Slashdot Mirror
What Happened To Obama's Open Source Adviser?
gov_coder writes "Back in January of 2009, various news articles announced that former Sun CEO Scott McNealy was to become the Obama administration's Open Source Technology adviser. Currently, however, a search for Scott on the whitehouse.gov website yields zero results. Searching a bit more, I found that Scott is currently working on CurriWiki, a kind of Wikipedia for school curriculum. So my question is, what happened? Did some lobbyist block the appointment? Did Scott decide his other activities were more important? Scott, if you are out there — please tell us what happened. There are many people working in government IT, such as myself, who were really excited about the possibilities of an expanded role for open source software in government, and are now wondering what went wrong."
What Happened To Obama's Open Source Adviser?
He was invited to One Microsoft Way in Redmond, WA and while there discussing standards had a very unfortunate ... shall we say ... "accident?" Which left his voice sounding very metallic and his movements very jerky and unnatural. It was shortly after this that he stood up at the next White House IT meeting and declared, "Whitehouse.gov should be running on Silverlight and Silverlight only let's set so double the killer delete select all blue blue blue blue blue blue ... " At which point the administration decided that it just wasn't working out and removed the position quietly altogether and unexisted Mr. McNealy (or what was left of him anyway).
My work here is dung.
It was just another lie from the WH. More broken promises.
...with a small shell script.
Who wants to know?
The same goes for: Gates, Jobs, Ellison, and every other Silicon Valley entrepreneur.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
Just a guess, but typically that's how things roll in politics...
A lobbyist cannot block an appointment...
It was a "figure of speech", not a literal suggestion.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Just because a lobbyist has no legal authority doesn't mean they're powerless or without influence.
Did you learn everything about politics and government from Schoolhouse Rock?
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
He's still got a page at Sourceforge, but he hasn't been updated in months and his developer stopped answering emails.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I would not be surprised if McNealy's appointment is stuck in confirmation hell. He probably requires confirmation by the Senate (see Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution). The Obama administration has been very slow in getting their people confirmed, in part because of the concentration on the Supreme Court vacancies, in part because of Republican intransigence (continuing the Democratic intransigence during the Bush administration, which harks back to the conflicts with Clinton, and back and forth it goes ...).
Fantastic! The Open Source model make even more sense for education than it does for software. I'd like to urge all you nerds out there contribute content to this site -- Java Apps, coding tutorials, etc. In a few years, School Districts should be able to "Just Say No" to expensive textbooks!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Lobbyists block appointments like unions pass legislation.
Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
Am I the only one here who never really bought-in to Sun's latter-day 'open' evangelism?
To me Sun's 'open' efforts always seemed to me to fall into one of the following categories:
1. "Fsuk M$!" - e.g. Open Office
2. Forced to do it by their own guys - e.g. Java
3. Desperate attempt to stay alive/relevant (too late) - e.g. 'open' Solaris, (a bit of a FOSS joke, since most of the work was done by Sun employees)
I'll admit that I'm not fan of Scott McNealy, who - in my opinion - failed to navigate the dotcom bust, and subsequent massive fall in hardware revenues, and then presided over the gradual, sad demise of a formerly pretty good company.
Putting aside my bias, I'll still advance that there are plenty of other people better qualified to be a FOSS tzar.
Your nominations?
It's even more obvious than you think. He's open-sourced the advisory position so anyone can fill the position and make changes.
He just has other things he is working on as well. He is likely still in contact with the White House, they may just have forgotten to add him to their registry on whitehouse.gov.
This was before SUN was sold to Oracle I believe. Back then SUN was trying hard to be know as the "Open Source" company and I believe this was simply a marketing ploy by McNealy to get SUN more business in gov. I don't doubt that he spoke to Obama but I think the whole thing was over hyped by SUN.
Scott appointed: 1.2009....
William Gates visits WH: 10.2009
Scott MIA: 1.2010
Gates goes on college tour: 4.2010
Gates applauds Indian rich guy for sharing wealth: 4.2010 - saying that the norm in the US is 20% and that US benefactors need to give more along the lines of 40% ~ 50% while not mentioning that he & Melinda give along the lines of 1% ~ 2%.
Oh, I am sure that, with a considerable campaign contribution from one or more lobbyists, any appointment can be blocked.
