ills. In theory, this genius should have the opportunity to be as successful as their characteristics allow, but in reality their social circumstances are as important, if not more so, than their personal merits. Then why not give "incentives" to the poverty-stricken genius directly because of his economic situation? Affirmitive action is based on a "poor black" stereotype. You give advantages to black people because there's a likelihood their skin color indicates they are poor. Alternatively, you could give advantages to poor because they're poor. Personally, I'd opt for the latter

Re:Racism and Sexism is the way?

[AeroIllini]

I, for one, welcome more women in scientific and engineering disciplines.

Bring on the ladies!

Re:Racism and Sexism is the way?

[pokerdad]

We have long considered diversity and fairness to be worthy goals alongside productivity. One hopes that diversity allows for different perspectives, new ideas, and draws on talent that would otherwise be untapped. If that's not the case, then we hope that a little lost productivity buys us less built-in racism and sexism.

If this were true, as much effort and money would go into getting more men into nursing and child care as goes into getting more women into computers and engineering.

Re:Racism and Sexism is the way?

[izomiac]

Assuming that affirmative action does indeed make things fairer, what keeps the effects from accumulating? All levels of education that I've encountered use some form of affirmative action. So, for a researcher, a typical route might be: private high school, college, graduate/professional school, research grant. If you give caucasian males a 10% affirmative action disadvantage at every step, the final disadvantage would be 35%, which makes things unfair again. Even with just college and graduate/professional school the disadvantage is nearly twice that which was intended. While I personally don't like any kind of affirmative action, I can understand why it exists at the college level. At anything beyond that (like research grants) and you're just hurting someone who's already at a disadvantage.

Re:Racism and Sexism is the way?

[Mspangler]

"white males are born into an advantageous position"

That must explain why I had to join the Navy for 8 years to get the money for college.

That must also explain why my father did not graduate from high school.

And why his father died at 50, forcing Dad to take over the farm at 16, which is why he had to drop out of high school.

You are a dolt, or have a huge silver spoon in your mouth with attendant guilt, or are a blatant racist. I'm not sure which, and I'm not really interested in picking a category for you;

Re:Racism and Sexism is the way?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a few comments

While it is possible to argue that because your parents were from some minority you have been put at a disadvantage to the majority that arguement tends to ring just a little hollow for gender as most people have at 1 parent of both genders (or at least everyone I know does, its possible that you know some exceptions though I admit I highly doubt it). Any problems with gender bias need to be dealt with at their root cause otherwise it will just distort incentives over a long term.

Once again equal opportunity does NOT mean equal results, if you argue that because you are from a minority you havent been able to go to as good a schools etc etc that is what needs to change not who gets into what colleges because for the most part thats results not opportunity.

In addition from the statistics I have seen while blacks continue to graduate from college at a much lower rate then whites. Oddly this is only true of blacks that go to colleges that they otherwise would not have got into. Blacks who go to the same colleges that whites with similar gpa/sat/act scores go to graduate at the same or slightly better rate. Is it better to go to MIT and not graduate compared to going to Calpoly and graduating? Yes Calpoly is definatly a step down from MIT but Calpoly graduate is a significant step up from MIT dropout. Perhaps even more important is the fact that those people who benefit most from AA tend to be those who need it least, given the percentage of people who grow up in ghettos who go on to college it should be painfully obvious that those people who are benefiting from AA are those who don't actually need it. There are definatly problems here but AA is not the solution.

The same holds true for getting a grant, that is the result, you submit and application and based on your qualifications you either get it or someone more qualified then you gets it, the opportunity you may have missed earlier was access to better schools at a young age (elementary and high school) which I think everyone who isnt a complete ass agrees is something that needs to be fixed.

Your arguement that affirmative action addresses some legacy issue should mean that over time it should close the gap since in theory it helps people remove the shackles or some such from this legacy. This points to two things: One, that it should have a measurable effect of decreasing the differences over time, and Two, that it should eventually be done away with after it has managed to get rid of the legacy effects. I dont know about you but all I keep hearing about is AA supporters asking for it to be extended again and again, nothing about look AA has been so successful that we can get rid of it in this area.

And now for a little a little anecdotal evidence when I was applying for colleges I was looking at MIT but their current page on affirmative action stated that while we support affirmate action something like 30% of the campus is asian and as such it was actually harder for asians to get in then other people. I dont know about you but the history I read in high school didnt have asians coming to america to be welcomed as skilled labor, it was as poor day labor just as hispanics have been for awhile. Asians have apparently been able to overcome that disadvantage without the need for affirmative action so I'm forced to again question both the need for AA and its effectiveness.

*statistics from Thomas Sowell (I think Basic Economics) though some of it I've seen in lots of other places, and some should be obvious, like the fact that affirmative action isn't helping when looked at on a non-individual basis.

ps: Why is the word in my captcha incest? Is this common or does the server trying to imply something?

Re:Racism and Sexism is the way?

[WastedMeat]

America currently has big problems in science. These problems are not that we do not have a representative amount of women and minorities doing physics. Our problems are that we are struggling to not be left behind by the rest of the world.

We are not talking about workers in assembly lines or restaurants. Everyone benefits from technological progress. It is intolerably stupid to handicap these industries for a warm fuzzy feeling.

I am a graduate student in physics, and I have absolutely no time whatsoever to pursue any curiosities or extra curricular research. This is not due to my courseload; it is due to my obligations to the university: teaching E & M to engineers. Fellowships relieve these commitments, and allow universities to accept more students than they would otherwise be able to support, but they must go to the most able students to be effective.

I know far more capable and motivated aspiring scientists than myself that are incapacitated by the same obligations, yet I have a somewhat Hispanic roommate in engineering who received a fellowship last year and still did nothing beyond his coursework. It merely relieved him of an obligation. If this had instead gone to someone more promising as a student, who would have used their free time to take an additional research project, society may have experienced a return on its investment.

