Slashdot Mirror


From MIT Inventor To Tea Party Leader

An anonymous reader writes "In the midst of Congressional races around the country, one stands out to techies. Thomas Massie, an MIT whiz kid who pioneered touch-based interfaces and founded SensAble Technologies in the 1990s, is the favorite to win the Republican nomination in his Kentucky district next week. SensAble was recently sold on the cheap, but in a new exclusive, Massie explains why he left the haptics firm years ago to lead a simpler life of farming, family, and guns — lots of guns. Along the way he built a solar-powered, off-the-grid house and became a local hero of the Tea Party. Now Massie is leading the charge to get more engineers into politics, and if he wins, he could be a force to be reckoned with in Washington, DC."

25 of 815 comments (clear)

  1. Tea by Sigvatr · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now known as 'MITea'.

    1. Re:Tea by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think that's a bit simplistic. Having expertise in any one area does not mean one has good judgement, which is ideally what lawmakers should have. Look at nobel prize winner Kary Mullis' statements on how HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

      (He didn't win his award for anything related to HIV or AIDS, by the way).

    2. Re:Tea by gangien · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's kind of like owning a gun. Anyone who wants to own a gun is the last person who should have one. Anyone who wants political power is the last person who should have it.

      horrible analogy. Most people who want to buy a gun, buy one for control over their own lives (self defense). Most people who want political power, want it for control over others.

      What we need is campaign finance reform. Strict and absolute limits not only on how much money can be donated to a campaign, but how much money can be SPENT on a campaign. It seems like the best way to keep the people who want political power from getting it, and giving us the best chance of being represented by people we can trust.

      how many times has this been said and tried throughout history? No clue, but I'll be willing to be no matter what laws would get passed there will be plenty of loopholes.

    3. Re:Tea by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It doesn't matter if someone is right about everything. What matters is that they try to educate themselves to figure out what's right. I think this quote is relevant, and I agree with it:

      Massie recalls Sununu saying, "We need more engineers and fewer lawyers" in politics. As Massie explains, "Lawyers are taught to take a position, whether it's right or wrong ideologically, and defend it-to go collect facts to support it. Whereas engineers are taught the inverse of that, they're taught to collect facts and then come up with an answer based on the facts. He said, 'That's the kind of thought process we need more of in government.' On the stump, that's what I'm trying to convey, that we need more problem solvers in Washington, DC."

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    4. Re:Tea by gman003 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is a little mini-speech I like to give to people, and it's rather appropriate for the this:

      In the US, politicians train and study as politicians. They have degrees in political science, or law, or economics, or maybe history or business. Obama was a lawyer. So was Clinton. Bush II had an MBA. Bush I studied economics, as did Reagan. You have to go back all the way to Carter to find a president that had any sort of remotely "practical" training, as a naval officer specializing in nuclear submarines.

      In China, politicians train and study as engineers. If shit goes down (as it is wont to do) and the revolution comes, President Hu Jintao could flee to the US, change his name, and live out his life working as an engineer (hydraulic engineering - his first real job was at a hydroelectric plant). Vice President Xi Jinping studied chemical engineering. Premier Wen Jiabao studied geomechanics. Wu Bangguo studied electrical engineering.

      Engineering, fundamentally, is "the study of solving problems". It's not, strictly speaking, a science, but an application of science to the real world.

      Modern American politics seems to be less about "solving people's problems" and more "making new problems to 'solve' so you can stay in power".

      In case you haven't noticed, China is beating us. They're obviously doing something right, and I don't think it's the censorship or the market controls. Their system of government may not be better than ours on paper - slow, central control of everything rarely works for long - but they're better in practice because they have people who actually do the job they're supposed to do.

      NOW is our chance. The Chinese seem to be making exactly the mistake we made - their up-and-coming leaders are career politicians, born-and-raised to rule. At the same time, their population boom will be shifting from a worker-heavy populace to a retiree-heavy populace, causing exactly the economic problems we're having now with all the Baby Boomers retiring.

      We get one chance to get back on top. We need a government that responds to us, one that works quickly and efficiently for the benefit of everyone.

      If anybody knows of any good candidates, speak up. I do not want a lawyer to represent me. I do not want a manager to represent me. I want an engineer, a man (or woman) who solves problems, because we have a lot of problems that need solving.

    5. Re:Tea by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

      NOW is our chance. The Chinese seem to be making exactly the mistake we made - their up-and-coming leaders are career politicians, born-and-raised to rule.