Did you learn everything about politics and government from Schoolhouse Rock?
Well...... yes.
Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX
Boy, are you a rube, or what? Lobbyists, by definition, buy influence. With enough money (or other "currency") one can buy anything at all in Washington.
They work remotely from Elbonia....
It's clear from the context that he meant a lobbyist influenced someone in the administration to block the appointment. Stop being pedantic.
Did you learn everything about politics and government from Schoolhouse Rock?
Actually, I think that was the Simpsons.
Lobbyists have no power when the electorate is well informed and active. WE are failing and causing these problems by allowing these lobbyists to have influence. The only way a lobbyist can have influence is if the gain from more money to a campaign offsets the number of people who leave because a politician was bought off and voted against his constituents interest. Please keep money in government especially when it helps the candidates I like. If a politician votes against my interests I refuse to vote for him. No amount of fancy campaign ads will ever change that. However there are more people who will vote for a candidate just because of a fancy and expensive ad. These people offset me and many other voters who vote not for nicest campaign ad but voting record and their ability to represent us. This is the fundamental problem with our country. Believing anything else is delusional and seeking a simple short term solution, the voters are the problem, until they take their civic duty seriously by ignoring nice haircuts and expensive ads and voting for actual substance we will not have a government that represents us.
every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
"You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it."
didn't help.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
According to this article, he was merely asked to write a paper. That hardly sounds like it was a full-time position as an advisor to the administration.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
Maybe there is a option not listed - Obama lied in order to help him get votes.
I know it's shocking that a career politician that rapidly rose through the ranks of Chicago in one of the the most corrupt districts there would somehow not be totally truthful. After all he talks nice and chanted "Yes we can" over and over and over. I'm certain, absolutely certain, that if you could just get a message through to him he would realize the enormous accident that occurred and go have a nice long talk with his advisers and other appointees (whom he had *no* idea were doing all these bad things) and fix everything right up.
Really, even if you think everything he has done so far is peachy keen and figure the guy is mostly honest - he is still a politician. At best I would say an open source advisory is so down the priority list that it will likely never happen. Lets face it - he promised to nix the "do not ask do not tell" policy regarding gays in the military, that one simply takes him to write out an official statement and it has been over a year (and promised more than once, basically every time that segments polling numbers really start dropping) and still not done.
In his own auto-biography he points out that people will necessarily be disappointed in him as he presents himself as a blank slate and allows people to write whatever they want on it. He isn't a blank slate - the Obama you are looking for only existed in your mind, not in reality. He never went anyway as he didn't exist. Man many many others are slowly coming to realize this, sadly Obama the idealist (whichever one you wanted to see) doesn't really exist, Obama the politician is the only one that does. He will continue to milk the blank slate and hope that the person you once saw will "return" for as long as he can too - that is the nature of a politician. Some groups have learned how to manipulate a politician and treat him as such (assuming they have enough money and or votes), others sit around confused.
But if it makes you feel better - I'll leave this one generic as it is currently the answer given for all of them: Obama has WAY too much to worry with on his plate. What with all these global crises, economic downtime, and the seditious Tea Partiers blocking real reform it is no wonder he hasn't got to yet. Since he inherited such a mess it will most likely take longer than his Presidency to fix it and get on with the real work that America needs and address your issue.
And as long as that boiler plate works with his core group he will run with it too.
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
Lobbyists aren't always bad, they don't always achieve their goals by unscrupulous means, and they don't always represent corporate interests with tons of money to throw around.
Lobbyists are an exceptionally effective means for people to communicate with their elected representatives, being a sort of representative themselves. They can provide a clear voice for large groups of similarly minded people, who would otherwise be lost in the noise.
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
Open source would require transparency...it the Obama administration...dah
Commendable troll. Condescending and pedantic, and convincing enough that most people are taking it at face value. I salute you!
They arent the sole sponsor, but generously provided a meeting room every month. Several of their employees attend these meetings. I dont recall any of them giving a presentation there. But I havent been attending very long.
That may not be a bad idea.
Scott McNealy is ineligible for a czar position in the Obama administration as he is current on all his tax liabilities.
Why would Obama want Scott McNealy? Take my advice Obama! Put Al Gore in charge, he invented the Internet and Al Gore Rhythms.