We put our best and brightest in environments as conducive to innovation as possible, yet effectively deny some of them the opportunity to properly exploit their environment for warmth and fuzziness.

I know this is not the situation with fellowships in general, or even in the majority of cases, but it happens sometimes and 'sometimes' is far too often. By nature, nurture, or otherwise, some people are better at certain things. It is in the interest of everyone, with the exception of the few members of minorities that would otherwise profit, that those who are able, can.

Re:Racism and Sexism is the way?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of equity that has driven America's policies of affirmative action for so long?"

You misspelled "revenge".

The rest of your post is bullshit - just justification of discrimination against white males.

NB: I am not a white male. What am I? None of your fucking business.

Re:Racism and Sexism is the way?

[moogle001]

Thank you for your hostility and insults. You have put me in my place, and furthered enlightened discourse. Perhaps it would have been more accurate of me to say "white males are statistically much more likely to be born into an advantageous position". However, that would be ignoring many of the benefits white males inherit from society, and oversimplifying the matter. For instance, studies have shown women are encouraged to not show aggression, competitiveness, or other "strong" emotions. There are still perceptions that they aren't as good with math. Hillary Clinton continues to be dogged by "Can a women be president?" And of course, racism still exists. I'm not black, so not really equipped to testify to its extent, but much of my family is and has...interesting stories to tell. Regardless, as I said, there can be much discussion about whether the policy I've described is just or whether it will provide good results (too very different questions!). But I don't mean to insulting, but by your emotional appeal, you do not seem to have any interest in really thinking about the issue.

Re:Racism and Sexism is the way?

[moogle001]

I have friends who are minorities and women who earned coveted positions through hard work but everyone assumes that they got them just because of their skin color or gender. That, in fact, breeds resentment and hatred between white males and others as well as instills an inferiority complex in everyone that we're supposedly helping with those policies.

Is this not strong evidence of a strong lack of diversity in their fields of work (they must not have many minorities working there) and a strong undercurrent of racism (they couldn't possibly have gotten these positions without help!).

Honestly, people that are going to be become resentful about affirmative action have racism already in them. They can certainly disagree with the policy, have valid complaints, and know better ways of doing it. But if that's going to make them hate minorities, they weren't far off to begin with. I see no recourse for this but to hope people will overcome their worse inclinations with time.

But to your other points, I largely agree. I think anything that will improve the conditions the lower class lives in is very good, and will go a long way to improving everyone's life. I'm not sure if you're implying the federal government should come up with a complicated formula by which to judge if the circumstances of a person's life merit particular help? That seems infeasible, though it might be nice.

That would certainly be more fair than blanket judgments about race or sex...but then, the question must be asked, are Oprah's children really gaining advantages from affirmative action that their upbringing hasn't given them? Does the existence of one uber-rich black women negate the reality of the uber-poor?

How does the need for diversity in our culture affect our desire for fairness?

Questions I consider interesting, anyways.

Re:Racism and Sexism is the way?

[phantomlord]

Is this not strong evidence of a strong lack of diversity in their fields of work (they must not have many minorities working there) and a strong undercurrent of racism (they couldn't possibly have gotten these positions without help!).

Look at the NFL. Never mind that black people make up 13% of the population and make up about 70% of the players. Never mind that almost 30% of the assistant coaching positions and that 5 of the 32 (16%) teams have a black head coach. The league requires teams interview at least one black person for a coaching position. Isn't the league already over-represented in terms of race at pretty much every turn (save maybe ownership, which I'm not sure of offhand)?

My dad worked for the town highway department. It was 6 guys and an elected supervisor. Should they be forced to hire 3 women and a token black just to make it a diverse work environment or is it likely that women generally don't like doing highway maintenance work and the 1.7% black population is my town is statistically irrelevant in a population of 7 people? ALL of the K-3 grade teachers (ballpark of 20) in our school district are female. Shouldn't they have to disqualify women in the future until they reach parity so they have proper diversity?

How does the need for diversity in our culture affect our desire for fairness?

I don't think there is an inherent need for diversity (in terms of race or sex) in the vast majority of jobs. I think there's a need for diversity in thought or else we'll fall into the trap of group-think. We need people who will challenge the status quo instead of people we get a warm fuzzy for hiring. What do you think would change the **AA more, some black/female executives from the same colleges the current ones came from or someone who sees that the technology has changed and needs to be embraced if the industry is going to continue?

I think different types of people are attracted to different jobs and that's ok. We need to embrace our differences and realize that it is ok that not everyone is the same. There's no reason why a woman can't be an engineer and a male can't be a nurse but we aren't improving a field by forcing people who don't have a predilection for that field. Most of my teachers sucked because they didn't care about teaching, they cared about having a 7-3 job with all the best days off and great benefits (and yes, around here, they're paid as well as any other profession requiring a similar degree and have a better pension and guaranteed job security to boot - we've taken it too far and end up attracting so many idiots who want the benefit package that they drown out those whom would give up a career in engineering to teach math).

I'm not sure if you're implying the federal government should come up with a complicated formula by which to judge if the circumstances of a person's life merit particular help? That seems infeasible, though it might be nice.

I'm sure given sufficient analysis, we could come up with an objective formula that approximates a person's adversity merit, but I'm not sure we should implement it to that degree. Instead, I think it would be better interview/approval techniques would be better. Who works best with the rest of the team? Who really grasps the ideas and has suggestions for improvement? Who seems to have a keen insight to advance things? The same holds true for stuff like research grants. Who's idea really looks like it will have the greatest benefit and/or provide a currently unforeseen breakthrough?