      Our chance to do what? Become the world's largest economy? Get the world's largest army? Bring indoor plumbing and electricity to 99% of the population? Because we're 'winning' in all those things.

      China is growing quickly, but it's because they have a lot of room to grow. Once you have a developed economy, it's hard to wring the same kind of growth out of it, because you're a lot closer to your potential.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  2. Why is it news by OrangeTide · · Score: 5

    Whenever someone finds a right wing engineer? It's not really all that rare.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:Why is it news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      If you think the right wing is crazy, you should look at the left wing.

      Medicare goes broke in 2024. Obama doesn't have a plan to fix it, but he has called other plans to fix it "UnAmerican," "radical," and a "trojan horse."

      Which is more crazy? Trying to prevent fiscal crises before they happen? Or calling anyone who offers a solution "UnAmerican?

      The debt to GDP ratio is already over 100% if you include publicly held debt. And you should include publicly held debt unless you plan to default on social security. The time to act is now. Or we can wait until we become Greece. Which won't take very long, actually.

      Who's crazy again?

      You are an excellent example of right-wing crazy. Your second paragraph has three facts, and none of them are true.

    2. Re:Why is it news by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A rational person. You have no place on the US political spectrum.

      You are in good company though.

    3. Re:Why is it news by edremy · · Score: 5, Informative

      >>>no thanks to Fox News and their involvement.

      FOX News is involved with the Tea Party? As in giving funds and organizing the events? I'd like to see a citation of that, because it's the first I ever heard it.

      Please tell me you're being sarcastic. If not, start here. The Tea Party was created by Republican strategist Dick Armey and promoted relentlessly by Fox News- it was never intended to be grass roots. Amusingly, it's actually grown some legitimate roots since and has proved more difficult to control than the establishment would like.

      --
      "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
    4. Re:Why is it news by Dave+Emami · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Ever see those Tea Party rallies?

      Yep, attended one a while ago, actually.

      I think the only value that all of them have in common is lower taxes and smaller government. After that, all bets off. The ultra-religious Christian Taliban loony toonies get all the press -

      And that says far more about the press, than about the Tea Party movement.

      the ones that kind of hijacked the Tea Party and turned it from a strictly fiscal conservative movement into one that also has the social conservatives;

      A key point of the movement is for different groups normally associated with conservative politics to put aside their differences and focus on something they agree on. For instance, at the rally I attended, there were folks who agreed and who disagreed with current US foreign policy when I spoke to them.

      which I get the impression that the social conservatives now pretty much run the show

      They'd certainly like to, but there was very little in the way of social-related anything at the rally I went to. No mention of abortion at all. The pro gay marriage GOProud folks were handing out flyers and such, without a single unkind word towards any of them, but other than that, nothing related to sex during the speeches or on the signs. Perhaps I missed something. What should I have been keeping a look out for?

      --

      "The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
    5. Re:Why is it news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Which is more crazy? Trying to prevent fiscal crises before they happen?

      The Republican party has been trying to create this very crisis since the 1980's. Read what people like Stockman have written, when they (quickly) realized that trickle-down didn't actually work they decided to run up the debt so they could use it as an excuse to dismantle social programs they didn't like.

      The debt to GDP ratio is already over 100% if you include publicly held debt.

      Glad you brought that up. Debt/GDP is about where it was at the end of WWII. What differs now is the will to respond. That generation tightened their belts and raised taxes as high as in the 90% range for top tax brackets. When enough debt had been retired in the early 60's, Kennedy dropped the top rates and people decided we could still afford to improve the safety net with medicaid/medicare and improved welfare benefits. The debt/GDP ratio declined quite consistently under both Republican and Democrat administrations until Reagan came along. Under Reaganomics, debt/GDP skyrocketed until the Clinton years. Prior presidencies reduced debt/GDP by growing the denominator, Clinton's budgets worked on both numerator and denominator - he actually had surpluses in the budget for the first time since Nixon. If W had not been elected, we were scheduled to retire the debt in its entirety during this decade. W came into office, saw the surplus, and gave nice tax rebates to the wealthiest Americans, putting us back into red ink. He then took us into a very technological (read: expensive) war, and for the first time in American history, refused to raise taxes even to support the war effort. Debt/GDP skyrocketed. Then we hit the banking crisis and triggered a recession, and debt/GDP grew even more. And you know what? The right was strangely silent until Obama took office facing the accumulated debt of his predecessor, the worst economic conditions since the 1930's. Given the Nancy Reagan Chorus in Congress - "Just say 'No!' - he's done remarkably well.

