Slashdot Mirror


Silicon Valley Stays Quiet As Washington Implodes

dcblogs writes "In a better time, circa 1998, Cypress Semiconductor founder and CEO T.J. Rodgers gave a provocative speech, titled 'Why Silicon Valley Should Not Normalize Relations with Washington D.C.' This speech is still important to understanding the conflict that tech leaders have with Congress, and their relative silence during the shutdown. 'The metric that differentiates Silicon Valley from Washington does not fall along conventional political lines: Republican versus Democrat, conservative versus liberal, right versus left,' Rogers said. 'It falls between freedom and control. It is a metric that separates individual freedom to speak from tap-ready telephones; local reinvestment of profit from taxes that go to Washington; encryption to protect privacy from government eavesdropping; success in the marketplace from government subsidies; and a free, untaxed Internet from a regulated, overtaxed Internet.'"

299 comments

  1. Bah ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The only difference is which rich assholes get richer.

    The tech companies want to be given the ability to do anything to make a profit. The government wants to be given the ability to do anything to spy on us.

    It's douchebags on both sides fighting for their piece of the pie -- we all get fucked over in the end.

    1. Re:Bah ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It actually fills me with disgust to read people like Scott McNealy's twitter feed.

    2. Re:Bah ... by Austrian+Anarchy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The only difference is which rich assholes get richer.

      The tech companies want to be given the ability to do anything to make a profit. The government wants to be given the ability to do anything to spy on us.

      It's douchebags on both sides fighting for their piece of the pie -- we all get fucked over in the end.

      Without a government that is forcing you to give your money to someone, those "assholes" have to compete with others for the privilege of serving you.

      --
      Time Bomber the Book coming soon.
    3. Re:Bah ... by TWiTfan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What "competition"? Maybe in your libertarian fantasy world. But here in the real-world, powerful corporations collude, buy monopolies, crush any smaller competitors--and generally do everything to ensure that there is no real competition, and never will be. The "free market" is a bunch of horseshit shoveled to gullible suckers.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    4. Re:Bah ... by blakelarson · · Score: 1

      I get your point, but TWiTfan did say "powerful corporations". As opposed to any old corporation (which can be formed at the cost of a Mens Wearhouse suit).

    5. Re:Bah ... by operagost · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You forgot Somalia.

      The "free market" is a bunch of horseshit shoveled to gullible suckers.

      You're right, we don't have a free market. But pessimism isn't going to fix that, and inaction isn't going to result in a better situation. We're not going to end up in a socialist utopia, but state-run capitalism that rewards the elite, yet treats the worker as mere chattel.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    6. Re:Bah ... by geminidomino · · Score: 0

      We're not going to end up in a socialist utopia, but state-run capitalism that rewards the elite, yet treats the worker as mere chattel.

      As opposed to sitting in a privately-run capitalism that rewards the elite, yet treats the worker as mere chattel.

    7. Re:Bah ... by scamper_22 · · Score: 1

      Well sure. That's one way to look at the world and for the moment, let us suppose it is just which assholes get richer.

      I'd much rather some asshole get rich providing me with a service/product that I actually want to use.

      Yes, I'd rather some asshole get rich providing me with good transportation, communication, housing, shelter, food... you know all the things you want/need in your life.

      Better still, a rich asshole who interferes the least with my life.

      It absolutely matters who that rich asshole is and what he does. Even if you take this rather rich asshole view of the world, you'd be a food to treat all rich assholes equally.

    8. Re:Bah ... by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      You don't know what chattel means. I wouldn't want to own the flat foots that make up most of the working stiffs. You can't own someone who has multiple standing offers from your competitors.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re:Bah ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You go to legalzoom.com and it costs you from $99 + state filing fees.

      Alternatively: pay a lawyer.

    10. Re:Bah ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only takers want government reopen!

    11. Re:Bah ... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Here in the real world they use lock-in or back room agreements to divide the territory and keep newcomers out.

      The power of the free market was provided by unicorns but they caught those and sold them off as a cheap spam substitute.

    12. Re:Bah ... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Already there.

    13. Re:Bah ... by smoot123 · · Score: 4, Informative

      No competition? Tell that to the old AT&T, which got crushed by it's children. Or Yahoo as it watches Goggle zoom ahead. Or Google, as it watches Facebook grow its mobile ad revenue like there's no tomorrow. Or Microsoft as even microsofties use iPads. Or PanAm as Southwest ate their lunch. In my company, I get a win/loss email every week about how we won a customer from our rivals and they beat us at another.

      It's a mixed bag. Some markets are more open to competition than others. But competition is alive and well in many, many places.

    14. Re:Bah ... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      But here in the real-world, powerful corporations collude, buy monopolies, crush any smaller competitors--and generally do everything to ensure that there is no real competition

      Here in the real-world, powerful corporations get limited legal liability from the government, buy monopolies from the government, and generally do anything to make sure the government doesn't allow any competition.

      Note that there are some things that SHOULD be run by government. Which is not synonymous with "the government should hire a corporation to do this".

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    15. Re:Bah ... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      It means the exact same thing in the context that I used it that it does in the context I quoted, and your comment about "standing offers" is hardly the norm in a corporate culture that views employees as largely interchangeable "resources" rather than people.

    16. Re:Bah ... by coaxial · · Score: 1

      The tech companies want to be given the ability to do anything to make a profit. The government wants to be given the ability to do anything to spy on us.

      I smell a market opportunity!

    17. Re:Bah ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AT&T was broken up by the Government, so not the best example.

    18. Re:Bah ... by Austrian+Anarchy · · Score: 2

      What "competition"? Maybe in your libertarian fantasy world. But here in the real-world, powerful corporations collude, buy monopolies, crush any smaller competitors--and generally do everything to ensure that there is no real competition, and never will be. The "free market" is a bunch of horseshit shoveled to gullible suckers.

      The competition that is possible when the police power of government is not playing favorites on who gets to do business. THAT competition. The only time monopolies persist is when governments protect them. When they are at the mercy of consumers and competition they are fleeting at best. One positive outcome of the persistent monopoly when government is not shoring them up is decreasing prices, increased quality, and increased efficiency of production. You cannot show one example of a business to support your theory. To support mine, I submit Standard Oil (broken up for the "sin" of selling petrol at a price too low to compete against) and The Aluminum Company of America (continually the lowest price for aluminum ingots, for decades).

      What do you have?

      --
      Time Bomber the Book coming soon.
    19. Re:Bah ... by Austrian+Anarchy · · Score: 1

      AT&T was broken up by the Government, so not the best example.

      No, AT&T was "broken up" because they *asked* to stop being the exclusive national long distance phone service utility. They were made that long distance utility by the federal government, and given a monopoly on long distance phone service. They by no means became the exclusive long distance service through competition, other than perhaps greasing the FDR administration palms to become the exclusive carrier.

      --
      Time Bomber the Book coming soon.
    20. Re:Bah ... by Austrian+Anarchy · · Score: 1

      No competition? Tell that to the old AT&T, which got crushed by it's children. Or Yahoo as it watches Goggle zoom ahead. Or Google, as it watches Facebook grow its mobile ad revenue like there's no tomorrow. Or Microsoft as even microsofties use iPads. Or PanAm as Southwest ate their lunch. In my company, I get a win/loss email every week about how we won a customer from our rivals and they beat us at another.

      It's a mixed bag. Some markets are more open to competition than others. But competition is alive and well in many, many places.

      I like the other example when tech folks start talking "monopoly" and ask when the last time they used AOL to get to the Internet was. Then again, you have to be talking to someone who actually remembers when AOL/Time Warner was being accused of being an unstoppable monopoly :)

      --
      Time Bomber the Book coming soon.
    21. Re:Bah ... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      No competition? Tell that to the old AT&T, which got crushed by it's children.

      Which competition was only possible because AT&T was split up by the government.

      Is your head exploding yet?

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    22. Re:Bah ... by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      No, AT&T was "broken up" because they *asked* to stop being the exclusive national long distance phone service utility.

      You have no clue. AT&T was broken up as part of a consent decree where they divested themselves of the LOCAL telephone services (the RBOC -- regional Bell operating companies) so they could KEEP the long distance operation. This consent decree came about as the result of an anti-trust lawsuit from their vertical integration of everything from local to long distance to telephone equipment.

      MCI also helped the breakup by filing anti-trust lawsuits.

      To claim that AT&T asked to be broken up is just ridiculous.

    23. Re:Bah ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      powerful corporations collude, buy monopolies, crush any smaller competitors--and generally do everything to ensure that there is no real competition, and never will be.

      They can only do this -- disregarding mafia -- because a government has given them the legal tools to keep others from competing with them. Otherwise it is the personal greed of the competitors which makes those competitors "disappear."
        Instead of using the term free market people should be using the term functioning market, or well-structured market. Nobody wants to return to mercantilism as that would lead to unacceptable risks, loss of liquidity and reduction of the level of innovation. Slaves would be needed once again.
        The juxtaposition of free, untaxed internet and regulated, overtaxed internet tells a lot about the attitude of T.J. Rodgers.

    24. Re:Bah ... by Austrian+Anarchy · · Score: 1

      No, AT&T was "broken up" because they *asked* to stop being the exclusive national long distance phone service utility.

      You have no clue. AT&T was broken up as part of a consent decree where they divested themselves of the LOCAL telephone services (the RBOC -- regional Bell operating companies) so they could KEEP the long distance operation. This consent decree came about as the result of an anti-trust lawsuit from their vertical integration of everything from local to long distance to telephone equipment.

      MCI also helped the breakup by filing anti-trust lawsuits.

      To claim that AT&T asked to be broken up is just ridiculous.

      Well, yea I do have a clue. I was following the breakup hen it was happening.

      Characterizing it as if the government just waltzed in and said "okay boys, this nice little monopoly of yours is ending now" is completely wrong. As is characterizing it as a "monopoly" that just happened without a government grant of monopoly.

      The predecessor to the FCC made them a monopoly, then the Justice Department started suing them for being a monopoly around 1949. After a couple decades of that nonsense the asked to stop being the monopoly provider. Rather than just opening up competition against a firm that was an entrenched monopoly, the agreement was to the breakup. Yes, THEY ASKED, and the form of the breakup of the monopoly the government granted was administered by the government.

      --
      Time Bomber the Book coming soon.
    25. Re:Bah ... by Austrian+Anarchy · · Score: 1

      And Al Bell being the first one to the patent office with a diagram was another government grant of monopoly.

      --
      Time Bomber the Book coming soon.
    26. Re:Bah ... by Penguinisto · · Score: 2

      ...and your comment about "standing offers" is hardly the norm in a corporate culture that views employees as largely interchangeable "resources" rather than people.

      Depends on a few things...

      1) the job. If we're talking about a burger-flipper or "barista", then yeah they are mostly interchangeable. If we're talking about a sysadmin or developer with a solid professional reputation, then good luck with finding one, and don't be surprised if he bails the moment a company really pisses him off.

      2) experience. Retail salespeople that can stock shelves at the local mall clothing store are approximately 8 cents per baker's dozen. A top-notch sales pro with a huge client list who can routinely and profitably work with multi-million-dollar clients? That person is going to be a bit tougher to get hold of.

      3) the market. A developer who specializes in some popular language (.NET, C++, Java, whatever) is going to have an easier time finding a job than an Ethnic Gender Studies Professor whose specialty centers around people living in Madagascar.

      4) reputation. Mentioned in 1), but bears repeating: If you have a solid reputation in your local professional network, you're going to be prized. If no one knows who you are ( or worse - you wound up blackballed; say, you're a Linux developer who worked at SCOX before it blew up?), then good luck with that.

      In other words, such a simple screed of all companies treating employees like chattel really doesn't hold true. Those which do tend to degrade over time as quality employees with the experience and skills 'pull the D-ring' to work in greener pastures. They leave the deadwood, newbs and screw-ups behind, and quality/productivity suffers accordingly.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    27. Re:Bah ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to the old AT&T, which got crushed by it's children.

      There were no children. Each part of AT&T is a real part of AT&T. The one the kept the name isn't special. Most of those parts have recombined already. It's like the T1000.

    28. Re:Bah ... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Basically what I said. The people that you can 'own' aren't worth owning.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    29. Re:Bah ... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      WTF? AOL/Time Warner accused of being a monopoly? When? You're just making that up.

      Where you alive and aware back then?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    30. Re:Bah ... by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Hmm. The court ruling glosses over this friendly sparring.

      After the decree was approved, no major developments occurred in the case for the next several years. Until 1981, the entries in the court record[16] concern primarily the patent licensing provisions.[17]

      139*139 This was the status of the Western Electric suit when the government filed a separate antitrust action on November 20, 1974, in this Court against AT & T, Western Electric, and Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc. (Civil Action No. 74-1698).[18] The complaint in the new action alleged monopolization by the defendants with respect to a broad variety of telecommunications services and equipment in violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act. In this lawsuit, the government initially sought the divestiture from AT & T of the Bell Operating Companies (hereinafter generally referred to as Operating Companies or BOCs)[19] as well as the divestiture and dissolution of Western Electric. While the action was pending, the government changed its relief requests several times asking, at various times or in various alternatives, for the divestiture from AT & T of Western Electric and portions of the Bell Laboratories.[20]

      US v AT&T 552 F Supp 131 (1982)

      Perhaps "Civil Action No. 74-1698" offers a clue?

    31. Re:Bah ... by Austrian+Anarchy · · Score: 1

      WTF? AOL/Time Warner accused of being a monopoly? When? You're just making that up.

      Where you alive and aware back then?

      Uh, yea I was alive, kickin, and some would say "old" back then, lol. http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=76066&cid=6789993 http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/2612.html http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-06-19/business/0006190010_1_instant-messaging-aol-instant-messenger-tribal-voice It was just a few years ago. Google is your friend and all that.

      --
      Time Bomber the Book coming soon.
    32. Re:Bah ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't want to own the flat foots that make up most of the working stiffs.

      Good! Because in your libertarian utopia, you wouldn't be one of the owners.

    33. Re:Bah ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's the crony market. The free market has yet to see the light of day except on the Silk Road where prices were cheap!

    34. Re:Bah ... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Except

      1) there's a difference between ease and success in finding a new job, and having a pile of "standing offers."

      2) Considering the entirety of the corporate workforce, exactly how far along the right tail do you think the people you're talking about show up?

    35. Re:Bah ... by Austrian+Anarchy · · Score: 1

      WTF? AOL/Time Warner accused of being a monopoly? When? You're just making that up.

      Where you alive and aware back then?

      Ignore previous reply and replace with "LOL, yea, that is what they sound like!" Sorry, took me all night to realize the spirit of your comment :)

      --
      Time Bomber the Book coming soon.
    36. Re:Bah ... by Austrian+Anarchy · · Score: 1

      You go to legalzoom.com and it costs you from $99 + state filing fees.

      Alternatively: pay a lawyer.

      Not exactly. Sure, you can pay someone to go talk the government into letting you incorporate, but no lawyer can bestow corporate status on anybody or any group. In the USA, you go to a State government to gain corporate status. Other places are different I suppose.

      --
      Time Bomber the Book coming soon.
    37. Re:Bah ... by TWiTfan · · Score: 1

      Company towns don't depend on the government. But the company is still a monopoly in the town. It still can run the only store, be the only landlord, own the only police.

      In getting rid of government, you're only exchanging one master for another.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    38. Re:Bah ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Company towns don't depend on the government. But the company is still a monopoly in the town. It still can run the only store, be the only landlord, own the only police.

      In getting rid of government, you're only exchanging one master for another.

      ROFLMAO!!!! You just described every State University town in America! Did you forget that whenever coal miners went on strike thousands of people flooded in to do the jobs they were not doing? All you advocate is a nation of slaves.

    39. Re:Bah ... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Well, yea I do have a clue. I was following the breakup hen it was happening.

      So was I.

      Characterizing it as if the government just waltzed in and said "okay boys,

      That's not how I "characterized it".

      As is characterizing it as a "monopoly" that just happened without a government grant of monopoly.

      I did not speak about how AT&T became the monopoly, only why it broke up. And no, it wasn't because AT&T "asked" for it. Unless "here's a compromise if you'll drop the anti-trust suit" is what you consider "asking for", and even then they kept the very part of the company that you claimed they didn't want to be. If AT&T didn't want to do long distance, it's really odd that they'd spin off the local parts and keep the long distance.

      The predecessor to the FCC made them a monopoly,

      That's nice, but irrelevant to why they were broken up and how it happened.

  2. If only... by RobertM1968 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's an interesting attitude that I wish more companies would take. I think many of our laws would be better designed to protect "we the people".

    1. Re:If only... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's an interesting attitude that I wish more companies would take. I think many of our laws would be better designed to protect "we the people".

      At least SOMEBODY is on the proper side of the line here.

      But make no mistake: other parts of California, like Hollywood and the music studios, have been staunchly behind Obama and the others who have been attempting to take our freedoms.

      Still, it's glad to see businesses -- especially big businesses -- supporting the good causes too.

    2. Re:If only... by PaddyM · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The Anti-SOPA stance was a good day.

      But by and large, I think these organizations have been too quiet. If they have not normalized relationships with Washington, then why did it take a leak by someone from Washington for some of these organizations to admit what vast information has been shared?

      And it's ludicrous to not-normalize relationships with Washington. That's where the laws are defined. There should be pro-privacy politicians with the backing of these companies. With Citizens United, shouldn't tech organizations have the strong advantage of getting the word out about what kind of society we want to create?

      The stance of burying heads in the sand is no better than those fools who talk of secession, or try to create their own militia societies. The brain drain occurring today in Russia, is likely to reoccur here in the United States due to gerrymandering if we stay disengaged.

    3. Re:If only... by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

      Sadly, they've been staunchly behind BOTH parties to try to pressure them into such things. This "latest battle" started with the DMCA - which would have been a lot worse if it weren't for some CongressCritters who actually stood up for us - and those were largely Democrats, btw.

      While BOTH parties are doing a horrendous job with such things, one party is entirely ignoring the public on this matter - the corporate donations to that particular party are coincidentally a lot higher.