So why would those type of criteria provide an advantage to people who had to work to overcome disadvantages to be on par with their peers? I went to school with a lot of people who never worked a job in their life before graduating college. They had lots of ideas on how things should work in theory and they had a lot of ideas on how they wanted things to work. What they didn't understand is how things actually work and what other people would wa

Metrication.

[thesolo]

Candidates have staked out early positions on topics dear to the tech industry, including increasing federal spending on research and development, allowing more highly educated foreign workers into the country, widening the availability of high-speed Internet service to create new markets for hardware and online services, and improving the state of U.S. math and science education.

Does this translate into any of these candidates supporting the finalisation of the US going metric?

(Before this question spawns any angry posts, keep in mind that metrication is inevitable, the US is already too far metricated to go back, and with just a little bit of leadership, the US could easily finish it's conversion.)

Re:Metrication.

[bigstrat2003]

That isn't going to happen anytime soon. Barely anything metric is used in common use, are you going to make people run out and buy new sets of wrenches or something? Just because metric is used a lot in science doesn't mean the common man uses it.

Besides, I'm lazy. Leave me alone, the imperial system works for me!!

Re:Metrication.

[thesolo]

Why would anyone have to buy new wrenches? Cars have been metric for decades, even domestic makers use the metric system for their cars. Your fuel tanks are sized in litres, even if your owners manuals have the size in gallons.

Products in the US often suffer from 'hidden metrication'. Altoids are sold in 50 gram tins, but then they are labelled as "1.76 ounces". Body wash is often in 700 or 900 mL sizes, but labelled as 23.7 or 30 ounces.

Buy Listerine lately? It's only available in 250 mL, 500 mL or 1 L sizes. What about a bottle of soda-pop? 2 L. Dental floss? 50 M. A light bulb? 60 watts. Start a car? The engine's displacement is in litres as well.

Metrication is already all over in the US, you just don't realise it. Oh, and your inch was redefined as precisely 25.4 mm, so you're already metric there too. :D

Re:Metrication.

[2short]

Who would buy new wrenches? We'd just get rid of half of them and have less confusion and more space in our toolboxes. You can't have a decently competent shop without metric tools now anyway.

Re:Metrication.

[compro01]

are you going to make people run out and buy new sets of wrenches or something?

i haven't yet found a single non-metric bolt on my American-made '93 Plymouth, which has a 2.5Litre inline-4.

you're going metric. just gradually so people don't notice and cause an unnecessary fuss.

Re:Metrication.

[bigstrat2003]

And in contrast, almost every bolt on my '97 Dodge Intrepid is not metric. There are a few metric bolts, but the vast majority aren't.

Chips

[NeoTerra]

We could always have everyone assigned a Job Placement Chip into their hands. It worked on TV.

patent and copyright reform

[Anonymous Coward]

Do any candidates have any views on copyright and patents that would roll back the unlimited information monopoly give-aways some?

Get a clue yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

Canadian H1-B holders comprise a tiny fraction of the H1-B's issued. The big Indian outsourcing companies (Wipro, et. al.) grabbed about HALF of the available H1-B visas this year. And that doesn't comprise all of H1-B's that go to India. China is next on the list. Canada is hardly noticable.

In otherwords, the OP was speaking about MOST H1-B's.

All of the presidential candidates are trying to take us back to the dot-com bust as fast as possible, with the exception of Edwards. If you'll recall, it was in the years 2001-2003 that Congress increased the H1-B limit from the standard 65,000 to 115,000, for each of those years.

In fact, the reason why this is such a hot topic this year is because the visa's issued in 2001 are expiring this year. This is what you don't hear in the media. And the tech companies know very well that they have absolutely no chance of getting the Visa limit increased in a major election year.

So, if you want to relive the dot-com bust years, vote for Clinton or Obama. Edwards seems like the only one who isn't pwned by the high-tech lobby, and actually gives a damn for the average U.S. citizen.

Re:Get a clue yourself

[p0tat03]

I can't attest to the conditions of foreign (i.e. non-NAFTA) H1B's, since I obviously don't work in the States, but keep in mind that Canada is one of the most immigrant-heavy countries in the world. Wet let a huge number of people into this country every year based on their skillsets, and yet the industry in Canada is not suffering from rampant undercutting by immigrants.

If America is indeed having a problem of immigrants severely screwing the industry by undercutting wages, then I propose that there is a problem with your system, not the concept of talent import.

Re:Get a clue yourself

[abigor]

You're right, but you have to understand how people get into the country. To make a long story short, the skilled-worker class lets in a bunch of people with certain approved skills. They cover the map from medicine to construction and beyond. But fully 50% of Canada's immigrants come in under the family class, which is a family reunification scheme that is severely broken. Finally, a huge number (particularly Chinese) come in as "refugees", using bogus claims filed by crooked consultants. See the latest issue of The Economist for more on the terrible Canadian refugee system.

The skilled-worker class, where we should be taking most of our immigrants, is therefore logjammed up and doesn't account for the majority of immigrants, who are most often unskilled people coming in under family class or bogus refugee claims.

Everyone knows the solution: fix family class so huge extended families, so common in Asia, cannot bring over everyone, and fix the refugee system to stop economic migrants from gaming it. But it is a huge political liability to piss off the immigrant vote, so nothing gets done, and Canada's skilled worker shortage continues.

Haven't you learned yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't stop the signal.

Re:Haven't you learned yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

but you can make the SNR negative.

DMCA

[Applekid]

And not one is going to promise not to enforce the DMCA, put people on the bench to rule against it, or back congressional candidates that will have it removed from law.

If none of the candidates can see the error of the many provisions of the DMCA that are detrimental to the citizenry, I can then easily assume they're just spouting whatever gibberish their political handlers taught them to pronounce correctly.