Actually, the one news article linked from the text "various news articles" in the summary, as well as every other web source I can find, indicates McNealy was asked to write one position paper on the use of open source software by the administration, and that was apparently presented to the Administration shortly after the request was made (this article from late February discusses some actions that occurred after the paper was presented.)
The issue was never about McNealy being hired as for the position of "Open Source Adviser", it was about McNealy providing one-time advice on the use of open source software.
the guy who tries to do good and sometimes fails... or the guy who tries to do bad and often succeeds?
the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
My understanding is that lobbyists don't run congress. Who runs them is staff. Staff tell them how to vote they had better follow orders or the party will not support them. It's all about divisive party politics now.
Currently hooked on AMP
In related news, did you know that the word "gullible" was left out of the dictionary on that site?
I fully agree with that. That is why I said that any limits on them is short sighted. Only when the public understand their duty as citizens will the corrupting lobbyists loose influence. The positive will gain even more influence since they represent their groups.
every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
And not everyone in the KKK is a bad guy either. Some are just part of it for the potlucks.
But the vast majority of both groups deserve to be tared and feathered.
Whatever the intention or original purpose that lobbists served, there is a systematic problem with them. If they were removed then the majority would be better off.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Lobbyists are an exceptionally effective means for people to communicate with their elected representatives
That's great and all. I'm all for that. But why should any money be permitted to be used as a form of that communication. In my book NO money should be paid to the people I vote into any office. My taxes should pay for their funds for everything. I'm fairly sure another 40-50 years from now we'll look back at this erra as a time of great government corruption by the corporate world. They hold our jobs over the heads of congress as blackmail to create laws...they make horrid decisions that cause countless people to go bankrupt and in no way shape or form are they ever held liable for it because they own congress...because they direct our world. We may have the power to vote but a long time ago corporations have had the power to vote their own laws into congress. Hell many bills aren't even written by the law makers. And to top it all off they cheat as much as they can on their taxes sometimes paying a big fat check of ZERO to the government and their excuse is that everyone else is doing it. They are the problem with the system but that's because they are the system.
I'll be happy when congress is filled with moral people that have the guts to stand up for what's in the people's best interest and stopping anyone from ever bribing congress the way it is now...because as we've all seen that is just one small step away from blackmailing them into doing everything they desire.
+1, the EFF is a lobby.
I'm an amendment to be
Yes, an amendment to be
And I'm hoping that they'll ratify me
There's a lot of flag burners
Who have got too much freedom
I wanna make it legal
For policemen
To beat 'em
'Cause there's limits to our liberties
'Least I hope and pray that there are
'Cause those liberal freaks go too far.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
bah. now it surely will stop. let's hope that doesn't involve flying***BAM***
Rich
In general I agree with you completely, but lobbyists do have an advantage: they are paid to spend time with representatives making their case. Unless the electorate buys lobbyists ourselves, we have no such full time opinionated political buddy to foist on our civil servants.
here Obama hate.
It could just be their turn at the cycle, but have you watched? jeez, they literally say one thing, then say the exact opposite an hour later.
That sounds just like Democrats, as does the rest.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Are there any news on the plan to put OpenOffice.org in Federal offices?
(Remember: http://blogs.pcworld.com/communityvoices/archives/2008/06/your_second_eco.html)
Very true. It is too bad the rotten million spoil it for the good few.
You've got your facts wrong. Scott McNealy was never slated to become the Obama administration's Open Source Technology adviser. According to the articles you referenced, all he was going to do was write a paper:
Scott McNealy "revealed he has been asked to prepare a paper on the subject (open source technologies and products) for the new administration."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7841486.stm
"According to BBC News, the Obama administration has asked Sun chairman McNealy for a position statement justifying the administration's use of open source software. The BBC wasn't clear on who specifically asked him, but McNealy's spokesperson, on a query by the Linux community, acknowledged that McNealy had been meeting over the last year with members of the administration's new technology initiative, which apparently led to this request."
http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/News/Sun-s-McNealy-Advises-Obama-Administration-on-Open-Source
I don't know if Scott ever got around to writing that paper. Searching the White House website for papers on Open Source, the only one I found was here:
Open Source Software and Cyber Defense
A White Paper provided to the National Security Council and Homeland Security Council as input to the White House Review of Communications and Information Infrastructure.