    4. Re:If only... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      This "latest battle" started with the DMCA - which would have been a lot worse if it weren't for some CongressCritters who actually stood up for us - and those were largely Democrats, btw.

      Not very damned many. Speech before the House, Rep. John Conyers [D MI], 1998, before passage (Conyers, by the way -- a Democrat -- was chairman of the committee and pushed very hard for passage):

      "I think everyone has heard that we finally reached a conclusion that I think may satisfy nearly every Member in the House of Representatives...

      I am proud of the product, and like all the speakers before me, I urge its favorable confirmation."

      About as many Democrats spoke in favor as Republicans. There were few if any naysayers.

      It passed overwhelmingly in the House, and unanimously in the Senate. EVERY Democrat in the Senate voted in favor. (Not to give the GOP a pass... they did too.)

      I'm not trying to say the Republicans were any better. But stop pretending the Democrats were protecting us. Nearly all of them, on both sides, sold us out.

      And it really would not have been "much worse" if it weren't for Democrats standing up for us. Conyers and friends (Democrats, remember) essentially translated the whole of the WIPO-sponsored UN treaty into the bill.

  3. Re:Stay strong President Obama by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Funny

    Stay strong apathetic non-voters. Don't bother. It's cool. Or whatever.

  4. Goals vs Means by intermodal · · Score: 1

    I find that most people can agree on what goals we admire and hope for. What they tend to disagree upon, particularly politically, is how to achieve them. When it comes to protecting freedoms and liberties, the goals generally necesitate preventing the government from getting a foot in the door in the first place. Once the government is in, they refuse to get out.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    1. Re:Goals vs Means by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      I've begun to think there is a fundamental difference in how people look at solutions to problems that guides them towards liberal or conservative solutions. It's a simplistic theory, but interesting.

      Basically, liberals place more emphasis on the primary effects of a solution, conservatives place more emphasis on secondary effects of a solution. Sort of mirrors the "change is good" vs "change is bad" poles. But not entirely.

      Example: abortion
      Problem: unwanted pregnancies are a problem
      Solution (primary effect): end unwanted pregnancies
      Secondary effect: potential lives are ended

      Liberals see the end of the problem as better than the secondary effect
      Conservatives see the problem as better than the secondary effect

      In all fairness, this theory is pretty arbitrary and what are primary and secondary effects are debatable. But I find it handy for understanding the perspective of two sides of a debate. How each side can be deaf to what the other is saying.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    2. Re:Goals vs Means by intermodal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's where it gets tricky. Your abortion example is about a method used as a solution, as opposed to a problem to be "solved." The problem in this case would be how to handle unwanted or unintentional pregnancy, not abortion itself. To me, it comes down more to each side having certain views on what is effective and what is counterproductive. I think a better example would be reducing gun violence.

      Everyone wants to see an end to these senseless shootings, but both sides disagree on what will be effective.

      Some people want to outlaw or heavily restrict guns, which some believe would make the shootings less likely by reducing the availability to those who would commit acts, while others believe it leaves potential victims unable to fight back and increase the number of victims when shootings occur.

      Others believe that having more people armed is more effective, believing it would deter shootings by making victims more likely to fight back, while opponents of this idea believe it would just make it easier for these mass shootings to happen.

      For me, it boils down to the need to not become so entrenched that you cannot look at your position or the opposing position honestly. I consider it vital to pay close attention to whether the effect matches the intent.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    3. Re:Goals vs Means by linuxguy · · Score: 2

      I do not know if this is a good example. I have occasionally wondered if the abortion problem is mostly a manufactured problem used by the parties to divide people into groups. It appears to me that the majority supports a compromise of sorts. Late term abortions not OK, very early term abortions OK. There are people on the fringes, and they are loud but they are in minority.

    4. Re:Goals vs Means by sjames · · Score: 1

      These days it seems more like they have a set of goals andc We the people have an entirely different set. The difference in the major parties is what set of lies they tell to convince We the People that they are working on our goals while they actually work on their goals.

    5. Re:Goals vs Means by sjames · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the GOP has no proposed solution to the end of the secondary effect.c That is, they have no visible willingness to make sure those extra babies don't starve.

    6. Re:Goals vs Means by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      You would probably find "The Righteous Mind" interesting.

    7. Re:Goals vs Means by intermodal · · Score: 1

      I believe we agree on this point.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    8. Re:Goals vs Means by intermodal · · Score: 1

      Abortion also isn't the core problem. The core problem is unwanted pregnancies and/or babies. Abortion is just one of the solutions proposed.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    9. Re: Goals vs Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But who opposes solutions to preventing unwanted pregnancies?

      Who says women should be denied contraceptive coverage on their insurance because only whores need to take so many pills?

    10. Re: Goals vs Means by intermodal · · Score: 1

      Ironically, you're proving my point by looking at only one argument from only one side.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    11. Re: Goals vs Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironically, you're ignoring my point by trying to cast it as if we should be afraid to call out the other side for its flaws.

      Is the goal to prevent abortions? Then take the steps to prevent pregnancies. What party doesn't want to teach anything other than abstinence only? What party freaks out at the notion that educated teenagers who know the mechanics and options for contraceptives will have sex, but it's better for them to be informed about it? What party wants to pretend that they're defending the liberty of religious groups to deny contraceptive coverage to others?

      What point are you trying to make? That you want to ignore the elephant in the room, and pretend it isn't dumping a load of shit on the rest of us?

      No thanks.

      Here's my point, pretending as if you can't say the other side of the argument is full of hypocritical disingenuous fraud but have to give them undue consideration and weight is a fool's notion. It is possible to respect people with genuine concerns while still denouncing those whose concerns are false, dishonest, or outright nonsense. It's a matter of using discretion and reason. To refuse to do it, to give credence to those shallow minds is to actually undermine those who have substance to their words.

      Or can you not see my point of view, that from my side of the argument, it seems you are suggesting an action of cowardice in refusing to stand up for what's right against what is wrong?

    12. Re: Goals vs Means by intermodal · · Score: 1

      Clearly you don't understand my post. I see the point you're trying to convey, but it's not actually applicable to what I'm saying. I am making it clear that you cannot judge a plan by its intent but by its effect, and that understanding where the other person is coming from is key when discussing the matter with them specifically.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    13. Re:Goals vs Means by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I don't see that liberals vs. conservatives differ in that regard. Obviously, they look at different things, but I don't see any real differentiation between primary vs. secondary effects. Whenever one side proposes something, they're considering the primary effects, while the other side is more concerned with the secondary effects. If you drop the categorization, yes, it's good to see what different sides are considering.

      You also overlook the values inherent in the abortion sides. One side doesn't want to have potential human life ended. One side doesn't want women to be legally forced into a long, arduous, somewhat dangerous, and temporarily debilitating process to benefit another. (I've found that, while strong abortion-rights proponents tend to understand the objections to fetus-killing, strong anti-abortion proponents tend not to "get" the thing about women, or at least not get it as easily.)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  5. Re:Stay strong President Obama by Megane · · Score: 3, Funny

    Stay strong, zero-information voters. Kim Kardashian, Beyonce, and Lady Gaga will do your bothering for you.

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  6. Bullshit by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know why the NSA was able to search social graphs and emails so easily? Because all of those pro-freedom Silicon Valley companies (Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Microsoft, and so on) had already built infrastructure for doing so for the purpose of selling adverts. The NSA just piggybacked on existing system to look for other information. If Silicon Valley had really cared about individual freedom, Google would have been pushing federated, decentralised services with no single point where you can insert a tap. Instead, what has happened since we've learned about the NSA's involvement? Google has replaced federated XMPP in GTalk with non-federated XMPP in Google Hangouts.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    1. Re:Bullshit by RobertM1968 · · Score: 2

      While that may be the case (sans the drama), the simple fact is that in order for much of the web to work in a decent fashion, such "infrastructure" had to be built in one form or another.

    2. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know why the NSA was able to search social graphs and emails so easily? Because the US Army had already built infrastructure for doing so for the purpose of communicating information. The NSA just piggybacked on existing system to look for [snip] information.

      FTFY.

    3. Re:Bullshit by plopez · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let look at the rest of the statement in the write up:
      1) Freedom vs. control. How do we reconcile this with patent trolls, DRM, and de facto unlimited copy rights?
      2) Local reinvestment of profit from taxes that go to Washington. Yeah right, reinvestment. If reinvestment means CEOs line their pockets. What I see is a bunch of freeloaders not paying taxes to support the educational system that benefits them. And also such basic research institutes such as DARPA, NASA, and a host of others.
      3) A free untaxed unregulated internet. It is regulation which prevents the internet from becoming a captured, by business interests, internet.
      4) Success in the marketplace from government subsidies. LMAO, see point 2 above as well as how many tech companies have their snouts in the government trough.

      That's probably just a start.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    4. Re:Bullshit by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Your post doesnt really make much sense. A webmail provider (like Google) has to be able to see what your email is, even if only because they are sending you the HTML containing your emails. Everything Ive seen suggests that the Google et al taps were done via tapping at the ISP level or else sending NSLs, neither of which a company can really do much about so long as they are based in the US.

      You could sell adverts on a webmail even if it werent tappable (say, they require the use of VPN)-- the server could scan the mail and insert ads as it is delivering the email webpage; you could even insert javascript which simply does it client-side (which i believe is what most of these sites do) so the server doesnt have a hand in picking the ads.

      Google has replaced federated XMPP in GTalk with non-federated XMPP in Google Hangouts.

      While Im not happy with that, I fail to see how the use or lack thereof of XMPP somehow presents an obstacle to the NSA.

    5. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least google gives me a good search engine, what has the fucking goverment ever done for me? Shit all but STEAL my money.

    6. Re:Bullshit by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      Bullshit. Plenty of decentralized services (including, but not limited to HTTP, email, IRC, etc.) work just fine and centralizing them like Google attempted with XMPP has no conceivable benefit (except to the likes of advertisers and the NSA).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    7. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

    8. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know why the NSA was able to search social graphs and emails so easily? Because all of those pro-freedom Silicon Valley companies (Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Microsoft, and so on) had already built infrastructure for doing so for the purpose of selling adverts.

      Moreover, "pro-freedom" to them meant "we cant make the fourth amendment look so thin that it turns inside out, because we aren't the government" and then proceeded to build networks and platforms with the reach and scope larger than any government had imagined, all the while muttering "they clicked OK on the EULA".

    9. Re:Bullshit by sjames · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I'll enlarge it by pointing out that without the evil government, there would BE no internet at all. Just a handful of walled gardens on dialup mailing us worthless CDs every month and charging by the hour.

      The closest thing to an actual internet before that was Fido and UUCP. Neither of which were created by these 'benevolent' masters of Silicon Valley.

    10. Re:Bullshit by sjames · · Score: 2

      Ever eaten a burger with reasonable confidence that it wouldn't give you TB?

    11. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Agreed. I'll enlarge it by pointing out that without the evil government, there would BE no internet
      > at all.

      Did your crystal ball tell you that? So you really think people wouldn't have networked computers together and started connecting networks....if not for the government? Maybe we should thank nuclear weapons too since launching them was one of the main justifications between building packet switched networks.

      I guess the fact that it happened that way somehow proves that it couldn't have happened another way or we wouldn't have anything comparable.

    12. Re:Bullshit by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Some of us do remember Compuserve, AOL and MSN which were all incompatible with each other. What we could have ended up with is either a balkanized internet or else MSN crushing everyone else and delivering us an online service with all the Microsoft proprietary lock-in goodness we had with IE6 and XP.

    13. Re:Bullshit by lgw · · Score: 1

      What I see is a bunch of freeloaders not paying taxes to support the educational system that benefits them.

      Wait, what? I'm sure these CEOs have quite nice and expensive houses, and pay way more property tax than I do.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    14. Re:Bullshit by sjames · · Score: 1

      History told me that. Even when the Internet was becoming a thing, AOL and Compu$erve fought tooth and nail to hang on to their walled gardens and their hourly rates. They fought it so long and hard that they imploded in the effort. prodigy just imploded without much fanfare at all.

      Fido or UUCP might have liked to evolve into something more internet like, but none of them had any money and certainly weren't big enough to force the Bells to do anything approaching the right thing. Once the internet did exist, Fido and UUCP put up gateways until the internet made them largely irrelevant. It's OK though, they just connected to the internet and called it done.

      So it's a combination of how it happened and how the players reacted to it. You don't need a crystal ball to guess that a company that fought something tooth and nail even to it's own doom wouldn't have invented that thing itself.

      Meanwhile, in MS land, Bill Gates declared that the Internet was just a passing fad. The only way to get Windows online was to use Trumpet winsock. So it seems that MS wasn't likely to do it either and they certainly wouldn't have made it available outside of Windows. Even when they bowed to the inevitable, they tried their best to embrace and extend every internet protocol and the browser.

      The Bells tried their best to kill the whole thing earlier. They wouldn't even allow a direct connect modem until the courts ordered them to. That's why we had acoustic coupled modems. They didn't particularly want to offer DSL either, they kept trying to foist off expensive ISDN. Again, the courts forced them to offer dry pairs to DSL providers. They finally decided to get into that game themselves only once the writing was on the wall. Then they played every dirty trick in the book to kill the competing providers even in areas they had no intention of serving themselves.

      Given all of that, do you REALLY and TRULY believe we would have the internet today had they been left to their own devices?

    15. Re:Bullshit by plopez · · Score: 1

      Which they write off as a business expense by inviting other CEOs over every once in a while for skiing, fishing, hunting, etc.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    16. Re:Bullshit by lgw · · Score: 1

      Which has nothing to do with paying property taxes. Schools are mostly funded by property taxes, and people with expensive property pay more.

      (Also, the IRS has greatly cracked down on that sort of thing: forget about it for personal property, though for property owned by the corporation not the CEO it might happen. You'll also find that in some states you'll lose the ability to deduct even normal mortgage interest before you even reach 1%er income.)

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    17. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plenty of decentralized services (including, but not limited to HTTP, email, IRC, etc.) work just fine and centralizing them like Google attempted with XMPP has no conceivable benefit (except to the likes of advertisers and the NSA).

      Lets assume for a moment, that all services on the net were decentralized as you advocate.

      The NSA can still sniff all the tier 1 carrier packets.
      The NSA can still get backdoors placed into software.
      The NSA can still install pen registers at service providers locations.

      Your solution changes nothing, try again.

    18. Re:Bullshit by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I don't need to justify why decentralized services are a good idea; once you understand the design of the Internet it becomes self-evident. The onus is on entities like Google, Facebook and the NSA to explain why they deserve to be given centralized control.

      You "try again!"

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    19. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      once you understand the design of the Internet

      Little boy, the internet is a connected graph.
      Little boy, you pay an ISP to provide you with service.
      Little boy, your ISP is a business entity, subject to the laws of the nation in which it operates.
      Little boy, your ISP will sell access to your traffic to the NSA, and bury your agreement to said arrangement in its unreadable TOS.
      Little boy, the NSA will lobby the federal government to pass laws to force the hand of ISPs that don't co-operate.

      Little boy, if you wish to avoid ISP monitoring of your traffic, your only legal option ( in the US atm ) is a "citizen operated wi-fi mesh," which will get you
      all the connectivity you want within about 3 blocks of your mothers basement.

      Little boy, I understand the design of the internet just fine.

    20. Re:Bullshit by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Ever eaten a burger with reasonable confidence that it wouldn't give you TB?

      Only when I cook it myself, and not just if I buy any old thing that the USDA stamps either.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    21. Re:Bullshit by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      A webmail provider (like Google) has to be able to see what your email is, even if only because they are sending you the HTML containing your emails

      They have to store it. They have to provide a mechanism by which you can index it. They don't have to provide a mechanism to search all email on their servers, because that's not something email users want (or have access to), it's only something that they need for advertising. And it's difficult to implement. Email on Google servers is stored spread over a huge number of machines, in a number of datacentres. Implementing a search function that (quickly and efficiently and without impacting performance of email access and delivery) that lets you run arbitrary complex queries on this data is far from trivial (Google people have given some interesting talks over the years about how it works).

      Everything Ive seen suggests that the Google et al taps were done via tapping at the ISP level or else sending NSLs, neither of which a company can really do much about so long as they are based in the US.

      They send NSLs, and what do you think they say? The NSA says 'give us access to the search infrastructure that you've built for your emails'. Now they can run queries like 'who sent an email containing these keywords in the last year' or 'what is the transitive closure of correspondents with this email address'. If Google didn't already have the infrastructure for running these queries, they'd be able to reply 'we don't have the ability to do that and it will cost several million dollars to implement', but they'd already built it.

      While Im not happy with that, I fail to see how the use or lack thereof of XMPP somehow presents an obstacle to the NSA.

      If a GTalk user comes under suspicion as a terrorist, then the NSA will request their entire social graph to a certain depth. If all of they are communicating solely with other GTalk users, then just searching the information Google has gives you everyone that has talked to anyone who has talked to the person under suspicion, and so on. If they've talked to other users on federated XMPP servers, then the NSA can't do anything passively. They get the single-hop information, but because XMPP traffic is encrypted by default they probably can't get anything from the remote server by passive interception. So they have to either compromise the remote server (risky if they're discovered) or send another NSL. Both are within their capabilities, but now it becomes a matter of actively investigating someone, rather than passively scooping up all of the available data.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    22. Re:Bullshit by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      You've never tried writing off a portion of a residence as a work expense, have you? By all means though, continue your ignorant rant. People like you are amusing.

  7. The divide is the same everywhere by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

    But the folks in Silicon Valley have the means to at least complain about how bad things are. The rest of the country can't or won't speak up.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  8. Re:Nerds Should Shut Up About Politics by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The marketplace of ideas is enriched by every additional voice no matter the background, as long as that additional voice doesn't silence another voice. If they're saying "let them eat cake" type nonsense, then everyone will ignore them and the effect will be the same. If people take their dumb ideas to heart, they're probably not making good moves in the absence of nerds talking. If what the nerds are saying is better than what the alternatives are saying, like religious organizations, organizations dedicated to ignorance, or corporations interested in nothing more than money, then it will be a good thing that they talked.