      We've had this level of debt/GDP before, and we survived it. I'm not going to claim it's a good thing, but it's not the disaster the right would like to paint it as. We've paid it down before, we can do it again. But as we pay it down, remember that the overwhelming bulk of it was accumulated by three administrations -- Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II.

      Who's crazy again?

      Given all of the above, I'd have to say you are. You're certainly not dealing in facts.

    6. Re:Why is it news by Frequency+Domain · · Score: 5, Informative

      We've had this level of debt/GDP before, and we survived it. I'm not going to claim it's a good thing, but it's not the disaster the right would like to paint it as. We've paid it down before, we can do it again. But as we pay it down, remember that the overwhelming bulk of it was accumulated by three administrations -- Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II.

      The lower graph is the debt/gdp ratio. As parent points out, growth is mostly in the last three Republican administrations. Also note that Obama wasn't sworn in until 2009, and the huge increase at the right began before Obama took office. In other words, it's the recession rather than the stimulus package.

    7. Re:Why is it news by slimjim8094 · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're missing the point, I think. If you have a "normal" insurance plan, they cover your checkups and medications because they know it saves them money if you deal with your cholesterol before it gives you a $50k heart attack. If you have one of those high-deductible plans (the kind of healthcare you describe), they sign up young folks unlikely to develop chronic medical conditions and just screw them over on the doctor visits, but it doesn't cost them much money if the person skips the doctor visit because a 25 year old guy isn't likely to get a heart attack or a stroke or something in the next 20 years, but they can take his money in the meantime.

      I do EMS, so the healthcare debate seems incredibly stupid to me. Let me paint you a scenario - somebody calls from the bad part of town with severe chest pain, difficulty breathing, etc - the paramedics come and see a nasty AMI (heart attack) in progress, he codes in the rig, they work on him, we get him to the hospital where they get a pulse back and he end up OK - at great cost. But he can't pay for it, at all - everybody knows it, but the hospital can't turn him away by law. So he walks out of there, they hound him for a few months and give it up as a lost cause. They figure they'll make it back by tacking a bit onto every visit, procedure, test, etc - which raises costs on the people who have insurance or otherwise can pay. Higher costs to the insurance company become higher costs to the subscriber, so the people on the edge of being able to afford their plan no longer can. Some of them have heart attacks they can't afford... and it goes on.

      This isn't a hypothetical. I've had literally dozens of people who follow this exact story. We've already decided on universal healthcare - anyone can walk into an ER and get treated - but we've done it in literally the worst possible way. I'd rather pay for that guy's Lipitor and checkups for 10 years than for his one heart attack.

      You can construct the same story for almost anything, from pregnancy (prenatal care substantially reduces complications and hence costs) to asthma (inhalers vs. needing an emergency intubation). Emergent care is the most expensive way to do anything, both because of the complexity of emergency medicine, and the fact that it needs to be much worse to qualify as an emergency. But it's the only way we let the disadvantaged get "treatment"

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
  3. Can't be bothered to RTFA by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Funny

    Gimme the TL;DR version. Motorcycle accident? Brain cancer? Aneurysm?

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  4. Came for the liberal circle jerk... by vuke69 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...wasn't disappointed.

    --
    Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. ~ Douglas Adams
  5. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    WTF is someone who is intelligent enough to graduate from college (MIT no less) doing associating themselves with the Tea Party. It's got to be some kind of paid publicity stunt.

    "But he's smart... I think I'm smart. He should agree with meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!"

    Intelligent people disagree on stuff all the time. Especially when it's something as complicated and untestable as political hypothesis. Get over it.

  6. Re:WTF by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sometimes. Not always.

    For instance people who believe in a flat earth did not come to an alternative conclusion they are just wrong.

  7. Re:WTF by hey! · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Look, I went to MIT, and I can tell you that (a) the people there are remarkably bright and (b) I wouldn't particularly want to put my trust in the political or economic opinions of some randomly chosen person from there, right wing, left wing, or requiring more dimensions than string theory to characterize politically.

    Really smart people often have amazingly insightful opinions, but there's nothing like a brilliant person to have unshakable confidence in an unassailably stupid idea, like Schockley (the inventor of the transistor) and his theories of white racial supremacy. Or like my friend who had an affair with a married man because he promised her that his wife would be cool with it. It was impossible to convince her of the obvious fact this was stupid, bat-shit crazy idea because as smart as I was, she was way, way smarter. Having an argument with her was like climbing into the ring with Ali in his prime for a few bare knuckle rounds. You couldn't lay a glove on her. That taught me that sometimes a friend's role is to wait and be there when life gives your friend an unavoidable hard lesson.