Re:DMCA

[jesterzog]

And not one is going to promise not to enforce the DMCA, put people on the bench to rule against it, or back congressional candidates that will have it removed from law.

I agree that the DMCA is silly, but campaigning to not enforce something is very flaky, because it amounts to arbitrary standards. If it's okay to not enforce the DMCA, why not any other random law that the current administration doesn't like. Besides, deciding what to enforce is really infringing on the rights of the police and the courts to do their respective jobs independently, without political interference. It'd make much more sense to simply work to clean up the political mes by having the DMCA removed from law before it does too much more damage.

As for the second point, people should surely be chosen based on their merit and qualifications rather than because they're expected to rule against a specific piece of legislation. Choosing people based on their alignment with certain political ideas is just emulating exactly the same actions that the current federal administration has been seriously criticised for.

fine, if you want it that way

[Anonymous Coward]

The hostility towards Muslims, minorities, and generally anyone out to "steal your job" is making the US plummet on the list of desirable places to move to

Good. We're full anyway. Stay where you are. No need to come over here so don't ask anymore.

what are their stances on changing the gov-t?

[Fry-kun]

There are SO MANY problems with the system we have right now. Not the least of which is having to choose the lesser evil.
For example, if I support Clinton's agenda for abortion & civil rights, but completely oppose her views on education, how the fuck am I supposed to vote? Why do I have to choose between my views? I want to vote for the policies, not for the people, dammit!

As it is now, the whole system is one big popularity contest. And they wonder why the voter turnout is so low...

Re:what are their stances on changing the gov-t?

[linuxpyro]

In the future this problem will be solved when it is possible to download one's consciousness into a computer. A huge computer will be built to take on the office of President, and at each election you will be able to vote for the stances on issues that interest you for each candidate. The result will be some sort of hybrid consciousness which will make everyone happy.

Excuse the language

[Colin Smith]

But, FUCK the tech agenda.

I want to know what they're going to do about the monetary system instability and the oil peak that's coming Real Soon Now.

Edwards on Patent Reform

[Creamsickle]

From TFA:

On the other side of the issue is Edwards, whose campaign says: "Patent litigation reforms that may encourage innovation in some industries may hinder innovation in others," including alternative energy. "American competitiveness is too important for us to let our intellectual-property rules be skewed by lobbyists arguing for their own industries' narrow interests."
How disappointing. Based on the article, it seems John Edwards is the only major candidate (of those who have taken a position on the issue) that backs the patent system as it is. I haven't decided who to vote for (although after this article Obama is looking good), but John Edwards is now officially crossed off my list.

Re:NOT appropriate

[Anonymous Coward]

Would the KKK string him up for kissing a white girl in public? If the answer is yes, the fucker's black.

Amazing how many liberals want to de-black someone when they don't tow the "da white man's out to get ya" party line. Obama is as liberal as they come, be open minded and give the nigger a chance.

Ummm

[gerf]

Why do you think so many people who've heard his views are pro Ron Paul?

Speaking of which, why are you even on slashdot if you hadn't even heard of him? Something's not quite right..

Hey ya'll, I think we gots an imposter here. Git 'em!

Does this scare anybody else?

[hcmtnbiker]

Senator Obama has posited wider broadband penetration as a way to create job opportunities for the urban poor and says he'll overhaul fees the government charges phone companies to pay for it.

I honestly don't see how this will work. If he charges the communications companies more then in turn they will just charge the customer more. All this will accomplish is driving up the price of broadband, making is harder for the urban poor to pay for something that I believe will be almost a necessity down the road all this will do is help shut out the poor people from what they will need to improve themselves down the road.

The names of the bills don't say what they'r about

[Scrameustache]

Ron Paul is against Net Neutrality. Ron Paul is actually against regulating the internet.

what is their World of Warcraft agenda

[Anonymous Coward]

will they have a fund raiser in Second Life?

Do they use Linux?

Thanks, Business Week.

[afrederickson]

I'm happy to see this type of attention. What we need is coverage of what our next president is going to DO, not what they plan to think about Iraq and abortion.

past precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, this is pretty darn obvious, sorry you can't see it but I'll spell it out as plain as I can here.. Go back 30 years to the beginnings of the outsourcing of blue collar manufacturing jobs. What is the result? The US doesn't make near as much as it used to, millions of good paying jobs lost, entire industries have now completely shutdown, they don't even exist any more in the US. and in the meantime, the cheap imports have lead to just a nation of debtors, the government, business and private people, now almost entirely in some serious debt, levels unheard of since the great depression, all based on the illusion that credit=money. Well, that's falling hard and fast right this second, check some headlines lately.

    Then look at agriculture or green collar jobs, the same thing, the family farmer who used to be profitable is now almost gone, replaced by giantfoodco inc and the legions of imported green collar workers, 99% of whom are here illegally. Another huge number of jobs gone for the "regulars', the "legals", your neighbors again, that or cheap imported yummy poison food, chock fulla lead and heavy metals and human waste e-coli and other sorts of nutritious goodness! yaa! But it's *cheaper*, so it must be as good or better, right??