    Alternatively, everyone else should shut up too and give all power to a benevolent saintly king who will rule fairly. Oh, we don't have one of those? Well then, how about everyone gives their opinion and we don't resort to ad-homenim attacks.

  9. Silence until NSA spying hurts sales by ScottCooperDotNet · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They'll stay silent until America's reputation, and the NSA spying specifically, starts to impact sales. Until then, Silicon Valley's lobbying policy seems to be "pray they don't affect us".

    Since TFS doesn't list it, here's Why Silicon Valley Should Not Normalize Relations With Washington, D.C. from the libertarian think tank Cato Institute.

    1. Re:Silence until NSA spying hurts sales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hurt Sales?

      Only consumer sales.

      Sales to the XYZ black projects will be huge and the ongoing maint.. contracts will be cost plus.

      Who do you think built the equipment the XYz government agencys are using?

  10. Except that spying is what this new economy is all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    about. I wouldnt expect that silicon valley would be fighting against their own profits.

  11. Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    You fell for the Pelosi/Reid/Obama hype. Congratulations, you are as dumb as the next guy.

    It's not terrorism to practice politics.

    When you have power, you use it to affect change. If you sit on your hands and say "well, the president was elected, so we have to do as he says", then you are a double idiot because (a) the president doesn't get to tell congress what to do (b) congress is allowed to do anything that's within the rules of the constitution and it's just how politics are done.

    You're very much a person who just wants a government subsidy of what sort or another, and you think anybody who stands between you and your check is evil.

    Get over yourself. You're not entitled to anything.

  12. Re:Don't pay your taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    yeah I like jail too

  13. Who elected this guy to speak for Silicon Valley? by clarkkent09 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is no such thing as what "silicon valley wants". It's not even a valley and it is definitely not made of silicon. But, that's beside the point. He basically makes it sound as if everybody there is libertarian without mentioning the word, but it is far from the truth. People who matter are involved with the government up to their necks, including all the things he says silicon valley is against: eavesdropping, subsidies, protectionism, non-free internet. All major tech companies maintain nice and expensive lobbyists in Washington. Not that I blame them, they have to live in real world and deal with the biggest and most powerful gorilla in the jungle and that is the government. And it's getting bigger.

    --
    Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
  14. Re:Stay strong President Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama and his senate sock puppets want a blank check. The country is almost $17T in debt and it's rising fast. Giving a drunk an unlimited supply of mad-dog 20-20 is hardly a responsible act. Especially since the budget is Congress' Constitutional responsibility.

  15. Re:Don't pay your taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Our Federal government has a expiration date.

    We're in the coffin corner now, printing our own debt, as predicted. Buying votes with bennies always ends badly. The EBT glitch showed us, once again, what sort of people we're made of now.

    American Exceptionalism is a genuine phenomena. We're about to prove it again by imploding ourselves. It won't be like Europe; angry protesters briefly painting signs and throwing rocks while the adults finally impose reality. We've bred millions of hate filled, feral animals and they're going to get hungry fast.

    Just about the time the Chinese get their new Panama locks working to flood the East Coast with container ships they'll find the ports on fire.

  16. I don't even bother watching, "staying quiet" too by bradrum · · Score: 1

    This shutdown has been a long time coming lets face it. Congress has been mostly broken for years. It seems someone is always ready to throw a wrench into the gears no matter what the issue is (Except war and surveillance, because hey no one wants to be that guy that gets blamed for a terrorist attack). Its good that things have come to a head because the whole world needs to see that the US government is broken.

  17. Power corrupts, and all that. by gallondr00nk · · Score: 1

    We've seen it over and over again. Once a few large successful companies develop an entrenched market position, they drop all of their pretenses of ideals and form a sort of symbiosis with the government.

    The difference between now and 1998 is probably that internet companies at the time saw government control of the net as an impediment to their growth, where now they see it as an opportunity to make more money and protect their position from competitors.

  18. It isn't any different elsewhere by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are those who have fallen for the false, artificially created dichotomy of Republican-Democrat and those who have realized that the real problem is politics as an industry.

    What really needs to be done is to wipe out the concept of two parties both of which are so ossified in untenable positions that the combination is destroying the Republic.

    1. Term limits for Congress. 12 years.
    2. Campaign Finance Limits. 100 dollars per candidate/person.
    3. Eliminate Gerrymandering. Districts must be drawn that are representative of the state's demographics.
    4. Eliminate the electoral college.

    1. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by bradrum · · Score: 1

      I would add
      5. Establish an election holiday so people can actually take their time and (hopefully) make a better decision about who to vote for.
      6. Limit time between campaigning to a month or two at most

    2. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those are pretty straightforward, but I'd add:

      5. Ratify the original House version of Article the First (max 50k constituents per Rep)
      6. Get rid of first-past-the-post voting

    3. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also:
      7. Eliminate the straight ticket vote
      8. Remove the party affiliation next to the candidate. Just names only on the forms.

    4. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      While I agree that there needs to be a great deal of ballot access and redistricting reform (indeed I think districts should be generated by an algorithm that is developed and overseen by a nonpartisan agency/office), it's premature to talk of eliminating the electoral college. Not because its time hasn't come, it has, but the current national context wouldn't bear it. It's currently the main institution that's balancing the power between the broad expanse of rural America and the dense urban areas. If it were eliminated, rural America would become virtually disenfranchised as Presidential candidates would only need to campaign in the largest metro areas to secure victory. Rural areas would be ignored, and consequently have no voice. Roll that on for a few years and it would be likely to precipitate another civil war.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    5. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (3) Isn't as possible as you'd like it to be. If every district is representative of the state's demographics, then there will be no majority-minority districts (which I believe the Voting Rights Act requires, and it certainly seems like they should have representation), and every state's house representation would be identical. Ideally you'd want to draw districts which have near-homogeneous voters, but in reality homogeneous voters don't exist. Historically geographic representation yielded the best results for this (rural voters have distinctly different priorities than urban and suburban voters), but other countries have used different systems.

      It'd be interesting to try having a few at-large house districts, but Congress currently doesn't allow them.

    6. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      50K max would mean a Congress with 6000 representatives. There is no way this would be workable.

    7. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Replace first-past-the-post voting with a system that doesn't require strategic voting and doesn't converge towards a two-party system.

    8. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Alaska is represented by an at-large representative now.

    9. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      3. Eliminate Gerrymandering. Districts must be drawn that are representative of the state's demographics.

      There's no way to eliminate gerrymandering. There will always be someone who draws the boundaries, and whoever draws them, no matter what rules he follows, will be able to find some way to make some districts lean more than they should.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    10. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by dbc · · Score: 1

      You need to study the effects of what you propose and try to post again.

      We have term limits in California. They have empowered the permanent staff and the public employee unions. They have made things worse, not better.

      Campaign finance limits always run up against First Amendment challenges. Sort that out coherently, then let's talk. Until then, it's a pipe dream. You don't get to ingore the parts of the consitution you find inconvenient in the moment.

      What do you mean by "representative of the state's demographics"? That could be interpreted a hundred different ways. We just had a non-partisan citizen committee do redistricticing in California, chartered with drawing districts along natural boundaries. The process was about as non-partisan as is possible to get. The results were "safer" districts overall. The scheme totally backfired, despite good intentions all around.

      Eliminating the electoral college has zero effect in most years. When it does, it has the effect of disenfranchising the rural minority. No thanks. That is why we have a republic, not a direct democracy.

      Disenfranchisement of minority rights is the pox on American politics. In the case of California, we could correct a lot of the state's disfunction by making the state Senate one seat per county. Let the assembly seats be drawn in areas of equal population. Then legislation will no longer be mob rule by the urban interests. The legilature will have to come up with compromise legislation that solves real problems without trampling on the rights of minority interests. Yes, it would be a lot harder to get both houses to agree on legislation -- that is a good thing.

    11. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      There is a huge problem with the existing districts that results in entrenched, invulnerable elected officials.

      I'd be in favor of a system that prevented the formation of districts that resulted in minimization of noncompetitive elections.

      Perhaps the election theorists could come up with such a system.

      Another problem is the makeup of the Senate - the lack of population sensitivity causes gross underrepresentation of much of the US population. Population concentration in a few states is now much more pronounced than at the time of the Great Compromise. It's a serious issue. I don't have a suggestion on how to fix it though.

    12. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by TheSync · · Score: 1

      We have term limits in California. They have empowered the permanent staff and the public employee unions. They have made things worse, not better.

      Indeed, I used to believe in term limits. The truth is that in practice they seem to "distort the market of politics" the same way price controls distort the market. They force the real economy of power away from elected officials competing in the marketplace of the voting booth and push real power into the darker "deep state" of bureaucracies.

      By the way, the same goes for campaign finance limits as well.

    13. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1, Informative

      The reasons I want to eliminate the electoral college are:

      1. Past history of Presidents elected despite not having a plurality of votes.
      2. Proposal by Rance Priebus describing a method to corrupt the election process by tying electoral college votes to gerrymandered congressional districts.

      http://www.thenation.com/blog/172191/rncs-priebus-proposes-rig-electoral-college-so-losing-republicans-can-win#

      There are huge problems with the current gerrymandering system. For example, we have a Republican majority in Congress despite the fact that 55% of the votes for Congressmen in the last election were for Democrats. In large part the current shutdown and threats on not raising the debt limit devolve to one thing - the current system of gerrymandering.

      It makes a complete mockery of the idea of one man, one vote.

    14. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Specify an algorithm and you can take the pols out of the process.

    15. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      3. Eliminate Gerrymandering. Districts must be drawn that are representative of the state's demographics.

      How? Who determines that? Who gathers and manages the data? Who draws the lines? It would be far easier and less manipulable to just do a single transferable vote ballot and elect representatives at large.

    16. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Nope. The party that is in power when the algorithm is specified wins.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    17. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by mlts · · Score: 1

      I wonder about modifying a few of those:

      2: 100 dollars per US citizen with documentation that this was done. No, corporations are not citizens. If a court wants to dispute that, then allow people to take their LLC incorporation articles in a passenger seat while driving the HOV lane.

      And adding a few:

      5: David Chaum has a way to verify voting. Use it. No e-Voting machines which have been shown to be hacked by a monkey (as per a Free Republic article in 2004.) The venerable voting machines which used levers and punched holes in a card are also an alternative. No systems should be allowed where one can just change a value in a vote recorder and have no proof of tampering.

      6: No non-US company or person can give money to campaigns, period. This is part of Mexico's Constitution, and needs to be part of their northern neighbor's ways.

      7: Allow a no confidence vote to be taken. If Congress fails the American people like it is doing now, there should be a capability of a recall election, where all seats are up for grabs. If the no confidence vote is above 2/3, then no incumbent can run that next term.

      8: Have Congress be under the same laws of insider trading that everyone else has to abide by.

    18. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by thoth · · Score: 2

      There's no way to eliminate gerrymandering. There will always be someone who draws the boundaries, and whoever draws them, no matter what rules he follows, will be able to find some way to make some districts lean more than they should.

      Use a garden variety splitline algorithm - see http://rangevoting.org/GerryExamples.html

    19. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      1. Past history of Presidents elected despite not having a plurality of votes.

      This ignores the fact that there is no national election for President. There are a lot of smaller elections in which the States decide who wins the State electors. You cannot have a "plurality" in a vote unless there is a real total to count. Just taking the results of fifty or more individual elections and summing them up isn't how the system was designed to work, and it doesn't accomplish the goals that drove that design.

      2. Proposal by Rance Priebus describing a method to corrupt the election process by tying electoral college votes to gerrymandered congressional districts.

      I could come up with a lot of dreamscape systems for corrupting the existing system, none of which is a valid reason for getting rid of it. On the other hand, the States are free to determine how their electors are chosen, which is how it should be. Any State that falls for the "add the entire country up and assign the electors based on that" nonsense is violating their responsibility to their residents and disenfranchising them in favor of larger states with more people.

      There are huge problems with the current gerrymandering system. For example, we have a Republican majority in Congress despite the fact that 55% of the votes for Congressmen in the last election were for Democrats.

      What does "55% of the votes for congressmen" mean? Are you seriously trying to argue that because democrats in some states got more votes than the republicans in others, that those republicans shouldn't be there? Let's use a simple example to see if you really mean what you are saying or not.

      In State A, a democrat congressman wins with a vote of 200,000 to 100,000. In State B, a republican wins with a vote of 50,000 to 40,000. The "total" vote for democrats was 240,000, the total for republicans was just 140,000. Should the republican be replaced by a democrat because of this? Or would that be stripping the right to representation from those in state B?

      This difference may have nothing at all to do with Gerrymandering, it simply has to do with the relative populations of various states and districts. And natural differences in population density and proclivities. For example, Oregon has two major population centers, half a dozen medium ones, and lots and lots of empty space. The major centers, and some of the mediums, are heavily democratic. A lot of the rest of the state is republican. It is impossible to draw reasonable district boundaries that completely balance voter numbers without also making those districts heavily biased one way or the other.

      By the way, the last Oregon redistricting was done by a Democrat controlled Oregon Senate and a Democrat Governor, with an evenly split House. You can't blame "republican bias" in the US Congress on gerrymandering by nasty republicans. And you can't claim that the evil Republicans in Congress did the gerrymandering that keep them there, since the US Congress doesn't decide the district boundaries.

      You seem to think that the USA is one homogenous federal area where the federal government is in total control. National elections for president must naturally be a simple tally of all the votes, under that imaginary system. But the system that exists should be a red flag indicating that your simplistic view is the wrong view. Those of us in smaller states appreciate very much the ability to have some say in the Presidential election, and would even go so far as to call for a system where that small say is made larger, not eliminated altogether. Don't feel too bad about your ignorance, it is propagated by the mainstream media who seem to think that there is some significance to the "national vote total" and strive to be the first to tell you what it is.

    20. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by plopez · · Score: 1

      I think that's called a parliamentary system.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    21. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by sjames · · Score: 1

      Why not?

    22. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by sjames · · Score: 1

      I'd say the lot of them are describable as 'at large'

      on a poster

      in the post office.

    23. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      2: 100 dollars per US citizen with documentation that this was done.

      And we abolish the first amendment at the same time? Isn't telling someone how much speech they can have an infringement on the right to free speech itself?

      No, corporations are not citizens. If a court wants to dispute that, then allow people to take their LLC incorporation articles

      "Papers" are not people. D'oh. But the people who formed that corporation are still people and still have rights. Your analogy would be more correct if you said "corporations are not people. .... then allow people to take the four members of the board of directors in a car and drive in the HOV lane." That makes the issue a bit more obvious. Of course they could use the HOV lane, they are still people despite forming a corporation.

      6: No non-US company or person can give money to campaigns, period.

      I believe this is already part of the federal election regulations. I recall some issue of Chinese money laundering into a presidential campaign.

      7: Allow a no confidence vote to be taken. If Congress fails the American people like it is doing now, there should be a capability of a recall election,

      Oh, this would work really well. No CR for continuing government, government closed? Let's hold an election to replace them all. We can count on at least two months between calling for the election and the swearing in, during which time nobody gets paid for nothin'.

      And your 2/3 result? If my state likes who we have, why should any other voter in any other state say we can't re-elect them?

      8: Have Congress be under the same laws of insider trading that everyone else has to abide by.

      I think that one is also in the books, it just isn't enforced. At some point you have to realize that the correct solution for laws being ignored is not to create more laws, nor to have the same people who are ignoring the laws already there write the new ones.

    24. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by sjames · · Score: 1

      No, corporations are not citizens. If a court wants to dispute that, then allow people to take their LLC incorporation articles in a passenger seat while driving the HOV lane.

      Even better, if a corporate citizen commits a felony, it goes to jail just like everyone else. Buy nothing, sell nothing, do nothing but sit in jail. Once out of jail, report to parole officer weekly, all books open for inspection, all major decisions subject to approval or back to jail.

      If that can't be made to work, then nobody goes to jail, just issue fines in proportion to income.

    25. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I'd be in favor of a system that prevented the formation of districts that resulted in minimization of noncompetitive elections.

      While this may sound good to a large city dweller, it smells bad to rural folk. You see, many rural areas have a large percentage of one party voters. When a district is made up of "these three adjoining rural counties in Oregon", there is little surprise when that district votes almost exclusively one way, creating the very "noncompetitive election" you seek to abolish. How do you fix this? Gerrymandering! "Three adjacent rural counties and 100,000 people from Portland, three hour's drive away". There, that's balance.

      What you seem to be calling for is deliberately creating voting "districts" in as complicated a way as is required to have an equal number of each party included, no matter how far away you have to go to find them, or how mis-representative of the people in the majority of the district that may be.

      Another problem is the makeup of the Senate - the lack of population sensitivity causes gross underrepresentation of much of the US population.

      The Senate wasn't intended to represent the US population. They were intended to represent the State's interests. That's why each state has two Senators no matter how many people live in the state.

      The House is the people's representative. That's why the house is the body outlined in the Constitution as the source of bills to raise revenue. No taxation without representation, eh?

      If the Senate was just another version of the House, why bother having two? I'm sure the founders considered that.

      I don't have a suggestion on how to fix it though.

      Fixing something requires first understanding what it is you want to fix and whether it is broken or not.

    26. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by mlts · · Score: 1

      How is sending someone money related to free speech? Free speech and financial campaign contributions are completely different things, and this is probably one of the core reasons why Congress has little to no interest in actually doing what their constituents want.

      The no confidence vote is the last resort. Right now, there is no lever that the American people have against a failed Congress. Even if it takes two months for a new crew to come into office with a government shut down, that is better than an unlimited duration of the current circus we have right now.

      Going out on a limb, maybe the answer isn't voting people in at all. It might just be a lottery draw from the pool of US citizens similar to how juries are done. That way, the whole issue of campaign finance/reform is completely moot. Of course, there are issues with that, but having a representative who is drawn at random might just bring less corruption than people who get seats on the behest of super-PACs.

    27. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Even better, if a corporate citizen commits a felony, it goes to jail just like everyone else.

      Here's how trivial it is to google the facts.