    Really brilliant people are used to being right when everyone else around them is wrong. They're hard to argue out of a wrong position, and when you get enough of them together that they can sort themselves into loony birds of a feather even reality can't make a dent in their opinions. And brilliance in one area doesn't translate into competence in every area. There are people I'd trust to design an aircraft I had to fly in or a sub I had to dive in, but that I wouldn't trust managing by checking account.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  8. Re:WTF by SoupGuru · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What, exactly, is their point? Complaining that their taxes are too high when their taxes are historically low?

    --
    What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
  9. Re:Why do leftists love waste so much? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why does this sort of stuff just plain piss the left leaning person off? I mean, even if you are a dedicated communist shouldn't you still wish to find corruption, overspending, and waste, and squash it? Shouldn't that be something anyone from any party would rally behind?

    But no, unfortunately when someone says limited government they immediately get called a right wing racist teabagger.

    Well, speaking as a left leaning person, I'd say nothing in that list pisses me off. What pisses me off is all the right wing social conservatism (often including a healthy dose of racism) and insane militarism that so often seems to go along with calls for "limited government" which, of course, isn't limited at all. Liberalism and libertarianism are both viewpoints that have a place in a sane political debate; what calls itself conservatism long ago went off into la-la land.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  10. Re:WTF by number11 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Crazy" has no intellectual boundaries

    The interesting thing is, there is another group of extremists who are known for the prominence of engineers in their midst. Osama Bin Laden was himself an engineer, and he's not the only one. It's not a science thing, you don't see many botanists or physicists running amuk, just engineers. It may be an engineering mindset thing.

    It seems to me that as a group engineers may not be the best possible choice for political discourse. Bring on the botanists and psychologists and chemists and entomologists (and etymologists too, what the hell), but let's not overdo the representation from engineers.

  11. Re:WTF by PeanutButterBreath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "When you live on cash, you understand the limits of the world around which you navigate each day. Credit leads into a desert with invisible boundaries."
    ---Anton Chekhov

    Neat. But living on cash is hardly better in a society where wealth and productivity are completely divorced.

  12. Re:WTF by Darth+Snowshoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Gah - there's so much wrong with this post I don't know where to start.

    Yes, the voting on this bill happened quite quickly after it was finalized. But A.) it's not like it wasn't being debated for six months prior, and B.) it's largely what Massachusetts has had for years prior (oh, and was originally created and promulgated by Republican think-tanks) and C.) it's not some massive dumping of cash into Obama's offshore account. Its transparent, you can read it, its complicated BECAUSE THE U.S. HEALTH SYSTEM IS COMPLICATED, it's a sincere effort to solve a big, complicated, longstanding problem.

    Yes, Ben Nelson got a bribe. Congress took it back from him later, look at the Congressional Quarterly if you want the details. People have been trying to get similar legislation passed in America for nearly a hundred years, they were supposed to call the whole thing off because of one last-minute hold out? Is it not clear that Congressman Nelson simply wanted a bribe, rather than him having substantial issues with the legislation?

    Yes the bottom-line price of this legislation and the system it creates kinda-sorta is an estimate. Given the size of the system, the vagaries of predicting medical advances, etc, there's absolutely no way to write laws for any system where the bottom-line cost were absolutely known in advance.

    The Tea Party. Basically everybody slept through George W. Bush's two terms as he blew through tremendous chunks of taxpayer money - giving tax breaks up the wazoo, laying out a huge new medicare benefit, created the largest new bureaucracy in fifty years, entering us into a war just on his own whim, apparently. I didn't see a single tea party person throughout all of that. Suddenly a Democrat comes to office, and every dime his administration spends is an affront to LIBERTY! TO THE BARRICADES! BUT WAIT WHILE I STAPLE THESE TEA BAGS TO MY HAT!

  13. Re:WTF by scot4875 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So being pissed off that the government wasted tax dollars bailing out banks makes someone crazy?

    The Tea Party doesn't have a monopoly on being pissed off about that particular event. Most Tea Party claims ring hollow because they had 8 years of Bush to say something when all of these same types of things were happening, but conveniently waited until a Democrat took office before making any real noise.

    --Jeremy

    --
    Jesus was a liberal