And you white collar office workers (IT is just glorified clerk and typing jobs, don't kid yourself there) think for some automagical reason you aren't next? Why? Why would anyone rational think that, given you now have not only studies, but 30 years of empirical evidence to look at? You see the globalists Modus Operandi, how they operate, and then what happens, what more do you need to look at? They knew they couldn't do it all overnight, the hugest heist and ripoff in history, because that would actually spark a revolt and a lot of fatcats hanging from lamposts, and they don't want that, but by busting it up into chunks, starting with the less wealthy and less politically powerful, they gradually just *sold* everything away, and pocketed the proceeds and left YOU with now three generations debt and counting. And those ripoff artists in DC and on Wallstreet ain't done ripping you off yet. You think to the billionaire class that you are "special" or something? Here's a hint, you ain't, if and when you can be replaced with someone much cheaper, you will be, and if and when it comes to the point that the international billionaires can't make enough money out of the US because of all the jobs they have screwed over here, and the US drops to some second world status like a big fat Mexico,-they won't care, they'll be over there someplace else doing what they do best, gross mass ripoffs of any sucker people's they can bribe the local politicians off at. I mean, da-yum, it's lather rinse repeat constantly, what's to study? How many three card monte games do you need to see before you bingo to what the scam is???

You white collar guys-enjoy your checks now,because the handwriting is not only on the wall, there's giant blinking neon signs saying it, YOU ARE NEXT-YOU ARE NEXT-YOU ARE NEXT. You stood around and laughed and snickered while the other workers-your neighbors-got screwed over, thinking somehow you were "the elite".

Funniest crap I have ever read over and over again.

There's your studies to look at, past and current economic and political reality. You're next, just a matter of when, not if. Welcome to the globalist pigs dream planet, 1% masters, 99% working serf drones, blue, green or white collar, it just won't matter eventually, you'll still be a slave, not an employee, a slave. They just won't call it that, that's all.

Re:past precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

You're stealing my line!

Which is okay because the MH42/Pudge/RG/RF cabal modded my account down to 2 posts/day by attacking, post per post, day after day, week after week, incessantly, every post that I made.

So I guess I should thank you for contuing to post my line.

Except that it's "aren't", not "ain't". I was trying to preserve some standard of education.

-HiLJ

Dirigisme

[MSTCrow5429]

Is anyone else frightened that the government should have a "tech agenda," meaning further control and regulation of the tech industry, in the first place? Should be really be applauding political robber barons for stealing our tax dollars and enriching themselves from various government schemes? Getting in bed with the government is like getting into bed with a pitcher plant.

Examining Slashdot's U.S. Flag GIF

[Anonymous Coward]

It appears to be one stripe shy of thirteen, Taco! Are you a bad enough dude to correct this unsightly error???

He has more faith in gold than paper

[MacDork]

He's much more knowledgeable about the American monetary system than most. He's the only person who cared when the Fed stopped reporting the M3. He's obviously not fond of inflation, fiat currencies, or fractional reserve lending. As a result, Ron Paul is in my five ;) He's right between Feingold and Boucher.

Re:He has more faith in gold than paper

[ClioCJS]

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul restated his commitment on Tuesday to overturning the landmark abortion decision that allowed virtually unlimited abortions. He said he would work to overturn the Supreme Court ruling if he is nominated as the Republican candidate for president and elected to the White House.

Paul said he was pro-life & would make reversing the decision a top priority.

He also said that more people should be exposed to what abortion does to an unborn child and women who have them.

He has also voted against public funding of adult stem cell research and is against taxpayer-funded embryonic stem cell research.

Re:He has more faith in gold than paper

[Copid]

He's much more knowledgeable about the American monetary system than most. He's the only person who cared when the Fed stopped reporting the M3. He's obviously not fond of inflation, fiat currencies, or fractional reserve lending. As a result, Ron Paul is in my five ;) He's right between Feingold and Boucher.

Personally, I think that while we're tying our economic growth to arbitrary products dug from the ground, an aluminum-based economy would be far more interesting. Or mercury. That stuff is awesome.

Re:He has more faith in gold than paper

[MacDork]

The nice thing about arbitrary products from the ground: You can't print more if you are irresponsible with what you have. You can't just spend today and worry about the consequences in 20 years. More importantly though, I think the practice of fractional reserve lending should be abolished. Banks routinely lend 10 times the amount they have on hand in total assets. They create money out of thin air in order to siphon off enormous amounts of capital in interest on debt. The process itself spawns inflation, robbing savers and producers. It also tends to concentrate wealth in the hands of very few, making it more difficult for the many to live debt free.

"You load sixteen tons..." and so on, and so forth. I see it as nothing more than a tool to subjugate the masses. Everyone's too busy trying to pay a mortgage to realize they've been enslaved.

Re:He has more faith in gold than paper

[Copid]

The nice thing about arbitrary products from the ground: You can't print more if you are irresponsible with what you have. You can't just spend today and worry about the consequences in 20 years.

All of these things are true, but there's a flip side as well: Your money supply is stuck at whatever quantity you happen to be able to pull out of the ground. It doesn't reflect the growth of your economy as a properly managed pool of fiat money does. The net result is the potential for unexpected deflation that burns a lot of people--usually people who have invested in infrastructure--when one segment of your economy grows quickly. In an ideal world, the money supply would scale closely with the growth of the economy to keep currency values stable. In the real world, that will either be enforced by twiddling the fiat money supply or by deflation slamming on the brakes whenever your economy gets uppity and tries to grow too quickly.

The simple question is whether one wants to trust the ratio of currency economy size to elected officials, economists, or blind ass luck. Elected officials are right out because, as you point out, they print money like fiends to buy votes and temporarily bypass the need for fiscal responsibility. Blind luck hasn't worked out all that well in the past as there are a number of cases when gold-related deflation has screwed large populations (e.g. the dollar in the late 19th century). Independent economists don't really have an incentive to inflate like crazy, and they tend to make better decisiosn about our money supply than mining companies. Going to gold simply trades one problem for another and abdicates control over the system.

Banks routinely lend 10 times the amount they have on hand in total assets. They create money out of thin air in order to siphon off enormous amounts of capital in interest on debt.