      1 2 3 (and the only reason he's not in prison is because he's dead.) That's three from one corporation. More? 4 5 6

      Took about ten seconds to find two "top" lists of corporate legal scoundrals and another few minutes to look up the people and provide references. Now go look them up for yourself. All examples of corporate citizens who went to prison, most for felonies. Ok, one didn't. He died before he was sentenced. You appear to be more interested in spreading nonsense than in finding out the facts. In the time it took you to post to /. you could have found examples that ended your rant.

    28. Re: It isn't any different elsewhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two things.

      The statement was to eliminate the electoral college. It's not ignoring the way they are chosen now, it is repudiating it.

      Districts with such unbalanced population as you described were used to distort the electoral process. See Reynolds v Sims, Baker v Carr, Wesberry v Sanders. This is the point being made about the Congressional vote, both state and federal.

    29. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      1. Census, after all that's when reapportionment is done now.
      2. Lines to be drawn using an algorithm. See this for a review of some of the proposals.

    30. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also:
      5. Eliminate earmarks, riders and such...bills are passed or voted down as written by the author.
      6. Each congressional representative is responsible for spending the money from their district. Those that believe in a strong national defense can fund it. Those that believe in social programs like the ACA can fund it. No one is forced to pay for anything and their constituents can easily make their spending preferences known. If something cannot be funded completely, either through current taxes or new levies, it doesn't happen. Period. End of discussion. This automatically balances the budget.

    31. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      How is sending someone money related to free speech?

      I would hope that you aren't naive enough to think that the right to free speech means free as in beer, not free as in unfettered. It costs money to speak. That's what campaign contributions go towards for the most part. TV, radio, print ads. Speech.

      Free speech and financial campaign contributions are completely different things,

      No, they really aren't. For the reason I just stated. And for reasons you allude to later when you talk about PACs. PACs don't get people elected by handing money to voters. They get people elected by paying for SPEECH that convinces people to vote for their candidate. That speech requires money. Ergo, money is speech.

      Right now, there is no lever that the American people have against a failed Congress.

      Perhaps that's because the "American people" didn't elect "the Congress", specific subsets of them elected their own representatives. Having this "lever" would mean that the large number of voters in New York State, for example, would have the ability to determine who could NOT represent the voters in Wyoming. In any "American people" lever pulling contest, the smaller states would be dictated to by the larger ones.

      Even if it takes two months for a new crew to come into office with a government shut down, that is better than an unlimited duration of the current circus we have right now.

      You are wrong. The current news reports are optimistic about a solution soon, a solution that your "solution" would mandate coming after two months of absolutely no hope of a solution. And, franky, I think two months during a government shutdown is very optimistic. I think it is optimistic in the best of circumstances. Imagine having to spin the FEC and FCC back up to monitor a nationwide polling process ...

      Going out on a limb, maybe the answer isn't voting people in at all. It might just be a lottery draw from the pool of US citizens similar to how juries are done.

      What an amazingly idiotic idea this is. You want people who have no desire to be there making decisions on how to run a corporation as large the the US government. You'd pull people from productive lives doing what they want to do off to Washington DC dealing with things they have no interest in or knowledge about, for how long? A year?

      Of course, there are issues with that,

      I'd say so. I, for one, have planned on voting guilty for every person who appears in front of me as a juror. I will have no problem saying that out loud. I expect that any defense attorney would try to get me out of jury duty as soon as possible. Imagine the havok I could wreak by voting 'no' on every bill that appears in front of me as a juror-senator. You want to fuck up my life by sending me to be a senator against my will, well fine. Are you planning on having a slave selection process for the slave senators? Well, you've just put in place a political selection process controlled by whoever vets the senators. "You're going to vote this way on that topic? Excused..."

      might just bring less corruption

      I can honestly say I would rather have a system with a modicum of corruption that comes up with answers every so often over a slave labor system that never does anything because all the slaves are drunk with either alcohol or power.

    32. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      I would hope that you aren't naive enough to think that the right to free speech means free as in beer, not free as in unfettered. It costs money to speak. That's what campaign contributions go towards for the most part. TV, radio, print ads. Speech.

      You're deliberating conflating the act of communicating with the resources necessary to communicate. This then leads you to be unable to differentiate between resources directly necessary to communicate with identical resources only indirectly (and with quickly diminishing ties) related to the act of communicating. At the core, you need vocal chords to speak, or hands to sign or draw. Those require food and water to be powered. Is food and water now speech? When you build a radio to broadcast your speech, is electricity now speech? When you hire someone to write a speech, is the money you paid him suddenly speech? What if you hire someone to drive your speech writer around, is that money now suddenly speech? What if you build a place to house the act of speech, is that place now suddenly speech? What if you hire the contractor to build a different place who then pays a building company who then buys lumber from a lumber company who then uses that money to buy a thousand political pins from a candidate to distribute to its workers - is your money now suddenly speech because it in the end was used to distribute a political message?

      Your blanket statement that money is speech leads to completely untenable situations. Most specifically, it legitimizes flat-out bribes. That money you gave to a politician wasn't a bribe, it was merely speech fostering the political message of that candidate. Never mind that the amount of money was enough to fully bankroll a candidate's run for office, thereby essentially buying a politician.

      The entire point of the US system of government was to get away from the political elite being only accountable to the money elite. Equating money with speech means that that old system is in full swing again.

      They get people elected by paying for SPEECH that convinces people to vote for their candidate.

      And paying for analysts. And paying for speech writers. And for lunch for volunteers. And for drivers for candidates. And for props for rallies, for IT services, for image consultants, for polls, for jets and all kinds of other things that go into running a campaign and maintaining a political organization. For some reason, that never gets mentioned.

      That speech requires money. Ergo, money is speech.

      You assume the consequent, confuse necessary with sufficient, and generally fail to consider everything else that is necessary for speech. Speech requires food. It requires muscles powered by chemical energy. It requires sound and EM waves to propagate. Are you willing to call those things speech as well? I would love to see what happens when you try to follow that train of thought to its logical end.

      In any "American people" lever pulling contest, the smaller states would be dictated to by the larger ones.

      Instead, individuals in small states influence national politics more than those from large states. Explain why that is better than the other way around. If you even consider mentioning the tyranny of the majority, I'll raise you the tyranny of the minority, which is the status quo under anything other than a democracy.

      What an amazingly idiotic idea this is. You want people who have no desire to be there making decisions on how to run a corporation as large the the US government.

      Not nearly as idiotic as thinking that the government is a corporation. Nor as idiotic as thinking that the current crisis has nothing to do with people being there who have as one of their political platforms the destruction of government.

      You'd pull people from productive lives doing what they want to do off to Washington DC dealing with things the

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    33. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      And for some, Enron is one of the corporations that at least has ceased to exist. Your examples 4, 5, 6 on the other hand only undermine your argument by demonstrating that it is possible for a corporation and the vast majority of its officers to continue business as usual while a minority gets a jail sentence. Furthermore, Enron only ceased to exist because its business model was based on fraud, and only sustainable in the absence of any knowledge of that fraud. It had nothing to do with actually being put in jail.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    34. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by sjames · · Score: 1

      You didn't read carefully. If the CORPORATION commits a felony, the CORPORATION goes to jail. Not their chosen scapegoat, the CORPORATION itself.

      If it is really going to be treated as a person under the law, let it face the liabilities as well as the benefits.

      It can pay the personal income tax rate as well.

    35. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by green+is+the+enemy · · Score: 1

      It's not that it's unworkable, it's just an unnecessary complication. We need proportional representation of everyone in society, not a huge number of representatives. The emphasis should shift from geographic to demographic representation. Candidates should be allowed to run nationwide on platforms of representing teachers, engineers, lawyers, maybe even ethnic groups. Handing out pork to specific geographic Congressional districts needs to end. (Of course this is all pie-in-the-sky, politically impossible to achieve...)

    36. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by Zargg · · Score: 1

      I don't see the problem you are describing. Currently, people in hard blue or red states are disenfranchised and have no voice because candidates generally focus on campaigning in the battleground states, and their vote does nothing if their state is guaranteed to go to who they aren't voting for. If there were no electoral college and it was all done by popular vote, that would even out the voting power by taking it away from battleground states and putting it equally into the hands of all US citizens. Campaigning in dense metro areas would just be the most efficient way of connecting to voters, why is that a bad thing?

    37. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "ossified"? I thought many of us like like that here! Maybe you're a true Slashdotter who wants "FOSSified";
      four rights, and all that.

    38. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to think that the USA is one homogenous federal area where the federal government is in total control. National elections for president must naturally be a simple tally of all the votes, under that imaginary system. But the system that exists should be a red flag indicating that your simplistic view is the wrong view. Those of us in smaller states appreciate very much the ability to have some say in the Presidential election, and would even go so far as to call for a system where that small say is made larger, not eliminated altogether. Don't feel too bad about your ignorance, it is propagated by the mainstream media who seem to think that there is some significance to the "national vote total" and strive to be the first to tell you what it is.

      It is also promoted by those who want the Federal Government in charge of everything instead of it's original limited role. It doesn't help that those who are promoting the "national vote total" crap either forget or don't under stand that splitting up the population into 435 districts where at least every state gets one is a) easy or b) going to return results that are going be proportional at all to some nationwide total. The republic is designed the way that it is to protect those in small states from large states and they want to do away with those protections because it benefits their party, not the country.

    39. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      6: No non-US company or person can give money to campaigns, period. This is part of Mexico's Constitution, and needs to be part of their northern neighbor's ways.

      7: Allow a no confidence vote to be taken. If Congress fails the American people like it is doing now, there should be a capability of a recall election, where all seats are up for grabs. If the no confidence vote is above 2/3, then no incumbent can run that next term.

      Mexico also only recognizes civil unions and doesn't care what ones' religion considers to be a marriage. If you get married and want to receive government benefits/protections, you file paperwork for a civil union. It keeps religious arguments about same sex unions out of politics and vice versa. #7 would require an amendment to the US constitution.

    40. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Campaign volunteer limits. $100 worth of time per candidate/person. At the persons professional rates.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    41. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Senate wasn't intended to represent the US population. They were intended to represent the State's interests. That's why each state has two Senators no matter how many people live in the state.

      The House is the people's representative. That's why the house is the body outlined in the Constitution as the source of bills to raise revenue. No taxation without representation, eh?

      If the Senate was just another version of the House, why bother having two? I'm sure the founders considered that.

      The Senate was also designed to give small states a larger say in government so the larger states couldn't totally run them over. Also, the members of the US senate were originally elected by the state legislatures, not by the people. IMHO, the amendment making US Senators directly elected by the people in the state was a big mistake. First of all, it eliminates a feedback mechanism that the state governments had against the Federal government. Being elected by a state-wide election costs huge amounts of money and anyone running for the US Senate is going to have their hands out asking for cash (& delivering promises) more than anyone else other than the President.

      Fixing something requires first understanding what it is you want to fix and whether it is broken or not.

      No kidding. Threads like this on /. only highlight how dumbed down classes in US civics must be these days. It's sad.

    42. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, translating the deathless prose: You (the parent) is for elections by the highest bidder. You say it is OK to allow foreign nationals and their agents full reign to pay a campaign for any candidate they wish. Why not move forward and just put all seats up for auction in the US, including the President himself? Yes, it costs money to speak, whoop-de-fucking do. Other countries handle that by posting candidate platforms at the polling place. Allowing one candidate to have their voice heard louder than everyone else due to something otherwise called bribes should be illegal. It is in virtually every other country.

      I'm guessing Obufuscant is a corporate shill of some type, or another teabagger preaching Cruz control.

    43. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by dbc · · Score: 1

      The reasons I want to eliminate the electoral college are:

      1. Past history of Presidents elected despite not having a plurality of votes.

      I do not see that as a problem. It is a feature, not a bug. As I said above, part of the reason for the electoral college is to keep mob rule from trampling the rights of the minority. These days, the rural states are a minority population and are often mistreated at the hands of the federal government. If in a few close cases the presidency goes to someone who gets the majority of electoral votes, but not the popular vote, then the system is working exactly as intended. In most cases, though, the popular majority and electoral vote count yield the same result.

      You are trying to change something that is: a) working as intended, and b) working well, and c) some people actually like because it works reasonably well.

    44. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3. Eliminate Gerrymandering. Districts must be drawn that are representative of the state's demographics.

      There's no way to eliminate gerrymandering. There will always be someone who draws the boundaries, and whoever draws them, no matter what rules he follows, will be able to find some way to make some districts lean more than they should.

      You can eliminate gerrymandering, but the solution is not popular.

      You need to throw out the regional borders entirely and use proportional voting instead. Naturally, this has its own problems.

    45. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      The current system contains a bias that favors small states by giving electoral college votes to Senators as well as Representatives. THIS is where the intent to protect small states comes in. The other intent was to provide a buffer than prevents the election of a corrupt or tyrannical president. See the Federalist papers by Hamilton on the topic.

      It has nothing to do with protecting minorities in general, and in fact the history has been the opposite since most states are winner-take-all minority votes are NOT passed forward, and minorities tend to live in large cities in the larger states that are disadvantaged by the electoral mechanism.

      Even worse is the history where districting was conducted was conducted in a way to result in different numbers of voters in a district.

      A problem now is the disparity in the senate has reached ridiculous proportions. A California senator represents 19 million people. A senator from Alaska or Wyoming represents 300,000 people. That's a factor of 60 difference. When the founders wrote the Constitution the ratio between the most populous and least populous states was only 11 fold.

      So I say:

      It isn't working well. It does not protect the votes of minorities. It has resulted in the election of people who did not win a plurality of the votes. It has led to the election of a person because he won one state by a very small majority via the winner-takes-all mechanism. And it is subject to corrupt manipulation, something I am sure the founders did not intend.

      I would bet if you took some reasonably intelligent Americans and explained the issues you would find that the majority would not be in favor of continuing this institution.

    46. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      > It is also promoted by those who want the Federal Government in charge of everything instead of it's original limited role.

      Nonsense. Lots of conservative organizations back this idea.

      http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/blogs.php

    47. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      > I could come up with a lot of dreamscape systems

      What Rance Priebus is advocating is not a 'dreamscape system'. It is a workable plan that has actually been partly implemented and endorsed by the RNC. If it been fully applied at the last election Mitt Romney would likely be our President.

      http://www.nationalmemo.com/rncs-priebus-endorses-plan-to-rig-electoral-college/

    48. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by dbc · · Score: 1

      All you are saying is that the interest of rural states don't matter to you, and you think most people agree with you. YOU are the poster child for the reason the electoral college is a good thing. You are not engaging in a dialog here. You are not even making an attempt to understand my arguments. You simply talk past them by repeating the same thing you have said before. The electoral college exists to protect people like ME from people like YOU -- there, is that clear now?

    49. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      You're deliberating conflating the act of communicating with the resources necessary to communicate.

      The two are inseparable. Freedom of speech requires an ability to speak, and if you can't speak because the federal government has said you've reached your maximum allowable spending for that speech, it is an infringement plain and simple.

      Note the vociferous complaints from those who object to "free speech zones" created around various political activities. If the freedom of speech was disjoint from the resources to perform that speech, then such zones would be perfectly acceptable.

      Most specifically, it legitimizes flat-out bribes.

      Untrue. Illegal actions performed in return for money are not speech. You can't claim that paying your hooker for a happy ending falls under your right to free speech.

      Instead, individuals in small states influence national politics more than those from large states. Explain why that is better than the other way around.

      First, because your initial premise is false. Second, because were it true, those small states do not have enough power to veto the acts of the large states, while the large states in any such "American people" lever pulling contest do. Imagine, the "American people" vote to decide to have a congressional recall. The east and west coast have considerably more people than the middle of the country (the "flyover zone"). Those few states can force the recall on all of those states, even if those states are happy with their current elected officials. Those elected officials, at best, will be forced to run again to maintain their seats, even though the people who elected them didn't want them removed in the first place. Then this "2/3" rule that was proposed -- no sitting congressman can run for the seat -- means that those large coastal states can force smaller states to get rid of the people they elected and they have to pick someone new. You really think that is fair? Essentially, New York can say to Wyoming, "we don't like who you elected, elect someone else". That's crap.

      What's a productive life? Your corporate bias is showing.

      Corporate bias bullshit. If you aren't going to discuss this honestly, don't bother. "Productive life" is however I want to define it. I could be the local hippie tie-dye shirt producer for my community and run the recycle/composting center in my spare time. That may be what I want to do with my life. I call that productive and you call that "corporate bias?" And then this asinine sentate-juror call comes and I can't do that anymore because I'm too busy dealing with crap I don't care about.

      Not nearly as idiotic as thinking that the government is a corporation.

      The US government is one of the largest corporations on the planet. It hires more people, it manages more people, handles more money. The fact that some of the people involved are elected (by the "shareholders", eh, like a real corporation) and it's supposed to be "non-profit" doesn't change the fact that it requires the same skills running a large company does. What's idiotic is to ignore all the similarities because you don't want to have an honest discussion.

      You consider public service to be fucking up your life.

      And you think so highly of "public service" that you'd deliberately force it upon others because you cannot imagine that it might create hardships for them. Who is closer to reality here? Yes, involuntary servitude can and does fuck up people's lives. Whether that servitude is a week on a jury, a year as a slave/senator, or even four years as a draftee in the military, each one can create hardships for people. A year-long hiatus in the composting service I provide to my community will be a hardship for many people, and if my tie-dye business goes bust because I can't make and sell my product I'll be looking for a new job when I get done

    50. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      You didn't read carefully. If the CORPORATION commits a felony, the CORPORATION goes to jail. Not their chosen scapegoat, the CORPORATION itself.

      I read very carefully. It is you that missed out. A corporation is "people" because corporations are made up of people. People who go to jail when they commit crimes in the name of the corporation.

      If you think that Kenneth Lay or any of the other CEOs I listed who went to jail are the 'scapegoats' for the crimes they committed, then you really have no clue what a corporation, or a CEO, is at all. When the top guy goes to jail, it's really hard for anyone to honestly claim that there was a scapegoat involved.

