Slashdot Mirror
Senate Sources Say CTO Confirmation a Done Deal
theodp writes "On Tuesday, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation will examine the nomination of Aneesh Chopra as the first-ever federal Chief Technology Officer. Senate sources said they were not aware of any debate surrounding his nomination. You'd think the hack-for-$10-million-ransom of Virginia's Prescription Monitoring Program might be good for a question or two. Or the wisdom of appointing a CTO who's no technologist. It might also be worth bringing up Chopra's membership in TiE-DC, a group which promises 'exclusive peer networking events' with government officials and Federal contractors, including TiE-DC sponsor Microsoft. Are there any other issues that might make the Confirmation Hearing more than a rubber-stamping?"
By all means, centralize all IT policy for the federal government into some agency that knows basically squat about what each department does. These days, inefficiency in government is about all the chance we get for freedom.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Perhaps as a Canadian I don't appreciate the finer points of the American political process, but I'm having trouble finding a meaningful relationship in this sequence of events:
1. Senate Hearing is scheduled.
2. Random Blog quotes unnamed "[s]enate sources" as saying "they were not aware of any debate surrounding his nomination."
3. Slashdot editors release a news story with a headline of "Senate Sources Say CTO Confirmation a Done Deal"
4. Thinly disguised editorial consisting mostly of anti-Microsoft remarks and an assertion that confirmation hearings are a sham process is submitted as a news story to Slashdot.
Sigh. I guess I'll have to reconsider Slashdot as primary source of news and go back to reading newspapers and watching C-SPAN.
God forbid someone in the VA-MD-DC area belongs to a group used for professional networking! As we all know, most non-profit professional groups have no sponsors whatsoever.
Also, who's to say he's not qualified to do the job just because of being labeled not a technologist back in 2005? Maybe what is needed for a CTO position is someone who understands how government and policy is applied (see MPP degree reference) to solve problems, and how the application of technology is a key factor?
I do agree, though, some questions about the Prescription Monitoring Program would be warranted.
But really, with the tax problems of other appointees, maybe most of this stuff is seen as small potatoes. If you don't agree, though, feel free to contact someone on the committee. The hearing starts on Tuesday.
While I am not a supporter of any particular person, I think a CTO doesnt need to be a specialist but should have the breadth of understanding across a range of issues around technologies, have the strong analytical sense so that he or she can organize problems and solutions in a structure that makes decision making possible. I think it is structured thinking and a demonstrated love for technology that are important not advanced knowledge of a particular focussed discipline.
Interesting. Why do you believe that?
Because the truth of the matter is twofold:
a) First Democrats were terrified of losing everything in the wake of 9/11. Up until the invasion of Iraq, their strategy was to try and out Republican the Republicans on national security. And, the American people were -super- pissed off. There was a poll that came out just after 9/11 that showed that 90% of all Americans favored the use of nuclear weapons in Afghanistan. Despite the whole classroom incident, Bush on the rubble at the WTC with the megaphone was one of the greatest moments of any President in our lifetime, so great, frankly, that he milked that one moment for the rest of his term without ever really living up to it again.
You have to remember that if Democrats go lefty after 9/11, they might lose the Senate worse than they did. In those days, a Republican veto proof majority meant that Social Security becomes privatized. With the stakes that high, there's really no limit to what the Democrats would do to save their baby.
b) Democrats are actually patriots too, and they might have actually felt betrayed. Let's remember that in the 1990s American policy towards Islam was continually conciliatory in hopes of reaching out. We swept a bunch of terrorist attacks under the rug, pushed for a Palestinian state, looked the other way when Saddam cheated the sanctions, let Pakistan become completely islamified and ignored crackdowns in Saudi Arabia and Iran, and finally we bombed the wrong side in the balkans war, to do a favor to the muslims.
All of this brought us nothing, but 9/11. So yeah, they were in a political climate where they felt they had to be ruthless, or lose everything.
This is my sig.
The democrats have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and solid control of the House. They aren't going to make their own party look bad and don't have to give the Republicans a chance to do it. This is the problem with putting a single party in almost total power. We will see more of this until some sort of balance is restored.
If you thought the Republicans did a lot of damage controlling the Executive and Legislative, just wait. The Democrats have an opportunity here with the overwhelming majority to do far more. For all of you scientists out there you are going to get a crash course in faith because that is about the only thing we can have that bad does not become worse over the next two or more years. We certainly don't have any control or checks or balances.
Understand that this is not a Republican vs Democrat rant. I don't trust any of them to look out for the good of the nation. That's why I am deeply concerned about any one party dominating government.
We all discussed Aneesh Chopra on /. a month ago, folks. No less than Tim O'Reilly has vouched for him as a technological bad-ass. Read that. Read the comments. Then return here and carry on. There's no need for us to have to re-learn who this guy is every time he's written about here.