You say that as though banks are doing something nefarious rather than behaving exactly the way they're expected to behave. The creation of money out of "thin air" is accounted for in the regulation of the money supply. You won't find Ben Bernanke indignantly exclaiming, "We set the money supply to the right level and then the banks went and inflated it! I'm shocked! How did they do that?"

The process itself spawns inflation, robbing savers and producers.

No, not necessarily. It can cause inflation, depending on how the Fed regulates the underlying supply of money. The multiplier effect caused by fractional reserve banking is simply a multiplicative factor (not exactly a constant, but close enough for this discussion) on a variable that's completely under the Fed's control. The Fed could spawn inflation or deflation or the coveted zero inflation, depending on its policies. The fact that it opts for slow, well-controlled inflation is not a coincidence: For all the problems of inflation, you get the mirror image set of problems with deflation and slowed growth and investment to boot. It is not a tasty pie.

It also tends to concentrate wealth in the hands of very few, making it more difficult for the many to live debt free.

That's true of any monetary system. The reality is that in a capitalist society, once you have a certain amount of money, you can stop working and let your money work for you. Whether you open a bank or invest directly in securities or small businesses, you're going to be the winner and the working stiff is going to play your game. As for it being difficult to live debt-free, the simple question is: Would you want to? Certainly, being in ever-increasing debt for the entirety of your life is a bad thing. But at the same time, the easy availability of credit allows one to start capital-intensive businesses, buy a home earlier in life, and generally offers a sizable set of benefits in smoothing out one's quality of life over time. Look at countries where credit is unavailable and see what people are doing to lift themselves out of poverty. It's not as easy as it seems.

Re:The names of the bills don't say what they'r ab

[AeroIllini]

Net Neutrality is regulation of the internet.

What, you think we're going to tell the telcos to play nice, but not back it up with laws? That's what regulation is.

"Ok, guys, you have a big responsibility as network providers to not play favorites with your traffic. You can't throttle your competitors' connections and boost your own; that wouldn't be fair. However, since regulation is Bad (tm), we're not going to pass any laws forcing you do play nice, or even check up on you. We think you'll be good all on your own."

Re:The names of the bills don't say what they'r ab

[Scrameustache]

Net Neutrality is regulation of the internet. Yes, I know. But being against regulating the internet != being against net neutrality;

Being against net neutrality implies a position which is not the one that Ron Paul has displayed with his voting record, even though that record shows a vote against net neutrality which is consistent with his position of not imposing unnecessary regulations.

I'll bite:

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Ron Paul is anti-immigration,

Anti ILLEGAL immigration. (As in "They have to go back home and get in line behind those who DID follow the rules. No prizes for breaking the law.")

bad bad bad for tech.

Really? How does illegal immigration help tech?

Last time I looked illegal immigration was mainly good for breaking unions, increasing the number of unemployed, and providing cheap labor to businesses at pay scales and working conditions below those a citizen is ALLOWED to accept, subsidized by mainly-citizen and LEGAL immigrant taxpayers (at least those who still remain employed) in the forms of loads on tax-supported social services for the illegal workers and their families.

And while may illegal immigrants may be "honest working people just trying to make a living", a system that takes people who come from a country where the law is a corrupt joke and requires them to break OUR laws even to be here makes it hard to convince them that any OTHER laws ought to be obeyed. Instead it rewards those who gratuitously break laws whenever it's in their interest and provides a selection pressure for such people to come here while the more law-abiding stay behind.

(as well as unconstitutional, unlegitimate, ...

Quite the contrary: Congress is explicitly authorized by the Constitution (Article 1 Section 8) "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization ... throughout the United States"

And I'll skip the remainder of your claims (which are value judgements) with the comment that gratuitous assertions can be gratuitously denied. B-)

Re:I'll bite:

[Arthur B.]

Who cares if immigration is ILLEGAL (scare caps on). If the law preventing immigration is unjust there's nothing wrong with breaking it. The U.S. government has no right to decide who can stay in my place or who I can hire.

> Quite the contrary: Congress is explicitly authorized by the Constitution (Article 1 Section 8) "To establish
> an uniform Rule of Naturalization ... throughout the United States"

Nothing wrong with that. But it doesn't say that they can prevent non naturalized citizens to work and live in the US.

too bad he's pro-life, huh?

[ClioCJS]

-- Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul restated his commitment on Tuesday to overturning the landmark abortion decision that allowed virtually unlimited abortions. He said he would work to overturn the Supreme Court ruling if he is nominated as the Republican candidate for president and elected to the White House.

Paul said he was pro-life and would make reversing the decision a top priority.

He also said that more people should be exposed to what abortion does to an unborn child and women who have them.

He has also voted against public funding of adult stem cell research and is against taxpayer-funded embryonic stem cell research.

Re:too bad he's pro-life, huh?

[moore.dustin]

There is no such thing as a perfect candidate. The only way to get someone in office that agrees with everything you do is to run yourself. While Ron Paul may not have the same views on abortion, he is right on the money with other issues that are more important to me.

Prioritize what matters to you the most and find the candidate that satisfies the most important issues to you. You have to find the happy medium between what you get and what you give.

If the Dems win...

[Anonymous Coward]

First priority for the Dems: finish dismantling Microsoft.

Public education and NCLB

[Ungrounded Lightning]

For all the talk of Small Government, NCLB is a huge intrusion into local control of schools and it's agenda is to sabotage public education by setting up schools to fail.
But I was under the impression that the public schools had largely ALREADY failed (do in some extent to previous federal interventions), they were on a downward spiral, and the NCLB's agenda was to put them on a spot where, one-by-one, they either cleaned up their act or were destroyed and the kids moved elsewhere.

Of course it's not MY agenda to defend the NCLB. (IMHO the solution is to get the fed out of the business of education altogether, rather than trying to patch its previous mismanagement with more layers of management.) But let's at least characterize it correctly.