      If it is really going to be treated as a person under the law, let it face the liabilities as well as the benefits.

      I've already provided a list of people who went to jail as people who are the heart of corporations for crimes committed under that corporate identity. Are you seriously trying to demand that the janitors at Enron go to jail too because the top corporate officers committed a crime and went to jail? The "corporation" committed a crime and the entire "corporation" should go to jail? That's just looney.

      It can pay the personal income tax rate as well.

      The people who make up those corporations already do that, and there is a corporate tax they get to pay, too. If you want to just cut the taxes back to the personal taxes, ok. I don't think you'd be happy with that, though.

    51. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by sjames · · Score: 1

      That handful you mentioned were special cases. Their crimes were egregious and they designed the scams to profit them personally rather than the corporation.They were ultimately indicted on such charges as insider trading, fraud, and money laundering. They were not indicted for crimes the company itself committed. You may be confused because they tried to structure their fraud to appear as corporate rather than personal crimes (that is they also defrauded the company they worked for and it's stockholders).

      There are plenty of corporations that commit felonies (mostly of the financial sort though mass manslaughter isn't unknown) and merely pay a fine. For example, MS is a three time loser. Ford rather famously committed a mass manslaughter and paid a fine.

      So I stand by my statement, when the CORPORATION commits a crime, the CORPORATION goes to jail.

    52. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Your reply seems obtuse. Right now the 'battleground' states contain a mix of both urban and rural concerns. This enfranchises a cross section of the American electorate, albeit arbitrarily. If the electoral college were eliminated, there would no longer be any rural 'battleground' areas since winning the densest population centers would be the only key to victory, effectively disenfranchising the interests of huge geographic areas across the country. An artificial cross section of American society is better than giving a voice solely based on population/density. This is something that the founders were mindful of, which is why we have a Senate. The electoral college performs a somewhat similar function. Until a better way can be found to mitigate the consequences of tipping this balance, it must necessarily be another can kicked down the road. As political cans go, it's a lot more harmless than the debt.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    53. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      That handful you mentioned were special cases.

      Well, at least you finally admit they exist. No, they weren't special cases, they were large scale cases that were high in the hit list when googling "corporate scandal" and they made the top 10 and 25 lists. "Easy to find" doesn't equate to "special cases".

      They were not indicted for crimes the company itself committed.

      Yes, they were, because they were committed under the guise of that company. "The company" doesn't commit crimes, it is the people who make up companies that can and do. And you've been shown clear examples when the people go to jail for committing crimes as part of that company.

      So I stand by my statement, when the CORPORATION commits a crime, the CORPORATION goes to jail.

      So yes, when the CEO of a company commits a crime through the company, you want the janitors and the secretaries and everyone else to go to jail, too. What a cruel heartless person you are. The entire corporation, all the people who are part of it, go to jail for the actions of one person. I hope you never work for anyone else and find out the hard way how ridiculous your desire is.

    54. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by sjames · · Score: 1

      You clearly have no idea how fiduciary responsibility works. If you are a CEO and you manipulate the company to commit crimes for your personal gain, you committed the crime. In particular if you cook the books to keep the board, stockholders and the accountants in the dark. If you have the company commit the crimes for the benefit of the company, then the company committed the crime. There may or may not be individual crimes involved as well.

      I never denied the cases you mentioned, it's just that as individual rather than corporate crimes they were irrelevant.

      And if you will read above, you'll see what I meant by the company goes to jail and that it had nothing to do with janitors and secretaries behind bars. In fact I would say the secretaries and janitors would have compensation due for wrongful loss of employment. Enough top hold them over until they get ac new job at least as good as the old one.

    55. Re:It isn't any different elsewhere by Zargg · · Score: 1

      Your reply seems obtuse.

      I am playing a little bit of devil's advocate so I am purposefully being a little obtuse hehe, but I do think that this is a perfect example of a process that doesn't need to be applied anymore, at least in it's current form. Winning elections without winning popular vote just doesn't make sense in my mind. I guess I am generally leaning more toward Democracy than Democratic Republic...

      Right now the 'battleground' states contain a mix of both urban and rural concerns. This enfranchises a cross section of the American electorate, albeit arbitrarily.If the electoral college were eliminated, there would no longer be any rural 'battleground' areas since winning the densest population centers would be the only key to victory, effectively disenfranchising the interests of huge geographic areas across the country. An artificial cross section of American society is better than giving a voice solely based on population/density.

      But that isn't why they are battleground states. They are just battleground states because half the state disagrees with the other half, it's not necessarily urban vs rural, so we are arbitrarily setting our electorate cross section to be roughly half democrat half republican, even though the general population is not. And yes, winning more votes from citizens should be the only key to victory, not winning states based on winner take all electoral college rules. I don't see why population, density, or who your neighbors vote for should affect your voting power.

      This is something that the founders were mindful of, which is why we have a Senate. The electoral college performs a somewhat similar function.

      I do see the need for this balance in the Senate for legislation and daily representation in D.C., but not for Presidential elections. Voting once every 4 years for the leader of your country should be required of every citizen by law IMO.

      Until a better way can be found to mitigate the consequences of tipping this balance, it must necessarily be another can kicked down the road. As political cans go, it's a lot more harmless than the debt.

      Yup, one of the many things to add to the list...how sad :(

  19. WASHINGTON NOT IMPLODING by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Stage management. Drama. Theatrics.

    In the end? The powerful will be more so - you will pay more, and get less.

    Mission accomplished, and your expectations diminished, as planned.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:WASHINGTON NOT IMPLODING by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Eh, why so cynical? Look at history: there's good things to come out of every bad thing and bad things that come out of every good thing. Perhaps this will shock people into realizing that gerrymandering isn't something they can ignore. Perhaps tea party voters will start to question whether forcing people to buy healthcare is actually at all similar to fascism. Perhaps actual small government conservatives will take back control of their party, and we can actually cut wasteful spending rather than just cutting taxes and pretending that makes sense.

      Don't say the sky is falling simply because you could see one way in which it COULD fall. For one thing, it's not going to cancel it's plans to fall simply because you discovered them. If the shutdown causes the worst to happen, you'll be able to say "Told ya so!' and everyone else in your shantytown will roll their eyes. If it doesn't, you just stressed yourself out, made everyone more cynical about politics, and less likely to take steps to prevent your prophecy from coming true.

      Granted, the chances of anyone reading your post doing anything about it are really low anyway... Fuck, I think I just talked myself into looking up my house of reps number and considering calling them.... goddamn desire not to be a hypocrite...

    2. Re:WASHINGTON NOT IMPLODING by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      It will be a good thing, when America slides down the hole that swallowed Rome, Assyria, Babylon and Egypt.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    3. Re:WASHINGTON NOT IMPLODING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What?!? A call for reason? For moderation, not of the comment variety?? For actual rational thought??? On Slashdot?!?

      IT'S AN OUTSIDER! OUT! OUT, VILE INTERLOPER! Never try to spoil our decade-long circle-jerk celebration of misery and cynicism again!

    4. Re:WASHINGTON NOT IMPLODING by plopez · · Score: 1

      Free bread and circuses! Or is that reality TV and fast food?

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    5. Re:WASHINGTON NOT IMPLODING by Muros · · Score: 1

      It will be a good thing, when America slides down the hole that swallowed Rome, Assyria, Babylon and Egypt.

      Which one? Taxation to support an oversized army, not having a big enough army, climate change, or having the Greeks in charge?

    6. Re:WASHINGTON NOT IMPLODING by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Ash-heap of history.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    7. Re:WASHINGTON NOT IMPLODING by Muros · · Score: 1

      Stage management. Drama. Theatrics.

      In the end? The powerful will be more so - you will pay more, and get less.

      Mission accomplished, and your expectations diminished, as planned.

      Related to the above and regarding the title of the article, why would big Silicon Valley heads care if Washington DID implode? They are all sitting on massive warchests of "foreign" money sitting in US dollar accounts in American banks beloning to their foreign subsidiaries for tax avoidance purposes. This money will NEVER be brought home (in terms of paying tax: it is actually back in America), it just sits there piling up, acting as a bank account, and when someone cashes in his shares he pays longterm capital gains on the value of his shares, which includes a bit of that massive pile of cash. Now, if the debt ceiling is breached.... US treasury bond interest rates will go up, and bank interest rates will rise as a result. Good result if you have several tens of billions of dollars to put into a long term deposit account.

    8. Re:WASHINGTON NOT IMPLODING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The funny bit is where there is no "Greeks" to speak of but a bunch of warring city-states like Athens and Sparta, all of which made the Persian conquest that much easier. Greek identity largely grew during the Ottoman period as they demanded independence from Turkey.

    9. Re:WASHINGTON NOT IMPLODING by Zeio · · Score: 1

      I live and work in Silicon Valley. Its so bad I'll be leaving within 1-2 years now. The schools are bad, must go private, the cost of living is astonishing, everyone is dual income, all the latch-key-kids have nose rings and colored hair, the cost of living is so bad, the total lack of morality and controls is very very hard on parents. Also, there are no real home-grown winners here, the bulk of the successful people here are from some other country and the kids that grow up here don't do that well unless they are super wealthy and go to private schools and tutors, etc, helicopter parented. Kids dont play, everything is an "activity", play dates not ad hoc playing, then when the kids get one ounce of freedom because up until the teenage years they have had none they rebel.

      This environment is bad. And we have billionaires like

      --
      Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
    10. Re:WASHINGTON NOT IMPLODING by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      San Francisco. High level of parent-community participation in the public schools. 5 of the SF public high-schools are in the 95th percentile, nationally. Not just Lowell.

      The valley? No culture. No community. Lotta money, 'tho.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    11. Re:WASHINGTON NOT IMPLODING by thomst · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Jeremiah Cornelius snorted:

      Stage management. Drama. Theatrics.

      In the end? The powerful will be more so - you will pay more, and get less.

      Mission accomplished, and your expectations diminished, as planned.

      Oh, horseshit.

      The "drama and theatrics" of which you so dismissively speak is ALL on the Tea Party side. The House clowns behind this public tantrum ARE the agents of plutocrats - but they are unwitting ones, blinded to the control of their puppetmasters by their ideology and prideful ignorance. That's an argyle horse, because all their non-TP peers understand EXACTLY who has purchased them.

      The Tea Party currently controls the Republican Party - and, because of gerrymandering and the fact that most Democrats only vote once every four years, that is unlikely to change any time soon. It is unlikely to change, because mainstream Republican voters don't turn out in significant numbers for primary elections. Instead, they're happy to cast their vote for a Republican slate in the general election, and go away satisfied that they've done their duty to party and (only incidentally) country. So it's the "base" - the evangelicals that Ronald Reagan's campaign strategy so empowered - the NRA lifers, and the slack-jawed Fox News addicts that turn out for the primaries. Those are the identical constituencies of the Tea Party, and they'll uncritically accept and vote in accordance with any propaganda effort that gets them sufficiently riled up over abortion, gun rights, taxes, and "socialism" (all while happily depositing their Social Security checks, and leaning as heavily on their Medicare coverage as they do on their walkers and canes).

      Cue the Koch brothers - the oil billionaires who have (thanks to the Roberts Court's decisions that money and speech are somehow equivalent, that "corporations are people" for purposes of political speech, and that unlimited secret spending on political campaigns - as long as it pretends to be "educational" and "issue-based" - is a bastion of fr-r-ee-dom!) essentially bankrolled the entire Tea Party monster from its inception, as a proxy for their personal business interests.

      Only now the monster has escaped their control - as Victor Frankenstein could have told them it inevitably would. And it's far too late to chain it back up in the basement, because the Tea Party is now a self-sustaining reaction.

      THAT's the difference. Washington's establishment pols are self-aware. The Tea Party is not. It's all id - and the Republican superego has left the building, so its ego, the career Republican establishment, has been left to fend for itself. The result is that the career Republican pols are falling all over themselves to embrace all things Tea, in perfectly-justified panic over being "primaried" (a nonce verb that owes its very existence to the Tea Party) out of their comfy jobs as shills for whoever pays them to be.

      It's the triumph of arrogant ignorance over calculated self-interest - and that is Not A Good Thing for the country. Or you and me, for that matter, because the Tea Party is the very definition of a faith-based movement. And I'm not talking about their Christian evangelism, here. I'm talking about their blind hatred of "socialism" - despite their personal dependence on it - of taxes - even though our tax rates are still near historic lows (and FAR lower than during the Eisenhower administration, which is a Golden Era in the Tea Party credo) - and of all things Obama - regardless of the fact that our 44th president is an enthusiastic centrist, and ardent supporter of the status quo.

      Your sneering dismissal of all pols as corrupt representatives of corporate plutocracy represents a faux-sophisticate's rhetorical overreach: they're NOT all the same. The Tea Partiers are DANGEROUS, precisely because they're NOT subject to the "business-as-usual" corruption of Washington politics. They're True Believers - and not in the good, Marvel-comics way, but in the terrible Spanish-Inquisition-and-Crusades way.

      --
      Check out my novel.
    12. Re:WASHINGTON NOT IMPLODING by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      You took the bait.

      There is only one game in town.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    13. Re:WASHINGTON NOT IMPLODING by thomst · · Score: 1

      Jeremiah Cornelius sneered:

      You took the bait.

      There is only one game in town.

      Reductionist running dog.

      --
      Check out my novel.
    14. Re:WASHINGTON NOT IMPLODING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much of my money is enough for you?

      Every Tea Party member I have ever met know 10 times as much about the Constitution, Budget, etc. than the fanatical libtards who believe in the progressive utopia of pure statism. The Puffing Host called, they want their talking points back.... Calling Obama a centrist delusional, he is a PROGRESSIVE!!!

    15. Re:WASHINGTON NOT IMPLODING by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      167 individual people control 37+ Trillion dollars of actual monetary wealth in the world. I am not the reductionist.

      If you think that this concentration of wealth does not produce the outcome desired by those individuals? Then you don't see that this is how they got to that position, over the last 30 years, when thety were less than 1/3 as wealthy, and how they used this influence to drive them to the current concentration.

      There is NO "tea party" - tho' the passions do actually run that high, 'mong the recruited rabble. There's just the Koch's. They are the "regressive, brute" funding team, of the monied elite.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    16. Re:WASHINGTON NOT IMPLODING by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Well, if America follows Rome's example, it'll break apart and while half of it collapses into feudalism, the other half will continue on as normal for another 1000 years.

    17. Re:WASHINGTON NOT IMPLODING by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Normal. That's what you call Byzantium? ;-)

      I think of the Secret History, by Procopius.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    18. Re:WASHINGTON NOT IMPLODING by thomst · · Score: 1

      Jeremiah Cornelius explained:

      167 individual people control 37+ Trillion dollars of actual monetary wealth in the world. I am not the reductionist.

      If you think that this concentration of wealth does not produce the outcome desired by those individuals? Then you don't see that this is how they got to that position, over the last 30 years, when thety were less than 1/3 as wealthy, and how they used this influence to drive them to the current concentration.

      There is NO "tea party" - tho' the passions do actually run that high, 'mong the recruited rabble. There's just the Koch's. They are the "regressive, brute" funding team, of the monied elite.

      No, what YOU don't understand it that the Kochs have taken a hit in the past two weeks' free fall on Wall Street. They therefore have sent forth the word that the Tea Party needs to cut it the fuck out.

      And the Tea Party is ignoring them.

      Thus my "Victor Frankenstein" comment.

      I'm telling you that YOUR picture of the current state of Washington and the Repugnican Party is oversimplified. YOU live in California. *I* live in rural Ohio, in the heart of Tea Party country. I'm personally acquainted with far too many of these nit-wits. And they are NOT part of the "everybody in Washington works for the plutocrats" equation.

      --
      Check out my novel.
    19. Re:WASHINGTON NOT IMPLODING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well you certainly hit the important talking points and bogeymen. The Tea Party, the Kochs, gerrymandering. Your fellow dailykos readers will be proud of you.

  20. We're screwed. by MaWeiTao · · Score: 0

    What's currently happening in Washington doesn't fundamentally impact most people day to day. If anything, it's probably a good thing because spending has been curtailed somewhat. The fact that certain high profile programs have seen funding cut is nothing but a political ploy to make citizens feel some of the pain. We're supposed to believe that the sky is falling but meanwhile all of Congress continues enjoying it's countless benefits. Nor has it prevented our vice-president from going on vacation.

    The problem is that while Americas are playing tic-tac-toe the powers that be are playing chess. To this day people continue to argue in defense of their political parties of choice while we continued to be screwed by everyone. Both sides of the aisle are clearly pandering for influence and power, usually playing to different constituencies and except when they're trying to appease the same corporate masters. When when they're pandering to regular systems they inevitably screw everyone else in favor of their particular constituency. It's all garbage.

    And meanwhile people seem generally okay with the fact that we're being spied on. That's the most troubling thing here, that people continue to be so fiercely loyal to Obama despite the fact that he's proven himself to be no different than Bush. There's that obnoxious "thanks Obama" meme going around that continues the theme of making fun of anyone who criticizes the president. Where were all these people when Bush was being criticized for something as ridiculous as the weather?

    The problem isn't that people criticized Bush, it's the double-standard being applied to Obama. Case in point: Ann Romney wears a $10k outfit and she's out-of-touch; Michelle Obama wears an equally expensive outfit and she's so stylish, adorning the cover of countless magazines. As long as people continue this mentality of my guy is better than yours we're screwed.

    1. Re:We're screwed. by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      As long as people continue this mentality of my guy is better than yours we're screwed.

      Welcome to the human race?

    2. Re:We're screwed. by bkmoore · · Score: 1

      What's currently happening in Washington doesn't fundamentally impact most people day to day....The fact that certain high profile programs have seen funding cut is nothing but a political ploy to make citizens feel some of the pain. We're supposed to believe that the sky....

      Nope, the programs affected by the shutdown are discretionary spending, that means nice to have, but not essential. So if we open national parks, memorials, museums, etc. What would you suggest we close in its place? The military?