Bob Gourley, Chief Technology Officer, Crucial Point LLC
http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/cyber/Gourley_Bob_Open_Source_Software_and_Cyber_Defense_01_April_2009.pdf
what are unions, AIPAC, Council for the National Interest, New Policy, ... many citizens groups have lobbies for this exact reason and we need more of them.
every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
Obama and open source? Wouldn't that like buying tires from KFC? Yet, I'll bet they would have interesting tread patterns.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
I agree with you, but that falls into the case of the electorate buying lobbyists ourselves.
I don't think there's anything to do about it other than encourage more of it, though. If you outlawed lobbying you would just end up with lobbyists having lies as job titles.
Both parties do it, it simply has now gotten obnoxious enough for all to see. If you go back to Lincoln's era, the politics was just as nasty. Politicians do it when they have nothing to contribute but are afraid their opposition does.
Actually the nastiness goes back further, it goes back to the 1780s-90s at least. Some so called Christians campaigned negatively about Thomas Jefferson before he was elected President. A Reverend Jonn Mason[.doc] said Jefferson was "a profane philosopher and an infidel." "Christians!" he exclaimed, "it is thus that a man, whom you are expected to elevate to the chief magistracy, insults yourselves and your Bible!" During the campaign of 1800 TJ and John Adams, who were lifelong friends before the campaign, each camp accused the other of ugly stuff. In 1828 Andrew Jackson's wife Rachel Jackson was called a slut, adulteress, or bigamous. She ended up dying before he won, some say the scandal caused her to have a heart attack. Jackson blamed the press on her death.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
In the case of humans the color comes from pigment, and pigmentation is subtractive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_(United_States_Senate)
Just glance at the graph on that page. You are delusional if you think Democrats have EVER done anything like this to Republicans. Democrats have NEVER used filibuster the way Republicans are using it now. Hell, Republicans have never used it like this. No one has, ever. Republicans have been beating their own records for obstructionism since Obama was elected. No one has ever used rhetoric so violent and divisive. When Republicans use such rhetoric as 'treasonous' and 'communist', they are then beholden to fight such evil with no mercy and no compromise, or admit that their rhetoric was false and misleading. At this point, any compromise would undermine the message they have been drilling into their base: Obama is an evil communist Muslim fascist dictator who is worse than Hitler multiplied by Pol Pot and raised to the power of Stalin. You can't compromise with that. You can't practice bipartisanship with that. You can only fight it with every weapon in your arsenal.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Until Open Source(TM) starts making major campaign contributions, this is how it's going to be.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Whatever happened to "Dissent is patriotic"?
Funny! Except these days it seems to have come full circle and it is mostly the progressive left that is in favor of state censorship of ideas they oppose. Apparently if you live long enough, you see everything.
Hold on, something a politician said would happen didn't? Truly, I'm shocked and amazed.
What's next, Death? Taxation?
The progressive left is not in favor of state censorship of ideas they oppose, therefore, you will not be able to provide a single example to back up your outrageous claim. But thanks for playing 'False Equivalency,' and here's a copy of our home game as a consolation prize.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
What Happened To Obama's Open Source Adviser?
He was invited to One Microsoft Way in Redmond, WA and while there discussing standards had a very unfortunate ... shall we say ... "accident?"
IP Czar takes Open Source Adviser. Check mate!
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Uh...so where IS the article? The summary just has a bunch of links to random, related websites.
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
That is a good point. It was not till recently I realized how much influence clerks have in the supreme court. For example, when a petition for cert comes in, the justices do not look them over, the clerks / paralegals do and the ones of interest to them get shown to the justices and if four can be convinced then cert is granted. Sure it is not always that simple, but nothing is.
There is a good reason why there was meant to be a representative for every 30,000 people. I realize that is over 11,500 representatives today if we still followed the original constitution, but look at the staff of the average representative. How many representatives do you think have over 27 staff members? Why can't we just elect all of them? Make the districts smaller and maybe I won't be waiting around with nearly 2 million other people waiting to be heard by MY representative.
Lobbyists aside, only 3% of congress is elected... hmmm... basically leaving the Federal government completely unregulated, unaccountable, and hidden from public watch. Hell, there is a good argument there that lobbyists are far better regulated than our congress.