Don't use "obtuse" to make "stupid" sound nice

[aichpvee]

How can someone be against me doing that, when I'm paying the exact same money you are for living there, my living expenses are the same if not higher, I'm contributing to the government by paying my taxes, and I'm willing to take the job for less money?

The same reason we'd be pissed off if you went scab and crossed a union picket line. You're undercutting the power, both economic and political, of the workers of the United States. And while you might not realize it at the time, thinking that they're making a pretty nice chunk of change, you're undercutting yourself as well since you just lowered the level of that position.

Of course a few people here and there isn't that big of a problem, but when it's a lot that puts a lot of downward pressure on the prevailing wage for that position. There is basically only one argument in support of large numbers of H1B workers that is not related to paying them less, and that is that there simply aren't enough trained people here to do it. If that were true then these H1Bs should be making the same money that current resident would make in the same position. This doesn't seem to be the case and gives the lie to that argument.

I've really got to ask who is racist in this situation, the one who thinks that it's just fine and dandy for rich white Americans to import brown people from all over the world because they can pay them less or those of us who think that if the job can be done domestically then it should be and if not then whoever is imported to do it should make the same as if they were native? Because your proposition seems pretty fucking "racist" to me.

Perhaps I'm being obtuse - would someone mind explaining me why a paraguayan person immigrating here, living here, paying his taxes, and asking equal or less than a local person, with similar qualifications, is less fit for the job?

No reason, but you're the asshole saying he should make less money.

A little disclaimer, I only read the beginning and end of your post because skimming the middle seemed to be filled with the same sort of quasi-libertarian, "why can't I fuck myself over if I want to" bullshit, and I'll go out on a limb here and assume more attempted race baiting. Too bad, because it seemed like you were on domestic workers choosing to work for less than their colleagues in the same positions and I could have brought up all the examples, that I'm sure you would approve of wholeheartedly, like women and black men who are already "choosing" to do this.

Missing from the article

[jmdc]

The article (and the political process, as far as I can tell) doesn't address several important issues.

• The DMCA is draconian; it needs to be repealed. (I'm thinking of protecting academics who study security from being pushed around, let alone 13 year old girls and grandmothers who download a couple of songs). Yes, I did just use the "Think of the children" defense. Anyway, I've never seen a political candidate who even has a public position on the DMCA.
• Government documents need to be archived in an open format. Microsoft abused the standards process, hard. Again, no politicians are even talking about odf/ooxml. No one even mentioned Microsoft's abuse.

It is frustrating that these things aren't even being talked about. I'm not saying that Politicians should spend a huge amount of time on these issues. I just some candidate would write two sentences somewhere, to the effect of "I oppose the DMCA and favor open standards. If elected, I would work with congress to repeal the DMCA, I would investigate Microsoft's manipulation of the standardization process, and I would make ODF the standard from government documents." Is that too much to ask?

UNSUBSTANTIATED SLUR

[Jane Q. Public]

What evidence do you have that Paul is a racist? Are you saying that all Texans are racists? Funny, but NOBODY else has been saying anything like that.

Not at all

[Jane Q. Public]

Monopolies are not "free market". Paul does not support monopolies.

The did NOT "miss" him!

[Jane Q. Public]

They deliberately left him out. Come on, get real.

Interesting education + technology connection

[meese]

I found this answer by Obama on the connection between education and technology.

The first half of Obama's comments are the usual talk we hear from all the democratic candidates - that no child left behind is a failure, etc.

The last minute and half of the answer, however, is very interesting - Obama presented a great new idea (and I've heard pretty much every idea that every candidate throws out there on most issues, but I had never heard this) that ties together two important campaign issues: energy independence and education. More than that, I think there might be two parts to his point, one subtle and one obvious.

The first part is that we need kids to go into science and engineering, and energy independence is a good motivator. The second, subtle part is that if we have a president who can once again inspire the youth like JFK, we'll be twice as effective in the first part - and truly will be able to create a movement around energy independence that will probably spread to other needed economic arenas.

Re:Interesting education + technology connection

[dragonturtle69]

To get kids interested in science and engineering, the jobs need to pay well. If the MBA can with less schooling, let alone the hard schooling to get a science/engineering PhD, have a 7-8 figure annual compensation package compared to the PhD's 5-6 figure package, only the true lovers of science will apply. Law and MBA schools will still win.

Re:Interesting education + technology connection

[meese]

I'm in a PhD program and plan to stay in academic research after I graduate even though I could have made far more in industry, though you're right, there are many folks who will do whatever pays the most. I like Obama's idea of having a new common mission that kids can latch on to - that combined with increased investment in alternative fuels, a new generation can make an impact on this important issue, all the while training new scientists and engineers.

Here is your perfect dollar substitute: Krugerrand

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is the perfect substitute for the fiat dollar: http://www.krugerrand.org/

Riddle me this catwoman...

[pkbarbiedoll]

Edwards' position may be seen as less tech-friendly. He would require employers to show they couldn't have given an H-1B job to an American, and he would increase fees for companies that employ H-1B workers, his campaign says.

Odd that.. Edwards is planning to take reasonable steps to protect American STEM jobs during an American Presidential campaign. Are our candidates supposed to cave to Indian IT outsourcing corporations during our elections too?

Vote Al Gore!

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, he invented the internet.

How much of that is the President's job?

[Bob Uhl]

Gosh, let's look at that quick list:

Increasing federal spending on research and development

Research & development are pretty clearly not a federal issue; they're really not an issue for any State. Yes, the Internet was a result of federal research; but one wonders if it mightn't have existed anyway: networks are useful, and if something is useful someone will figure out how to make it.

