Congressmen Rated On Tech-Friendliness 270
Uncle Dick writes "CNET has released the results of a study ranking every US Representative and Senator on a scale rating their relative friendliness towards various technology and internet related issues. Republicans and Democrats fare similarly in both houses of Congress, although CNET gives the edge to the GOP. Big Winner? Ron Paul (R-TX). 2004 Presidential candidate John Kerry (D-MA) does not fare so well."
Read the fine print. (Score:3, Interesting)
3. Prohibit Internet gambling. This isn't really a tech vote. This is a moral socio-economic vote. c|net wanted Senators to vote to allow (not to prohibit) Internet gambling... because it's on the Internet?!
5. Increasing paperwork for Internet Sellers. What's the amendment that c|net wanted a no vote against? "To require persons selling tangible personal property via the Internet to disclose to purchasers that they may be subject to State and local sales and use taxes on the purchases." That's it. Simply inform the buyer that he or she may have to pay taxes in other districts. You see, when you buy in meatspace, this part of the transaction is automagic. Not so in virtual space. Again, I don't see it as being a major technological issue vote.
11. Free Trade Bill. No, seriously. If you voted for free trade, you demonstrated your prowess as a technologist? Give me a freaking break.
12. Over-ruling state anti-SPAM with the CAN-SPAM. Now, you might not think that the legislation is tough enough, but I think it is fair to say that the pro-technology approach to Internet regulation is to not have 50 different sets of regulations within the United States.
16. For curbs on class-action lawsuits. Again, WTF? This isn't a technology issue per se. This is a judicial process issue. To put it in this list is asinine.
But, what wasn't on this list?
* Judicial approvals
* Regulatory approvals (think FCC, et al)
* Committee membership
* Interaction with lobbyists and money acceptance from PACs.
It's a dumb list, at least on the Senate side. I didn't even bother to check out the House side.
Senator Allen (R-VA) (Score:3, Interesting)
Those of us from Virginia aren't surprised either. Senator Allen used to be our Governor where he spent consider energy and resources courting high tech companies and trying to bring legislation to the table that made us an attractive option for technology companies in search of a headquarters. As Governor, his approval rating was pretty damn high.
That said, as a Senator, he has not fared so well in the polls. He may be friendly to technology interests (apparently 78% friendly?) which is expected given his history on the subject, but he's even friendly to President Bush (apparently 96% friendly?) and that doesn't sit well with a nation or a state that isn't interested in more of the same right now.
I guess what I'm driving at here is that while our pet interest might be in technology, we can't let that drive our vote. It's an important issue category, but it's only one of many and on many other counts these people may be doing quite a poor job. I'd argue that voting so closely with President Bush's interests (seriously 96% is A LOT!) shows me that a great governor does not necessarily make a good senator. I suspect he is just courting the RNC because there has been talk of him being a serious presidential contender in the near future. I know you have to sell a little of your soul to get anywhere in politics nowadays, but I can't in good conscience vote for someone who does it so thoroughly and so blatantly...even if he is good on technology.
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/ [digitalelite.com]
Rick Boucher (D-VA) isn't at the Top of the List? (Score:3, Interesting)
They included votes on Free Trade and Class Action Law Suits, but not Net Neutrality? No wonder the R's scored higher than the D's on that one. Good grief - if you're going to score on a subject, at least limit the scope to the subject at hand.
Re:Correction... if only you were correct? (Score:3, Interesting)
So your equating Republicans with extremist right wingers, odd, that sounds familiar....
No, I'm specifying that the *current* Congressional Republicans are extremist right wingers. This doesn not equate "Republican" and "right-winger" in all situations and most especially not in a historical context which is what is being discussed.
The OP was the one equating Republicans with the right wing and slavery, of which i find no indications of slavery being part of the right wing politics platform
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics [wikipedia.org]
Nor would history or yourself, indicate proof of such a correlation
In fact I did provide exactly such proof. The idea that one person is inherently better than another to the extreme that it's ok for the one to own the other is entirely 100% right wing by definition.
In fact the predominately Liberal party in America has a former KKK member in its ranks, was pro-segregation in the south less than a generation ago, and currently is the party which supports racist policies that do not promote equality like affirmitive action. I guess we both agree, those are hardly liberal ideas
You keep making the same idiotic mistake and it has been pointed out to you by myself and several other people. So you know that you're not only wrong, but idiotically so.
The Democrats are *now* largely considered to be "Liberal", but that word itself doesn't mean what it used to. Nor do the policies of the current Democratic party have much in common with the policies of the Democratic party of a hundred years ago.
These are really pretty simple concepts which you've had explained to you several times. The fact that you keep spouting the same nonsense even through you know full well that it is complete crap since you've already been shown that many times does say a lot about you, none of it good.
Some, including myself, consider the political Right to include those forms of liberalism that emphasize the free market more than egalitarianism in wealth and equality for ALL, not just a minority of people(ie: affirmitive action)
Well, you're wrong.
What you're describing is classical Liberalism. The Right is not Liberal. The Right is violently opposed to Liberalism, and is in favor of corporate welfare and other types of wealth transfer from those who earn the money to those who already have money.
You can "consider" whatever you want, but you'll continue to be wrong. Further, by attempting to call Liberal policies "right wing", you are seeking to muddy the waters and to marginalize the entire concept.
There is a very large, very distinct difference between Liberalism and it's vicious opponents, the Left and the Right which you are trying to bury.
I am sorry , I do not find any references or facts to back up your claim that Slavery is a right wing "thing" nor did you provide any. I assume by your logic Americas forefathers had been extremist right wingers?
It follows directly from the definition. It's nbot complicated.
In regards to the idea of slavery, the FFs *were* extremist right wing. They obviously weren't Liberal on that issue since slavery is the opposite of individual liberty. They obviously weren't left wing on slavery as they would have benned it. That only leaves right wing and given the fact that the right is defined by the manner of its opposition to Liberalism, it follows directly that it is an entirely right wing view.
Now on to your baseless insults of myself and the American people...
It wasn't a baseless insult of anything.
You are a deeply ignorant person. You have proven that repeatedly. Stating that isn't an insult it's the statement of a fact.
So your basic gist is, I am foolish, silly and ignorant, The rest of the American citizenry is ignorant, and none of us know what we are talking about except for "enlightened" people like yourself which