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
It was determined that no money would be coming the Democrats way, so on to more lucrative projects like CCX...
I've seen quite a few members of the progressive left argue for silencing global warming deniers, and I'd call the majority of hate crime laws state censorship of ideas.
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
There used to be one which would have been advising YOU. But I heard it doesn't exist anymore so you should be safe...
Actually, one could argue reasonably about whether he was, indeed, a christian, but I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt, and suppose that he was, at worst, a Deist, and more probably either a Gnostic or an Agnostic.
Thomas Jefferson was a Diest, however by 1 definition he was also a Christian. Being a Diest he didn't believe Jesus was the "Son of God" but he did believe Jesus was a great teacher. TJ took the Bible and cut out all the stuff about miracles, the supernatural, and such and published his own Jefferson's Bible.
Agnostic: One who is not certain that such a truth exists.)
"Agnostic" is used in another way, a, without and gnosis, knowledge, so "without knowledge". That's how I use it myself, I am agnostic or without knowledge.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Who? I've never seen anyone on the left call for silencing anyone. The hate crime laws, now, as implemented, how are they censorship? You DO know that nothing in the laws criminalizes hate speech, right? They only provide higher penalties for actual violent crimes.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
he's still alive.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/04/15/scott-mcnealy-can-still-dish/
no mention of obama or his administration.
Both parties have gotten to the point where they don't have a coherent platform anymore.
Right. SInce they can't even manage themselves, why should they be allowed to ride herd over us?
That's why the only answer that will really start fixing things is smaller federal government. Smaller government means they control less money which means they get smaller donations which means less corruption.
Don't just move the power slider from one side to the other every few years. Seek to adjust the volume itself...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Who? I've never seen anyone on the left call for silencing anyone.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528
The hate crime laws, now, as implemented, how are they censorship? You DO know that nothing in the laws criminalizes hate speech, right? They only provide higher penalties for actual violent crimes.
I wasn't aware what the the progressive left desires is perfectly reflected by current law, nor was I aware that the progressive left exists exlcusively within the United States.
There have been hate crime laws already enacted and struck down by the USSC ( example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._A._V._v._City_of_St._Paul ), and there are plenty of hate speech laws in other countries that wouldn't pass constitutional muster in the US.
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
WE are failing and causing these problems by allowing these lobbyists to have influence.
We are not failing.
The news is failing us.
And the news is failing us because behemoth "near-monopolies" have taken over the news.
And these near-monopolies / mega-multinational corporations exist because of removals of regulations that had been in place since after the great depression.
We need serious campaign finance reform, and that needs to include public financing of both campaigns and of news sources. We need a constitutional amendment to prevent corporations from getting involved in politics.
etc...
There are a lot of things wrong with our political system right now, but it isn't the people.
I've been debating with a conservative relative over the last few years via email exchanges. Usually over whatever the hot political topic of the month is. It is often very hard to find good solid details about issues. No matter what your stance is on the issue.
Gah.. I just wrote a mini novel below and then erased it. This is one of those issues that you either take the time to read books on the rise of corporations and the shrinking of news ownership, and its impact, or you don't. Here's one interesting read: http://www.amazon.com/Unequal-Protection-Corporate-Dominance-Rights/dp/1605095710/ref=pd_sim_b_2
People always say this. So, where's the list of all Congressmen with net worth of more than a billion dollars?
Ah, reminds me of the old joke about the priest who skives his responsibilities to play a secret game of golf, then God punishes him with a hole-in-one, on the grounds "who can he tell?"
A congressman selling influence isn't going to be paying tax on the transaction. He might be rich as stink offshore, but who can he tell?
This is why society develops secret societies with secret handshakes, so that old men can gather together and speak in veiled and cryptic phrases about how to best invest funds that don't exist.
I'm not saying there are any billionaire congressmen out there, but I am saying that your standard of evidence has a Marcos-sized hole.
... I read "shill script".
Time for coffee.
Out of curiosity, do you see "noose incidents", cross burnings, and so on as a form of hate speech or something else? I see how you could see them as having nothing to do with speech but there's an argument that they are speech too, but they are nonetheless illegal.
eg. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301046,00.html
There are a lot of things wrong with our political system right now, but it isn't the people.
The people vote for the president, governors, mayors, senators, congressmen, state legislators... everything wrong with the system. How is it not the people's fault?