Allowing more highly educated foreign workers into the country

Well, securing the borders is a federal responsibility. It seems to me that the President can't have a programme, though: all he can do is approve or deny the laws Congress passes (and they can of course over-rule him). As for how smart it is to increase H1-Bs, I'm uncertain. I've worked with some very intelligent visa workers for certain. On the other hand, I've seen a lot of very intelligent citizens let go. We keep on reading about a tech jobs shortage; why then is everyone in IT so desperately afraid of losing his job? I wonder if the agitation for more H1-Bs is not simply a way to keep wages down.

Widening the availability of high-speed Internet service

Please explain how this is a federal responsibility; please indicate which clause of the Constitution gives the President or the Congress that authority. I'll admit that interstate networks are naturally federal--but we already have some nifty interstate networks. The issue is not those, but the 'last mile,' which is quite clearly not federal in scope. It is local, though: just as roads, water, telephones and electricity are either public or very closely supervised by the states, so too should networks be.

Improving the state of U.S. math and science education

That's not a federal responsibility. The Department of Education is unconstitutional, and should be eliminated. As for education, we know how to educate: it's easy. What we're not willing to do is actually do it. Read the Underground History of American Education for more about how American schools don't accidentally fail: they're designed to produce poor results and bad citizens. If you really want education to be a federal responsibility, change the Constitution; the amendment process is there for a reason.

Know what's interesting about that?

[Almahtar]

The really interesting part is that everywhere I go, Ron Paul campaign signs and posters are the only ones that are up yet. The 'little guy' seems to really be stoked about Ron Paul, which is very interesting because he still hasn't gotten enough media attention to be that popular, traditionally. He seems to be spreading by word of mouth. That's how I heard about him - an e-mail from a friend asking me to just take 10 minutes and type his name into YouTube.

Dismantle the government

[roman_mir]

The idea behind dismantling the government is that the current government became useless for the people of the country and now stands on the way of any progress at all. I support this idea in principle, of-course implementation is not very clear. Formerly all revolutions ended up creating even worse situation than that prior to them. So how do you dismantle the government?

Another issue is this, what principles would you build the new system upon? I'd think most people would agree that the federals should be given much less power than they have now and that the local governing system should be the most important system. The local system should be responsible for its own infrastructure, but how do you decide what is 'local' in the first place?

Of-course a more fun idea than others is to have a shoot out and divide everything from scratch. On the other hand this will not go well with property owners. Well then, maybe the most important local government should start from everyone's own place of residence. Wouldn't that be fun? If everyone lived by their own laws in their own house and those laws would trump any externally imposed laws. The problem is that there is no way to stop one household from cooperating with other households. Once two households cooperate, they are more powerful than any one single household. That's the problem with people - they like to cooperate while they really should be trying to survive on their own. How do we turn off the cooperation gene once again?

Ok, so given that people will cooperate and form alliances and thus will create the job of a politician, who will become more powerful and will always have more voice than a non-politician, how do we ensure that the politicians don't create the same problem that is observed at this time right now?

How about a meta-democratic system, requiring the voters to display good understanding of the issues they are supposedely voting on and displaying good logical sense and understanding the difference between a faith based and a scientific process of dealing with the world? So these people become an elite really, but anyone can then enter this elite by becoming more informed.

Of-course some masses that are not and are incapable of becoming the elite, will stop trusting this elite, but then who cares about those people right? But the truth is that those people also should be able to make decisions in their own lives, no matter how uninformed and mentally incapable they are.

Maybe different states should have different voting processes, while limiting the feds from real power over the states. Some states should only allow the abovementioned elite to vote, some states should allow everyone to vote, some states should not allow voting at all, etc.

Then, every 3 years or so, the states should get together and look at the results of this experiment and adjust it accordingly to the results.

So this is it, the system should constantly change and adopt, we should only create laws and systems to direct these changes onto the path of progress, efficiency, happiness and such. Maybe it is something like the original intent, but better, because the political systems in each state would have a choice rather than be dictated to the same political system.

MOD PARENT "+1 finantial insight"

[faragon]

I'm *glad* you have such economic insight! Recession for US and many European countries is almost granted, the interest rate lowering it is just a joke, as it is preferable a sharp correction (recession) than a deep and large progressive decadence (depression). Your bet? 2-3 year recession or 15 year depression? 1 stagflation (expensive oil inflation / other goods deflation) + 2 recession years? (not trolling, promise!)

Mod down the trolls!

[Scrameustache]

What do you mean a prank? I am dead serious.

  - Ron Paul is an authoritarian power-freak opposed to immigration. Sure he is not an über-authoritarian-power-freak like most candidates but the fact remains that his position on immigration make him despisable.

  - Immigration is very important to the tech industry. Recently MS moved a research center to Canada for lack of H1B visas in the US. Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)

Re:Mod down the trolls!

[Arthur B.]

that's very good to know, it seems a bit inconsistent with what is stated on his campaign web site though

Perfectly cromulent? That's unpossible!

[Scrameustache]

that's very good to know, it seems a bit inconsistent with what is stated on his campaign web site though You are aware that he runs for office in Texas? Texas. THAT Texas.
When he talks about immigrants he means the constant influx of poor Mexicans, not skilled workers applying for visas, and that does mean he is "unconstitutional, unlegitimate, immoral, unethical, etc)", as you claim. And I don't even think that "unlegitimate" is a word.

Re:Perfectly cromulent? That's unpossible!

[Arthur B.]

- unconstitutional: Where does the constitution grants congress any power to have a say in who can work and live in the US?
- unlegitimate: The right to exclude belong solely to the property owners, the US governement has no right in preventing me to invite a poor unskilled - immigrant to work and live in a factory I own
- immoral: use of deadly force is made to enforce this
etc