    3. Re:We're screwed. by plopez · · Score: 1

      Sounds good to me. The US had a tiny military until WWII.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    4. Re:We're screwed. by sjames · · Score: 1

      How about the NSA's domestic programs? Those aren't even nice to have.

    5. Re:We're screwed. by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      we probably only need one tenth the military to protect the homeland. projecting power and waging wars of choice is very expensive and gets hundreds of thousands of innocents killed. enough of that crap

  21. Vulgar libertarian propaganda by benjfowler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I see the Ayn Rand science fiction book club are quite busy today.

    Yawn. As always. Nothing to see here. Move on.
    .

    1. Re:Vulgar libertarian propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get sick of this. As a liberation, would you like to inform me as to why my beliefs are vulgar? Point by point mind you. Not just what left wing media says with the whole "libertarians are anarchists!" thing when if you read up on it you see anarchy is an extreme leftist view.

      What's wrong with limiting government involvement to where it needs to be? And I'll start throwing some myth busting at you. No where will you see dissolving state run police forces or fire departments. People want to form a union, sounds good to me, just don't make my joining compulsory. Abolishing the concept of legal marriage so all the shit related to that is placed on a beneficiary/dependent role regardless of "marital status" and eliminating unnecessary substance bans, yeah, but not critical services. That's just FUD because if you actually read up on libertarian views, they actually make a hell of a lot of sense, and I believe the left wing media is afraid of it as it would be difficult to spin negatively to keep their power once it was actually seen in practice.

      Regulate that which needs to be, and nothing more, that's the creed of the libertarian. What's the problem with that?

    2. Re:Vulgar libertarian propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, we should listen to you and do what you want. Everyone knows that you're perfectly correct and everyone else is wrong. You are the enlightened ideal among the unwashed masses! Ben J Fowler knows the TRUTH!! Follow HIM!

    3. Re:Vulgar libertarian propaganda by TheSync · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We are glad your non-libertarian Democrats and Republicans in Congress and the White House are doing such a great job!

    4. Re:Vulgar libertarian propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What's wrong with limiting government involvement to where it needs to be?"

      Everyone has different opinions on that. For some it means that every aspect of your life needs to have some regulation or service associated with it. Because it is unfair if only rich people get the things they need. And it's unsafe if we allow anyone to do anything they want, like home school their children.

      Why aren't you thinking of the children? Why can't you stop hating family?

      In my opinion, and this is perhaps more bizarre than libertarianism, is that the government should be limited to a few basic goals:
      1. keep our communities from becoming some ugly horrible place. (no old ladies who have to eat cat food, no old men dying in the street)
      2. anyone who wants an education should get one. doesn't mean they get a free education, if they want it bad enough they may have to work for it or borrow for it.
      3. anyone who wants a job should get one. they may have to adjust their expectations, their standard of living, or retrain for a new career. It's sad to go from history professor to ditch digger, but I don't think we should make a lot of promises
      4. (fits in with #1) anyone who will die if they don't receive basic medical attention should get it. they may have to go into debt, or borrow, change their lifestyle or maybe they get it for free. (don't care about the details). They don't get world class medical care for free though, just basic medical care. If a cutting edge million dollar treatment means you can live another 3 months, then that is entirely your choice and you should figure out your own way to pay for it. If a $1500 surgery means your appendix doesn't burst and go septic, then lets get that taken care of. I don't want to see old men dying in the streets over relatively easy to treat conditions.
      5. anyone who wants to do business should be able to do so in a way that is competitive with the world, as long as the standards of the community can be maintained. Operating a sweat shop and using child labor is not something we want to see in our community. But burdening business with numerous taxes and liabilities makes it difficult for individuals to move from being a worker to being an owner/operator.

      for the most part, we do pretty well on these, goals. But I don't think we have these goals in mind when writing laws, so I can't explain how it has happened. Perhaps the community keeps nudging everyone into the right direction. But we could do so much better if we'd just listen to what people really want. (to be free to live a safe, comfortable and productive life)

    5. Re:Vulgar libertarian propaganda by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      The main reason that we think that libertarian rants are vulgar is mostly due to the volume of ANTS-IN-THE-PANTS-CRAZY that gets exhibited by a frightening percentage of people calling themselves "libertarians". That and I've known libertarians in person and they've been assholes. All of them. That's... you know... judging a group by a vocal minority, but it's the vocal minority that steer the boat. If you stood up and disagreed with them, managed, regulated, and control the party/philosophical movement, then you'd either split in two due to your disagreements or you'd contain the crazy.

      Listen, I lean liberal. We've got our own batch of crazies. People that think we should abolish money, give everyone a handout, cut the workweek to 10 hours, and the stereotypical ultra-nanny that wants to put a collar on culture and shame people into smoking less. (Oh wait, that worked... hmmm) By and large I do what I can to try and talk sense into them. It doesn't matter how smart and level-headed individuals in the group are if the point of contact outside the group is a bunch of crazy nutters. And it's worse if they get in control of the group. You have to self-police. Or detach yourself from the group if they get too crazy.

      Regulate that which needs to be, and nothing more, that's the creed of the libertarian. What's the problem with that?

      What needs to be regulated? You can swing that dial all the way from anarchy to totalitarian state. The problem is that it's a meaningless statement unless you put some meat behind it like "abolishing legal marriage".

      But here you go. An easy one right over the plate: As a libertarian would you say the US needed more or less labor laws and regulation in the 1890's?

    6. Re:Vulgar libertarian propaganda by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      #1) You seem to have an awfully narrow definition of "ugly". What about gun violence? Rampant obesity? People getting dumped at hospitals for emergency care? What about those damn whipper-snappers who don't cut their lawn? Lemme guess, while you're "libertarian" you're totally backing the social security entitlement program?

      #2) Dude, the only thing this says is that people are allowed to spend their own money. What the hell? This is your solution to education? "Spend your own money"!? Take a guess about how much money poor uneducated kids can borrow. No, no. No government education loans. Take a guess.

      #3) "anyone who wants a job should get one". "get one" as in it's provided for them? or "get one" as in they really ought to just go out and get one themselves? If it's the first, WHOA BOY is that some serious government intervention into the economy on the scale even ultra-nanny would balk at. Or maybe you're just talking about public works programs. If it's the second, it's as empty a statement as #2.

      #4) Is a wishy-washy half free-market half-welfare statement. I think you're arguing for free healthcare... but only if they're dying and only if it's cheap? Dude, look up "emergency care".

      #5) Yeah, dude, you just pointed out three factors that are at odds with each other. If you stress any one of those three sentences you can have labor laws and regulation that looks like anything from China, to France, to the USA.

      WTF is this "community" you seem to be worshiping?

        Your ideas are half-baked. Please come back when you actually have some opinions about how to do things.

    7. Re:Vulgar libertarian propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the people who consider Rand's writings as science fiction that are the problem, it is those that take it as their gospel.

    8. Re:Vulgar libertarian propaganda by sjames · · Score: 1

      Like it or not, various Libertarians and libertarians HAVE (and some still do) demanded closure of public police, fire, and sanitation. At the same time, many of the top libertarians (even the ones in office) are strangely silent about closing the DEA and curbing the FDA's power grabs.

      Perhaps you need a less tarnished name for your system of beliefs.

    9. Re:Vulgar libertarian propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >As a libertarian would you say the US needed more or less labor laws and regulation in the 1890's?

      The obvious answer you're fishing for is the US needs no labor laws or regulation. The question the must be raised, however, is if the rights of a citizen in 1890 protected them from what amounts to forced slavery. I'd posit the honest answer is no.

      You don't need to regulate labour, nor do you need labour laws. You must give citizens the rights necessary to defend themselves from being forced to work, being forced into contracts against their will, and to defend themselves from employers that would punish past legitimate contractual terms for an employee that refuses to complete a task (one could construe the last item as a labour law, but it's still an issue of a poor contract).

      Would you care to give some examples of labour in the 1890s that you find particularly egregious and maybe we could discuss something concrete?

    10. Re:Vulgar libertarian propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. non-inclusive list. I shouldn't have to write pages of everything I don't personally like. But remember it is for each community to determine and define that.

      2. poor kids get student loans all the time. why shouldn't they? If you have money, you're expected to pay. if you do not. you should still get an education. When I said "anyone who wants an education should get one" I really meant anyone and everyone. It doesn't get more egalitarian than that.

      3. "get one" as in obtain a job. As in they find one, create one or are provided one.

      4. working out pragmatic compromises sure hasn't made me very popular, with attacks like "wishy-wishy". I don't think it's productive to run to one extreme or another. PS- we're all dying

      5. Imagine a system of constraints. You learn about it in mathematics.

      The community is the social structure in which occupies your region. You'll find out about it if you ever buy a house or pay your own rent.

      Do you have any better alternatives to present on this anonymous internet forum that is not actively monitored by anyone with any real power or influence?

    11. Re:Vulgar libertarian propaganda by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      You don't need to regulate labour, nor do you need labour laws. You must give citizens the rights necessary to defend themselves from being forced to work, being forced into contracts against their will, and to defend themselves from employers that would punish past legitimate contractual terms for an employee that refuses to complete a task (one could construe the last item as a labour law, but it's still an issue of a poor contract).

      Uh huh... And how do you do that?

      You want some concrete examples? Let's go with:

      Hiring kids to work in factories, cause anyone can do this job and kids are cheap.

      Company towns, company stores, company script: The work is in town X, but the company owns everything in town X, they have a monopoly on what everything costs there, from housing to food. Since they control what you're paid they can charge just about exactly what you can afford for basic necessities. One of the things they did was to pay workers not in cash, but in company script which you could only spend at the company store. It was impossible to save up any money to afford the move away to a better job.

      Pinkertons

      And before you say something like: "It's in the contract", that only works if the laborers have any sort of power to dictate what goes into that contract. That "negotiating" thing. One lone worker can't negotiate shit and takes what he can get. If he butts heads with megacorp, the megacorp can simply get someone else or float for a little while until the laborer starts to starve.

    12. Re:Vulgar libertarian propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you think personal freedom and responsibility for ones own actions sucks ?

      Barry is that you ?

    13. Re:Vulgar libertarian propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. That's a best seller every year since Obama was elected. 1.5 million copies. That's slightly more copies sold than the number of NSA analysts with top-secret clearance! I wonder what's going to happen when all those people buying Ayn Rand start reproducing. Nothing to see, indeed.

    14. Re:Vulgar libertarian propaganda by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      poor kids get student loans all the time

      Yeah, when their parent put up collateral. Usually whatever portion of the house they own. Plus, you know, federally backed Stafford loans.
      But the entire reason that the term "student loans" exist is because there are federal laws about loans for college education.

      Ok, so you're totally egalitarian when it comes to education. So who gets to foot the bill when the masses of poor shlubs go to "highschool plus", rack up massive debt, get shit degrees (because if there's guarenteed money somewhere SOMEONE will offer a "degree" to take it. Unless you want some sort of regulating body that decides what does and doesn't count as a real education), and then graduate facing the same competition that they have from all the other poor shlubs with a worthless degree fighting over the same shit walmart job. They have no hope of paying off the debt. That money will simply never come. Who foots that bill?

      If you leave it to "the market" then they simply won't loan money to these poor shlubs. Because, sadly, it's not financially viable for a statistical percentage of them. If you're saying the poor shlubs have a right to education, WHO PAYS FOR IT?

      "get one" as in obtain a job. As in they find one, create one or are provided one.

      ok. So they can't find one and don't have the capital/idea/opportunity to create one. WHO PROVIDES?

      Imagine a system of constraints. You learn about it in mathematics.

      You actually learn a lot more about that in Systems and Control. Those classes are pretty high up there in the engineering department. I don't think enough people get to them. You've essentially stated that there are variables. Congratulations for identifying 3 moving parts in the system. If we could model human behavior and politics with Nyquist plots or set up some PID loops to account for corruption and greed then we'd have a lot better government, and the stock market would be fucked.

      The community is the social structure in which occupies your region. You'll find out about it if you ever buy a house or pay your own rent.

      We're 4/5th of the way paying off the mortgage on a 200,000 house in a midwest city. The "community" is layered:
      City
      State
      Nation
      They each take their cut in taxes, provide services, and have their own ruleset which has to comply with the layer above. We democratically elect people to run the joint.
      Your concept of "social structure" as having any say in the legal wranglings of government regulation is laughable and outdated. We no longer live in clans and tribes.

      Do you have any better alternatives

      Yeah, DON'T LISTEN TO THE LIBERTARIANS. They've got really bad ideas and want to tear down institutions that more or less work and they REALLY haven't thought out their plans.

  22. Re:Stay strong President Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Liberal fascists now? I thought they were all communist or socialist. Geez, will someone make up their mind?!

  23. Re:Who elected this guy to speak for Silicon Valle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm glad someone else noticed this. And dissapointed to have to wade through 30 post of government hate, Google hate, and NSA hate just to find the one person who understood the subtext.

  24. Re:Who elected this guy to speak for Silicon Valle by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

    There is no such thing as what "silicon valley wants". .

    This is true. Also, technology is generally a party neutral topic, and technology companies want to keep it that way. They must retain the ability to lobby both sides. Plus, these days, company leaders that express political opinions are often crucified in the press, calls for boycotts and such often follow.

  25. Does Silicon Valley have a preference on the ACA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Washington imploding my ass. The Republicans and Democrats each feel strongly about how the health care system in America should be run. The Democrats have been pushing for something stronger than the ACA for decades. Ted Kennedy considered the lack of health care reform prior to the ACA as his unfinished work. In 2008, Iraq propelled Democrats into power of the House, Senate and Presidency. They took action, and a weaker health care bill, ACA, got through. The Republicans have been fighting it ever since. This shutdown is about the ACA, and nothing more.

  26. Re:Who elected this guy to speak for Silicon Valle by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

    It's not even a valley and it is definitely not made of silicon.

    Actually, I'm sure that silicon makes up about 30% of the land in Silicon Valley (just like it does everywhere else), and San Francisco Bay was a valley until the end of the last ice age (when it filled up with ocean).

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  27. Re:Who elected this guy to speak for Silicon Valle by unixisc · · Score: 3, Informative

    Given how overwhelmingly the entire counties of San Mateo, Alameda, Santa Cruz, Santa Clara - not just San Francisco - vote Democrat in every election, thereby making the entire state of CA a 'blue' state, it's ridiculous to claim that Silicon Valley wants the sort of things that Libertarians or even Conservatives champion. TJ, Scott McNealy, John Chambers are really exceptions in an industry that leans overwhelmingly LEFT.

  28. They're not quiet by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

    You just need lotsa untraceable lobby money to hear them.
    -Congress

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  29. "Liberty" is ideology, too by ferespo · · Score: 1

    "Liberty", Individualism are all tenents of Libertarianism or simple Right wing ideology, so it is no surprise that Silicon Valley is against (or indiferent) to the Government or the State.

    There is this idea, that there are choices that go beyond "left or right", choices that are not subjective but objective and universal.

    Anytime that someone tells me that he has "no ideology" or "no political stance" I suspect he is a closeted right winger.

  30. real dichotomy by globaljustin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The only difference is which rich assholes get richer....It's douchebags on both sides fighting for their piece of the pie -- we all get fucked over in the end.

    I sympathize with your frustration but, no you're wrong.

    Look at *policy*...Dem's and Repub's are very, very different. One party has a coordinated effort to end all abortion (including fertitlity tests in Louisiana) and teach young-earth creationism.

    That's Repbublicans, that's "libertarians"...don't kid yourself....you want to criticize money in politics? welcome to the fucking club...the rich get richer **in any situation** fact is, even the best case scenario, with two functional, representative parties, money in politics will still be just as much of a problem...

    no....the fact that humans can be corrupt does not validate your argument

    In the end, the defeatist "Bah...it's all bullshit...meh" is immature and reductive. It's not an intellectual conclusion....it's the opposite...the refusal to engage a complex situation...something that requires mental effort to dig below the rhetoric.

    Your position reminds me of Dr. Zeus in Planet of the Apes...covering his ears and screaming so he doesn't hear the human speak.

    Democrats are the only people trying to do anything resembling professional governance right now. **accept and deal with that fact** if you think about it, the Chinese idea of 'crisis/opportunity' applies...

    I'm surprised at Republicans...for 'free market' people their party is remarkable bereft of any new ideas.

    trolls: if you want to express your hate for what I've said, please use blockquote to specify which part of my post you are criticizing

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:real dichotomy by Quila · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm surprised at Republicans...for 'free market' people their party is remarkable bereft of any new ideas.

      The point of a free market is that the politicians don't have the ideas. They keep government from interfering with others who do have the good ideas. Of course the Republicans aren't very good at that either. They're just as meddling as the Democrats.

    2. Re:real dichotomy by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      In the end, the defeatist "Bah...it's all bullshit...meh" is immature and reductive. It's not an intellectual conclusion....it's the opposite...the refusal to engage a complex situation...something that requires mental effort to dig below the rhetoric.

      Unless by "mental effort" you mean "advancing technology to the singularity and welcoming our new AI overlords," human nature is what it is, and you're just pissing into the wind.

    3. Re:real dichotomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's Repbublicans, that's "libertarians".

      Republicans are not libertarians. Anyone trying to make that equivalence has an agenda, and they're probably afraid of libertarians. Neither Republicans nor Democrats like libertarian's "keep government small and butt out of our private affairs" attitudes, although for different reasons.

      While pure libertarianism probably wouldn't work a whole lot better than anarchism in modern society, it'd sure be nice to try even a watered-down version over the creeping totalitarianism we have now.

    4. Re:real dichotomy by plopez · · Score: 1

      They why do they seem to always hob-nob with Republicans? If you are a libertarian and vote Republican you are a de facto Republican.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    5. Re:real dichotomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Those differences you are referring to are really not all that important, when it comes down to it. And they aren't likely to change any time soon. Abortion - no change regardless which parties have been in power. Creationism isn't being pushed into schools at the fed level (I'm not arguing about states here). I suppose healthcare got pushed through, but very watered down - not the single payer system that dems really want.

      But take issues that are current and important to the majority, and there is hardly a difference.
      Fed Government overspending
      Fed Government overreach/spying/constitution erosion
      Corruption/campaign spending/bribes/lobbying
      Economy/corporate power
      etc

      In fact, it's so bad, we wouldn't even know it's this bad if it weren't for numerous whistleblowers who put their own lives in danger to bring us the facts.
      Which means, it's probably much worse than we know.

      Did you know that using snipers against the Occupy movement was on the table, and narrowly avoided being used? Against *peaceful* protesters?

      Dem/Rep I see no important difference. A vote for either is a vote for continuity.

    6. Re:real dichotomy by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      The overreach/spying is not a universally appalled issue. It's somewhat polarizing, but hardly something the broad populace is opposed too.

      Depending on what you mean by overspending, I don't think that's particularly universal too. There are educated people all over the world arguing we need to deficit spend in times of recession and recovery.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    7. Re:real dichotomy by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Not that I see a difference in the parties, which I guess was your point, so ignore me.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    8. Re:real dichotomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are not trying to reach solution with the other side, you are only getting smug with yourself. That is not much difference from the post you are replying to!

    9. Re:real dichotomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ook at *policy*...Dem's and Repub's are very, very different. One party has a coordinated effort to end all abortion (including fertitlity tests in Louisiana) and teach young-earth creationism.

      And the other one wants to take away everyone's guns... But that is all insignificant crap to keep people fighting each other.

      The _REAL_ issues, like trade policies that are causing the middle class to collapse, the huge military/police/prison industrial complex sucking all the tax dollars, and to a lesser extend the tax policies are remarkably the same.

    10. Re:real dichotomy by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      you are naive and silly. you have been distracted by "hot button issues" that give the illusion of choice. both parties are megacorporate bitches. both parties are turning the USA into a police state. I'm criticizing your whole post because you watch the sideshow while the real threat closes its noose on you.

    11. Re:real dichotomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Democrats are the only people trying to do anything resembling professional governance right now."

      I don't affiliate with either party, but I wanted to point out that our democratic president has arrested more people for speaking their mind (without charges, under laws the democrats supported) than in the history of the US. Both parties are pretty skeezy if you ask me.

    12. Re:real dichotomy by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      I'll spell out those reasons. True libertarians aren't interested in laws that outlaw abortion, prostitution, drugs, gambling, firearms, or junk food. Democrats tend to want more of the later ones, Republicans more of the former ones; as a result, the ones in the middle are mostly banned or heavily restricted.

      Liberals often confuse libertarianism with anarchy, but the two aren't even close to one another. Libertarians want law and order, but they don't want a nanny state. Libertarians believe the government should permit you the tools to protect yourself, liberals believe that the government should protect you from yourself.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    13. Re:real dichotomy by globaljustin · · Score: 1

      a difference in the parties, which I guess was your point

      thanks for reading! yes that was my point!

      so ignore me

      aw, shucks

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
  31. Re:Stay strong President Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Libtards just want a blank check so they can keep polishing the giant turd they have created with stimulus, 29 hour work weeks, huge debts, and the largest tax increase ever perpetuated on the the American People (Yes, it's a tax - John Roberts said so). With the media cum-guzzlers shilling for Obama, the S/N ratio about what is actually going on is getting propagandized away from the truth that Congress has the purse strings and the purse is empty and overdrawn. Conservatives in the house are doing their job.

  32. On the contrary, it's an obligation by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 2

    Intelligent educated people have a duty to speak, especially about science and technology issues. It's this whole "democracy" idea that only works when people participate.

    1. Re:On the contrary, it's an obligation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with this is that many people who consider themselves to be intelligent and educated, are neither. Just as many people who don't consider themselves intelligent and educated, are.

  33. " local reinvestment of profit ...." by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

    Apparently Steve Jobs , HP and Microsoft didn't get the memo.

    --
    Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
  34. "It falls between freedom and control" by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    Would you like a Palantir with your Siri, or just plain Narus and Amdocs?

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  35. They have very privileged, sheltered lives.. by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    So Silicon Valley and DC politicians do have some common ground.

    Why do you keep electing a privileged elite to represent you in DC, but you shy away from a privileged tech elite that have a track record for economic growth?

    Something doesn't add up here, and I suspect it's your own personal bias. Try take a more anti-establishment stance, at least when the world is crumbling around us.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:They have very privileged, sheltered lives.. by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Why do you keep electing a privileged elite to represent you in DC, but you shy away from a privileged tech elite that have a track record for economic growth?

      So you seriously want the likes of Mark Zukerberg, Steve Ballmer and Larry Ellison running government?

      ...are you fucking high?

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    2. Re:They have very privileged, sheltered lives.. by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Given that I would gladly work for any of their companies, I don't see the problem.

      What specific issues do you have with them, and do you think they would operate the government the same or different than their own business? Specific examples would be helpful for me to follow your line of reasoning.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  36. Re:Who elected this guy to speak for Silicon Valle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The voting for democrats in CA is picking the lesser of 2 evils.
    Give me candidates who:

    1. Don't care about religion and don't care either way about Abortion.
    2. Aren't crazy to think global warming is not real.
    3. Don't want to subsidize either Big Oil or Big Green.
    4. Does not want to interfere in what is taught in schools.
    5. Doesn't support the Military Industrial complex.

    To sum it up someone who cares about the important things that I care about and won't fuck up the rest and they will get my vote even if they are republicans.

    Unfortunately I like republican Fiscal policy but that's where it stops. They are just plain nuts when it comes to religion, distrust of science, gun craziness, Support for Big Businesses at social cost which ought weighs the fiscal goodness.
    And I like the Democrats views on personal freedoms, Climate & belief in Science. But can't take their dysfunction.
    And unlike some other countries we don't have a real third or fourth or fifth party to choose from.

  37. Re:Stay strong President Obama by FrankSchwab · · Score: 2

    Look, Obama isn't involved here. Congress is the legislative body(s). Until they pass a bill and send it to the White House, they haven't done their job.

    If Obama is vetoing bill after bill, and Congress can't override, then it's time for the Congress and the White House to confer and compromise. That's not the case right now. If the Congress was doing their job, Obama would be just another asshole with an opinion (although, surely, an asshole with a "bully pulpit"). Placing responsibility for this mess on the President is simply another tactic by the lunatic fringe to deflect blame from their actions.

    --
    And the worms ate into his brain.
  38. Dat quote by operagost · · Score: 1

    "'The metric that differentiates Silicon Valley from Washington does not fall along conventional political lines: Republican versus Democrat, conservative versus liberal, right versus left,' Rogers said. 'It falls between freedom and control. It is a metric that separates individual freedom to speak from tap-ready telephones; local reinvestment of profit from taxes that go to Washington; encryption to protect privacy from government eavesdropping; success in the marketplace from government subsidies; and a free, untaxed Internet from a regulated, overtaxed Internet.'"

    Boy, do IAWTP.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  39. Re:Stay strong President Obama by Salgak1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Rumor has it, Miley and Justin are breeding the first generation of NEGATIVE-information voters. . . .

  40. Not going to happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Silicon Valley CEOs should withdraw from Technet, the hightech lobbying association; oppose corporate welfare programs; and stand together to vigorously defend companies like Microsoft, Intel, and other high-tech firms when they are under assault by the government."
    -T.J. Rodgers

    The problem is that "companies like Microsoft, Intel, and other high-tech firms" sign vendor contracts with the government which allow the government to dictate how these companies operate. They chase sales, incur higher-than-estimated costs, and then beg for corporate welfare.

  41. Re:Who elected this guy to speak for Silicon Valle by stevew · · Score: 1

    A few points.

    1) It was written 15 years ago. Since then we've had 9/11, the Patriot Act, Wikileaks and the NSA invasion of privacy just to mention a few interesting events. So many actors have changed their stripes (Google seems to be a prime example) since this was written. Yet his points are still relevant! If we had paid attention to Dr. Rodgers points then maybe we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.
    2) It IS a valley idiot. I stand outside and see two mountain ranges, one on either side... a valley!
    3) Since the 1960s this place has been the center of the Semiconductor industry. In the last decade the place has lost most of its manufacturing. Yet calling Silicon Valley 15 years ago was an accurate portrayal.

    --
    Have you compiled your kernel today??
  42. grumble-grumble by globaljustin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of course the Republicans aren't very good at that either. They're just as meddling as the Democrats.

    trying not to freak out here...but you *did* make a coherent point and used blockquotes as requested...so here goes:

    The point of a free market is that the politicians don't have the ideas. They keep government from interfering with others who do have the good ideas

    this is Ayn Rand revisionism...Paul Ryan type stuff...people who understand economic theory through the lense of **ONE** theorist only...that's your mistake.

    the 'free market' is a heuristic of human behavior....it is independent of political/social systems (ex: the huge black market in Soviet Russia, street vendors, etc)

    the 'free market' applied to government means a competition of ideas...

    **competition of ideas**

    my point was/is, that of the two, the Repubs and their supporters talk often and loudly about their love of the 'free market'

    if you apply 'free market' ideas to politics, logically you would expect a lively debate of new ideas and old ideas adapted in interesting ways...

    also, what is the difference if Robert Oppenheimer makes the A-bomb for Boening or for the DoD? does it really matter who signed his paycheck? he went in and did his work...

    the 'free market' isn't any better or worse than the 'government' at doing any one project...that's comparing apples and oranges...b/c the 'free market' isn't an economic system its a heuristic of human behavior

    They keep government from interfering with others who do have the good ideas

    that is a drastically reductive idea of what government does...based on Ayn Rand...a bad reading of Rand even...

    The US Constitution spells out why our government exists, and it makes alot of sense.

    I certainly agree that **YES** you are right, one function of government (of many, many functions) is to protect the 'idea people' from unfair competition!!!

    I really want you to know that you're right on there...but I think your premise is wrong...

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re: grumble-grumble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of the world's most frightening people are those who think they have it all figured out an that they only need to convince or overcome the rest of us.

    2. Re:grumble-grumble by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      this is Ayn Rand revisionism...Paul Ryan type stuff...>

      I read your post before seeing this.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  43. Re:Stay strong President Obama by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Fascism has always been a flavor of socialism. We know you're all in denial. Doesn't change history.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  44. Re:Stay strong President Obama by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

    We've got your back. Don't negotiate with the Republican terrorists.

    Stay Strong Conservatives, don't negotiate with the libtard fascists.

    Yes, everyone just "stay strong" (a weird choice of speech, because you have to actually be strong in order to stay strong) and never negotiate! We don't need to negotiate! Negotiation accomplishes nothing!

    I think the American people need to stay strong and kick out everyone in Washington who would rather hold the country hostage by refusing to negotiate instead of doing their actual jobs. Their job, by the way, is to negotiate.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  45. Re:Stay strong President Obama by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Dissent is patriotic - Hillary Clinton

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  46. Re:Who elected this guy to speak for Silicon Valle by clarkkent09 · · Score: 0

    Your view of Republican party seems to be influenced more by the (unfortunately very successful) efforts by the left and their media to discredit it, than by reality. Yes, there are nuts on the right but there are also nuts on the left, it's a matter of whom the media chooses to emphasize or hide in the corner. Fox News plays the same game by constantly mentioning one or other leftist politician/activist/professor who says particularly nutty things and then presents them as views of the entire left. As for the things you say matter to you:

    1) I support abortion (in libertarian way though - the right to life does not apply when you live inside another person's body) but I would never vote for a candidate who doesn't care either way about it. It shows how far you are gone to the other side of the religious right, that you don't apparently even recognize the moral issue involved.

    2) Hardly anybody claims that. There are genuine differences in what the causes of it are and what the response should be. I would equally call it crazy to automatically support something like carbon tax, or sign up to various treaties (which invariably tax the developed countries disproportionately) without having any idea (since nobody does) whether this will have any impact on global warming.

    3) Agree with that one.

    4) Are you kidding? Apart from the fringe of the right which has been trying (unsuccessfully) to introduce something like intelligent design or whatever, it is the left that interferes FAR more with what is thought in schools and how. Political correctness alone has introduced far more deliberate falsities into the curriculum than religion. Not to mention that politically, left want more uniformity in what is thought (right would leave more of it to states and local), supports teachers unions which honest people can plainly see negatively impacts the "how" part.

    5) This is one area where there is a PERFECT bi-partisan agreement. Show me how Democrats are not supporting Military-Industrial complex?

    --
    Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
  47. Re:Stay strong President Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sure it is. As long as you're on the right side. Otherwise you're a terrorist.

  48. reclaim 'libertarian' by globaljustin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Republicans are not libertarians.

    In common usage, yes they sure as hell are ;) this is measurable...

    However I agree that using proper definitions, yes Libertarian ideas are wholly independent (and in conflict with) most of what Republicans do.

    I always liked the Political Compass

    It identifies 'authoritarian/libertarian' and 'left/right' dichotomies on a two axis scale (instead of just a binary)

    Sure it has its weaknesses, but its a great converstation fixer when things go off the rails over definitions...

    I'm a 'left-leaning libertarian' according to academic definitions...

    Your problem: You have bought into Republican/Tea Party propaganda that to be "libertarian" means to oppose whatever Democrats do

    All libertarians...except strongly totalitarian leaning...should logically support the Democrats right now on a ***POLICY basis***

    policy basis...look at what the GOP actually proposes as law...go ahead...on virtually every issue voted upon, the Democrat side is the more rational side of the two

    I would love to reclaim the word "libertarian" from the maw of the GOP/Fox brainwash machine...

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:reclaim 'libertarian' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      policy basis...look at what the GOP actually proposes as law...go ahead...on virtually every issue voted upon, the Democrat side is the more rational side of the two

      I would love to reclaim the word "libertarian" from the maw of the GOP/Fox brainwash machine...

      They can keep it. The bulk of the actual Libertarians out there are the "no public schools/vaccines/seatbelts" variety that are frustrated with the two party system and conclude that because "they" made a real cock of things under the two party system that the two parties themselves are at fault and must be replaced by a third, "better" party. They cling to Atlas Shrugged like moral conservative cling to the New Testament. It's no better, I say let them cast their lot with the republican party since if they did get their own seat at the table they would only prove that the one thing worse than a two party system is a three party system.

    2. Re:reclaim 'libertarian' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your problem: You have bought into Republican/Tea Party propaganda that to be "libertarian" means to oppose whatever Democrats do

      Nothing the GP said indicates anything of the sort. You made that up and pretended it was the GP's position. That makes you a liar.

    3. Re:reclaim 'libertarian' by chihowa · · Score: 1

      All libertarians...except strongly totalitarian leaning...should logically support the Democrats right now on a ***POLICY basis***

      Based on the link you provided, the Democrats are solidly in the authoritarian half of the plot. Besides highly emotionally charged issues like abortion, guns, and gays (which never have sweeping or long-lived changes because that would deplete their divisive usefulness), the policy of both parties is extremely similar. Especially from a libertarian view... both major parties are highly authoritarian. The Dems may be less batshit right now, but they're still up to their necks in it.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    4. Re:reclaim 'libertarian' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      policy basis...look at what the GOP actually proposes as law...go ahead...on virtually every issue voted upon, the Democrat side is the more rational side of the two

      so says the useful idiot of the Democrat party.

    5. Re:reclaim 'libertarian' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your problem: You have bought into Republican/Tea Party propaganda that to be "libertarian" means to oppose whatever Democrats do

      And your problem, is that you're a communist bastard and a member of the free-shit army, er Democrat.

    6. Re:reclaim 'libertarian' by globaljustin · · Score: 1

      look I think you're wrong but wrong or right, you haven't refuted my point...

      you actually agree with me:

      The Dems may be less batshit right now

      exactly.

      that's my point...i don't use the same language as you but you exactly agree with me...

      in any binary, such is the case!

      there is no excuse for unprofessional, illogical governance...but you still seem like you want to bury the truth under mounds of flame-language

      it is precisely people like you who are really stalling this country...the GOP is a rump party and survives only by stoking their rich, white, old base, taking bribes from big biz, and trolling the discourse with Ron Paul and 'libertarianism'

      its a binary choice...you agree with me what the right choice is...make the choice

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    7. Re:reclaim 'libertarian' by chihowa · · Score: 1

      I'm not Republican by any stretch of the imagination. My problem with your post was that you say that anyone who isn't "strongly totalitarian leaning" should support the Democrats based on their policy, when the policy of Democrats is extremely authoritarian. To your credit, the Republicans are extremely authoritarian also, but that doesn't mean that someone who defines them self as libertarian (lowercase "L", as in the opposite of authoritarian) should logically vote for a party who's policy is still solidly authoritarian. In no way does that make sense.

      This lesser of two evils business still involves a lot of evil. Voting against one's own interest will never turn out well, no matter what the "more evil" party represents.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    8. Re:reclaim 'libertarian' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me guess - you're a Jew, aren't you?

  49. Re:Nerds Should Shut Up About Politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry but the computer whizzes in Silicon Valley may know a lot about technology, that doesn't mean they know politics. They have very privileged, sheltered lives, where the American people do not all have been so lucky.

    Wait, wait, hold on, you lost me there, how do-

    Everyone there may be all hippie libertarians but the truth is they are so far from the mainstream of American politics, they have no business sticking their noses in this and should just stay with what they know- tech.

    No, that made it worse. You seem to have implied three groups here, the "hippie libertarian Silicon Valley types", people who know politics, and the American people. You had very strong opinions establishing relationships between the first and second groups, as well as the first and third groups, but you didn't make any claims that the second group had any business doing anything to the third group. I'm just going to assume, for the sake of civility in this discussion, that you WEREN'T trying to slip a fast one past us and conflate "people who know politics" with "the American People(tm)" to overgeneralize the discussion down to "them vs us, those gol-durn liberal hippie beatnik liberal Californian socialist fascist liberal nerd braniac commie liberal computer geek liberal rich over-privileged liberal libertarians vs. REAL AMERICA [pause to salute the American flag fading into the background and My Country Tis Of Thee to start playing while a single tear runs down your cheek]".

    My inference from this is that they don't know politics because politics are broken and need fixing. That's the engineering standpoint, at least. Engineers solve problems. Practical problems. Maybe politics is a practical problem that needs solving. Why not ask some engineers? Silicon Valley has a bunch to spare...

  50. Re:Does Silicon Valley have a preference on the AC by Quila · · Score: 1

    Ted Kennedy considered the lack of health care reform prior to the ACA as his unfinished work

    Ted Kennedy already had his health care reform heyday back in the 70s. The dreaded HMOs were supposed to be the answer to healthcare back then, so Ted Kennedy introduced and pushed through the Health Maintenance Organization Act.

    By the 2000s his main push for "healthcare reform" consisted of condemning the very creature he created.

  51. Re:false dichotomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until both parties are abolished under penalty of death, there will never be an improvement in government.

    Republicants - Grab money from Oil and control from the masses.
    Democraps - Grab money from the *AA mafias and steal money from middle class to give to the poor or stupid.

    Neither party is about actually helping their constituents as much as it is to gain/retain power, influence and wealth.

    The party system needs to be abolished, and people, not collegiate, voting for or against issues should determine who goes into office.
    Then the people who go into office have to follow what the "majority" chose, not what others pay them to.

    In this way, money and elitism gets you nothing. What the "people" want goes, period.
    Laws can't be bought.
    People can't vote against the populace's wishes (for any reason, or they lose their office).
    Corporations would have no vote or say in government as it should be.

    All current problems solved in one fell swoop.

  52. Re:Don't pay your taxes by shiftless · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Nobody likes jail, but the question is, will you stand up for freedom? Or will you cower like a fucking slave? You think Rosa Parks wasn't inconvenienced by her actions? Now's your chance to prove what you're worth.....pussy.

  53. Re:Nerds Should Shut Up About Politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like your solution, sir!

    More engineers in politics might not be a bad thing. We let the fucking lawyers have their go and they've cocked it up quite royally. Lets get some engineers and doctors in there to try and legislate our way out of this mess.

  54. Re:Who elected this guy to speak for Silicon Valle by smoot123 · · Score: 1

    It's not even a valley and it is definitely not made of silicon.

    Huh? There are mountain ranges east and west of me, a big chunk of flat land running north/south in the middle. Ground mostly made of silicon dioxide (with bonus toxins from the closed silicon fabs). Have you ever actually been here? Do come, it's lovely.

  55. Re:Who elected this guy to speak for Silicon Valle by sjames · · Score: 1

    The problem with that argument is that nothing convinces me the GOP is packed with nuts faster than watching Fox News. Even when they put their best face forward the nuts show through.

    That's not to say that I'm thrilled with the Democrats either. Just that Democrat brand (TM, pat pending) nutsery is less likely to starve people out and will take longer to blow our society apart.

    I'd still prefer a 3rd party to have an actual chance of winning.

  56. Re:Stay strong President Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Today Christians ... stand at the head of [this country]... I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit ... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past ... (few) years. "

    - Adolf Hitler, quoted in: The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872

    He has a lot of other quotes like that. If you actually read his writings and speeches, he sounds very close to a modern American Republican (of the more religious variety).

  57. Re: Stay strong President Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With a time machine back to the know-nothing party?

  58. Washington hasn't imploded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Washington hasn't imploded.

    If only it would then maybe we could make a little progress.

  59. Re:Don't pay your taxes by lgw · · Score: 1

    We're in the coffin corner now, printing our own debt, as predicted. Buying votes with bennies always ends badly. The EBT glitch showed us, once again, what sort of people we're made of now.

    American Exceptionalism is a genuine phenomena. We're about to prove it again by imploding ourselves. It won't be like Europe; angry protesters briefly painting signs and throwing rocks while the adults finally impose reality. We've bred millions of hate filled, feral animals and they're going to get hungry fast.

    Before anyone starts getting scared by the Wal-Mart riot, look again at the "people of Wal-Mart". If they went on a rampage they'd make it, what, 30 yards before being too out of breath to continue? Just head up the nearest flight of stairs, you'll be fine.

    I believe the current government shutdown is a sign of the "end times": beyond planning to help my parents out when the SS checks stop coming regularly (or stop being worth much: same outcome), I doubt I'll see any effect except on the news when either the federal government or the dollar (could go either way) collapses for a few years. And then it will be back, with no lessons learned.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  60. Re:false dichotomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem with this approach is that the "people" are idiots and are easily swaye. by politicians telling the crowd exactly what they want to hear and then not following through when it comes time to vote on legislation. I'm not sure anything would really change.

  61. Re:Don't pay your taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to the world's oldest profession, pussy can be worth quite a bit.

  62. Doesn't fall along political lines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? Freedom vs. control?

    How about the Libertarian "political line"?

  63. Re:Who elected this guy to speak for Silicon Valle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I like republican Fiscal policy...

    The problem with Republican fiscal policy is that it's hypocritical. They're all for cutting any and all spending on social programs, but they end up spending just as much money as the Democrats do thanks to their hard-on for military and corporate handouts. And while both may result in massive government boondoggles, at least spending for social programs stimulates the economy. A very small percentage of the money spent on war and corporate bailouts gets circulated beyond the initial purchase. Contrast that with Social Security which also hands out a ton of money, but hands it out to people who pretty much spend the entire amount every month. There's a productive economic "echo" when money the government spends is re-spent by the recipients that just isn't there for military spending or spending that ends up in the pockets of people who are already millionaires.

    If there were a party that was advocating true fiscal responsibility (i.e. not spending as much money across the board), I'd vote for them without any reservations. Unfortunately, all we have are parties that want to overspend.

  64. Re:Don't pay your taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody likes jail, but the question is, will you stand up for freedom?

    Since this thread is about abolishing government (defunding, abolishing, same thing in this instance), no, I will not stand up for anarchy.

  65. Re:false dichotomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's not "the" problem with the GP's idiotic idea. It's only one of many problems. Larger ones include the fact that it banning political parties is a gross violation of free assembly.

  66. Freedom/Control - It's always the real issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the real battle for everyone whether they understand it yet or not. The whole Rep/Dem, Lib/Con argument is just a facade. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." The real battle all comes down to right vs wrong, freedom vs captivity.

    Today's battle rages between Marxist revolutionaries (in both political parties and the general population) that intend to take the country down the rabbit-hole of Communism & Fascism vs those who wish to return to full Constitutional Liberty. Fence sitting time is over. Everyone is going to have to choose a side. Do you want life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or do you want to be controlled and forced into a cradle-to-grave centrally dictated plan? Well?

  67. Re:Stay strong President Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bullshit, when Jay Wormtounge comes out every morning and calls the House Republicans hostage takers, etc. how can you say he's not involved? Maybe Obama should have demanded a budget from the Senate 4 years ago...

  68. Re:Who elected this guy to speak for Silicon Valle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just that Democrat brand (TM, pat pending) nutsery is less likely to starve people out and will take longer to blow our society apart.

    Nope. They are the ones who are pushing for every sort of subsidy/entitlement for individuals that one could think of that is unsustainable on the national and state level. Who fought to keep the state of Wisconsin from trying to reign in it's out of control pension liabilities? Democrats. They were the ones that put the state on the hook for those liabilities in the first places. California has the most disfunctional state govt in the US due in part to it basically being a single party state and the voter referendum initiatives which took a good idea from the Swiss and screwed it up.

  69. Re:Who elected this guy to speak for Silicon Valle by geek · · Score: 0

    The problem with that argument is that nothing convinces me the GOP is packed with nuts faster than watching Fox News.

    And yet I bet you're perfectly fine with the fucking retards on MSNBC. Your brand of douche baggery is beyond pathetic.

    As to the rest of your ignorant statement I really have nothing to give other than my middle finger. That was the dumbest fucking post I have ever seen on Slashdot.

  70. Re:Who elected this guy to speak for Silicon Valle by sjames · · Score: 1

    You just lost your bet. The Democrats aren't exactly batting 1000 in my book either. They seem less batshit insane than the GOP and less hateful but I wouldn't call them brilliant or resolute. Some of them are pretty damned nutty as well, especially in California where even the warning labels need warning labels. UI am certainly not happy that the Dems have completely failed to do away with gitmo and NSA spying and I find Obamacare a far cry from a proper healthcare system.

    It is amusing watching your batshit insane attack on the person you imagined me to be just because I said there are nuts in the GOP.

    Personally, I prefer the Daily Show to MSNBC. It may lack journalistic integrity (or, indeed any pretense of being actual journalism) but it is far more likely to tell things like they are.

  71. Re:Who elected this guy to speak for Silicon Valle by sjames · · Score: 1

    Wisconsin, that's where the governor (AKA the grinch) is actually ordering the arrest of anyone who dares to sing around the capitol building? That's where a deal is a deal unless a peon stands to benefit and then we just tear the contract up after they did their part? Hint: pensions are NOT entitlements, they're part of your pay when you're employed. Not paying the pension is no different than retroactively demanding a dollar an hour back from your employees.

    California seems to be doing OKish (though I think they go way overboard on a lot of things) now that the deregulation related blackouts have stopped.

  72. Re:Don't pay your taxes by Cryacin · · Score: 1

    According to the world's oldest profession, pussy can be worth quite a bit.

    Yeah, Chris rock said it's like Visa, accepted everywhere. However, I don't think you can pay your taxes with either.

    --
    Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
  73. Re:Don't pay your taxes by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    If you think that you are a slave, then by all means. Fight it. However, I think that few Americans will see themselves as slaves, except to the idiots that are running CONgress. Not the gov, but CONgress. Right there, is our problem. I know that my representative, Mark Coffman (R), takes a ton of money from a company that is 100% owned by the Chinese gov. Who does he listen to? Not us lowly voters. He listens to what the communist in China tells him to.

    But, please, go ahead. Do not pay your taxes. Tell it to the judge. I think that you will help us all out. Heck, I have no issue paying for your keeping for the next 20 years. That will free up our society to move forward.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  74. Re:Don't pay your taxes by WindBourne · · Score: 2

    Acutally, you CAN pay with VISA in the USA.

    And with CONgress being what it is, I suspect that if you approach the right type of congressmen (vitter, Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Spitzer, Springer, Tom Evans, Newt Gingrich, etc), you can use hookers to get out of paying taxes.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  75. Re:Don't pay your taxes by gmhowell · · Score: 1

    Before anyone starts getting scared by the Wal-Mart riot, look again at the "people of Wal-Mart". If they went on a rampage they'd make it, what, 30 yards before being too out of breath to continue? Just head up the nearest flight of stairs, you'll be fine.

    So Walmartians are actually Daleks?

    --
    Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  76. Re:Don't pay your taxes by lgw · · Score: 1

    Awesome, you might be on to something. Start with the fat scooter, add armor and a sink plunger, hmmm, it does all make sense!

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  77. TJ Rodgers is a huge control freak by CatGrep · · Score: 1

    If it all comes down to "freedom vs. Control", well, TJ Rodgers is a huge control freak - just ask anyone who has ever worked at Cypress Semiconductor.

  78. Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its the south right?

    1. Re:Let me guess by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I guess that depends on who you talk to. The people in the South probably think their region will be the stronger, and the people in other regions probably think their region will be stronger.

  79. Re:Don't pay your taxes by Cryacin · · Score: 1

    Well sir, I stand corrected. Only in America.

    --
    Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
  80. agree to disagree by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    when the policy of Democrats is extremely authoritarian.

    I think you're hung up on this point, but whatever...you seem like you have a good head on your shoulders so let's just agree to disagree on this point?

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:agree to disagree by chihowa · · Score: 1

      I think I must be misunderstanding your position. Are we disagreeing because you dispute that the policy of Democrats is authoritarian (despite them being clearly represented that way in your political compass link) or because you think that it makes sense for people who dislike authoritarianism to vote for authoritarian representatives?

      (I'm not trying to be rude here. I genuinely don't know what point you're trying to make. It sounds like the latter, which completely baffles me.)

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  81. mean not smug by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    you are only getting smug with yourself. That is not much difference from the post you are replying to!

    trolling is a form of bullying...IMHO, for reasons I stated, I believe 'libertarians' (read: GOP'ers) are purposefully sabotaging our system...they 'bully' anyone who wants to make a constructive point...("it's all bullshit"..."privacy is dead"...."both parties suck")

    I wasn't being smug...I was being **mean**

    I'm trying to (within the bounds of /.'s norms) shake some cognitive dissonance into this psycological moebius strip of a discussion!!!!

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  82. Re:Don't pay your taxes by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Sadly, I suspect that at least 1/2 of it is true for ALL nations. Heck, supposedly Palin and Bachman were playing the field with male lobbyists, which is prostitution in the best sense of the word. And that would indicate that it is true for both sexes, as well.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  83. agree to disagree or agree by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    Are we disagreeing because *A*you dispute that the policy of Democrats is authoritarian (despite them being clearly represented that way in your political compass link) or *B*because you think that it makes sense for people who dislike authoritarianism to vote for authoritarian representatives?

    right

    if you check my original comment about the Political Compass, I said it is "has its problems" but is useful...

    the answer to your question is not A or B because the Politcal Compass isn't calibrated properly. specifically, it was calibrated for US politics using **International** political norms...

    the language is mind-numbingly confusing, for example: the 'conservative' analog of the Republican party in England supports things like abortion that the US conservatives would kill themselves over...

    so, that's why IMHO the Political Compass is a bit skewed for US politicians

    when I took it I was strongly libertarian and weakly 'left' (but well over the line)

    I felt like I should have landed squarely in the 'strongly left, strongly libertarian' quadrant

    I haven't answered your question, but I hope this explanation helps

    Again, plz don't let the fact that the Political Compass is a nice, **quantifiable** graph for politics lead you into using it as a "Rosetta Stone" for each issue...it is virtually impossilbe to calibrate haha!

    More to your point, having personally worked long ago in the military and in GOP politics (briefly as a staffer in DC) and now of course, 'leftist-libertarian' is how I define myself...so I've seen some changes...

    'Democrats' are flawed but there is a core of people (probably 1/3-40% of the electorate) that are essentially like Gene Roddenberry types!

    Honestly!

    They are reasonable, patriotic to a point, willing to share, support the free market, not afraid of 'big business' when proper checks are in place, socially liberal (legal pot, gay marriage), pro net-neutrality...

    Seriously...that's what the **people** who make up the Democratic party are like...they are the good guys.

    The DNC and Washington politicians are, of course, not exactly the same...but many are trying....and there is an active effort in the Democratic party machine to weed out old-school out of touch people (like Pelosi)

    Lastly, look at GOP obstructionism...historic!...if the GOP wasn't such sore losers Obama's policies wouldn't have had do endure so much bargaining. Ex: We'd have a 'public option' for Obamacare at least...that'd change things

    So that's a long answer to a short question...

    tl;dr you're confusing 'democrats' as in the citizenry who support that side with the way the current elected leaders are behaving

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:agree to disagree or agree by chihowa · · Score: 1

      tl;dr you're confusing 'democrats' as in the citizenry who support that side with the way the current elected leaders are behaving

      So why would I want to show them I approve of their actions and vote more of them into office? My vote is for a representative to fill a public office, not for which 'team' I think is the coolest.

      I'll agree that most people who self-identify as Democrats are perfectly reasonable people. You may be surprised to find out that most people who self-identify as Republicans are also perfectly reasonable people. Don't be fooled by the caricatures that the extreme members of either party paint. Barring the few, highly emotionally charged, issues that are used to divide and rule and distract the citizens, most people are willing to compromise and get along just fine.

      Almost all of the career politicians in Washington are not like the "good guys" or the people that the parties claim to represent. They may claim to represent your view on one of the distraction issues, but they are solidly working against you in almost every other way. The wars, the Patriot Act (the original and the recent extension), and this NSA spying business are all good examples of this. No matter how good of a guy the Democratic party member on the street is, the ones in DC are not good guys. The folks in DC (R or D) have more in common with each other than you and they are not on your side.

      tl;dr The scoundrels in DC are not at all like the ordinary members of political parties. Voting for an R or a D is (probably) voting for a scoundrel, not a "good guy".

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  84. Re:Don't pay your taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with no lessons learned

    As our Federal Santa Clause ruins the currency we'll look to our states. There are already signs of this happening.

    The world won't end. The sun will come up and people will have to eat. The question is what happens; will we submit to some tyrant making promises? Or do we embrace reality, finally, and re-learn how to support ourselves?

    BTW, the checks will always cash; they'll print whatever they must to insure that. As you say, it won't be worth anything.

    Ultimately I think we'll learn what other nations have learned; Big national governments can get out of hand.

  85. not laboratory conditions by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    here's the crux of your issue, IMHO:

    show them I approve of their actions and vote more of them into office?

    voting for the best of two options doesn't mean you approve of **everything** the option you chose does, nor does it mean that you are 'one of them'...no politician out there thinks that everyone who voted for them agrees with them on everything...

    you're being naive and you need to stop....just stop forever and change

    you just can't accept that in politics, depending on how you look at it, YOU ARE ALWAYS PICKING THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS

    you are never, ever, ever ever ever ever going to get any candidate or party that lines up w/ what you want

    you're being naive to expect it

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:not laboratory conditions by chihowa · · Score: 1

      What I've been getting at this entire time is that there are more than two parties. Voting for a D or an R is voting for the "second worst of many options". My individual vote won't decide an election, so I'm going to vote for someone I agree with more than D or R. I'm going to vote for the least of all possible evils. Restricting my choice to the two most evil choices is a ridiculous idea.

      It's naive to think that continuously voting in authoritarian representatives won't result in an authoritarian government. I don't want one of those. Why would I vote for one?

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  86. not about 3rd parties by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    if this was about 3rd parties, then you'd have said that 5 comments ago...

    there are two parties in the US...the other ones **caucus** with one side or the other

    look at Bernie Sanders from Vermont...he's an 'independent' but is a total Democrat by voting record

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:not about 3rd parties by chihowa · · Score: 1

      I was going for the "lead a horse to water" approach here. If you read back through the thread, it's quite apparent.

      To be honest, my argument of "both parties are authoritarian, why would I vote for them" has never been countered by "who cares? vote for them anyway" or "the existence of third parties is a myth", but I haven't argued much with any True Believers of a party.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.