The news is failing us.
The people also give the news media their popularity and make them profitable.
A lobbyist can not block an appointee. Sure a lobyist could have a Senator in his/her pocket but that's sorta an implicit blocking not an explicit. Please learn a bit about our system, eh?
You base your vote on what you know. If the media isn't giving you good information, you vote poorly.
And even if you spend vast amounts of time researching for real facts, and become very well informed on every issue, your choice of candidates is usually between "corporate owned slightly liberal politician A" and "corporate owned slightly conservative politician B".
That won't ever change unless we have meaningful campaign finance reform and serious regulation on political ads, plus a revamp of news agencies.
"Lobbyists have no power when the electorate is well informed and active"
Informed and very active electorate make the National Rifle Association an effective advocate of our right to bear arms, without which there is essentially no right to self-defense. That lobby spans more than a century, is not tied to any political party (they rate pols by performance), and thrives on the support of motivated citizens.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
So, all the time, indirectly, using underhanded tricks and corrupt politics? Got it.
The progressive left is not in favor of state censorship of ideas they oppose, therefore, you will not be able to provide a single example to back up your outrageous claim. But thanks for playing 'False Equivalency,' and here's a copy of our home game as a consolation prize.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine#Support
In June 2007, Senator Richard Durbin (D-Illinois) said, "It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” [22] an opinion shared by his Democratic colleague, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.
. . .
On June 24, 2008, U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, California (who had been elected Speaker of the House in January 2007) told reporters that her fellow Democratic Representatives did not want to forbid reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, adding "the interest in my caucus is the reverse." When asked by John Gizzi of Human Events, "Do you personally support revival of the 'Fairness Doctrine?'", the Speaker replied "Yes."
. . .
A week later, on February 11, 2009, Senator Tom Harkin (Democrat of Iowa) told Press, "...we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again." Later in response to Press's assertion that "...they are just shutting down progressive talk from one city after another," Senator Harkin responded, "Exactly, and that's why we need the fair — that's why we need the Fairness Doctrine back."
. . .
Former President Bill Clinton has also shown support for the Fairness Doctrine. During a February 13, 2009, appearance on the Mario Solis Marich radio show, Clinton said:
“ Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side, because essentially there's always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows.
do you need my mailing address, for that prize thingy?
Through an unimpeachable source I prefer not to reveal (to protect his job) I understand that the Securities and Exchange Commission is absolutely forbidden from using Open Source Software under any circumstances. Among other problems, this means that many simple everyday IT solutions normally performed by a quick Linux installation cannot be easily done. In some instances this has put them in the ridiculous situation of having to research, locate and purchase a commercial product to do something routinely done with a free Linux application. Despite an apparently sincere commitment to the use of Open Source on the part of U.S. CIO Vivek Kundra, the message does not seem to be percolating down to lower levels of the government very well. The kicker is that any software written by U.S. government employees is one step better that Open source: it's actually in the public domain by Title 17 U.S.C. 101.
You base your vote on what you know. If the media isn't giving you good information, you vote poorly.
So year after year people get fooled by the media and politicians and vote poorly. To me, at some point it's fair to expect people to know they're being duped and change.
And even if you spend vast amounts of time researching for real facts, and become very well informed on every issue, your choice of candidates is usually between "corporate owned slightly liberal politician A" and "corporate owned slightly conservative politician B".
Personally I like the political stability in the US. I find the chaotic systems prevalent in Europe and third world democracies totally crazy. But maybe you're focusing on the "corporate" part and not the "slightly" part... I disagree that corporations have undue influence.
That won't ever change unless we have meaningful campaign finance reform and serious regulation on political ads, plus a revamp of news agencies.
It makes no sense to me to depend on the government to reform the government. First of all it's way too easy for the government to twist that type of reform into something that sounds good but really benefits them to the detriment of true democracy. And second of all how are these great politicians going to be elected if you are presupposing that the system is broken and nobody can learn enough to vote for the "right" politicians? And if somehow they can in this particular instance, they surely can in others as well so why is there any reform necessary?
Do you even know what the Fairness Doctrine is? Based on your reply, I don't think you have any clue what it really is or does. This is why we have the Internet, people, you can look things up so you don't sound like an idiot saying something is actually something entirely different.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton