Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

US Presidential debate on technology policy

By jmc in News
Thu Oct 12, 2000 at 10:54:54 PM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)

Wired is hosting a debate on technology policy between Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader and Al Gore advisor Reed Hundt, former chairman of the FCC during the Clinton-Gore administration.

Summary so far: Nader complains about the administrations support for telecom mergers, the DMCA, and patents on "everything under the sun". Hundt gives Gore credit for the internet economy and wired classrooms, and says Bush would be worse. According to Wired, the other campaigns have been asked to participate and will have a chance to respond later in the week.


Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure


Related Links
o Wired
o debate on technology policy
o Ralph Nader
o Al Gore
o Also by jmc

Display: Sort:
US Presidential debate on technology policy | 13 comments (9 topical, 4 editorial, 0 hidden)
Tech in School? (3.66 / 3) (#2)
by bmetzler on Thu Oct 12, 2000 at 03:02:07 PM EST

Bush would be worse then Gore in getting computers into school? What's that to mean? That Bush would get more computers in school? Come on, can't people understand that the education system is pathetic. Children are actually graduating from High School without even knowing how to read.

For the last 8 years, Clinton/Gore has been doing all these "things" for schools, like getting computers into school. But the don't seem to understand the inssue. Kids don't need accessories like computers, they need to learn how to read and add numbers.

It may be impressive to say that you got computers in school, but that isn't what school is about. On educational issues we need a president that is more concerned about what kids learn, rather then what they have access to.

www.bmetzler.org - it's not just a personal weblog, it's so much more.
Re: Tech in School? (3.00 / 1) (#6)
by Qtmstr on Thu Oct 12, 2000 at 05:20:12 PM EST

The education system may be fubared, but it isn't *that* bad. I can gaurantee everyone can read, if only to find out whem the football game is on, and add numbers, if only to total the cost of the pot they are buying that week.

Kuro5hin delenda est!
[ Parent ]
Re: Tech in School? (2.00 / 1) (#7)
by Michael Leuchtenburg on Thu Oct 12, 2000 at 05:31:18 PM EST

Does it really count if they can read at a 2nd grade level?

[ #k5: dyfrgi ]
[ TINK5C ]
[ Parent ]
Bush is BAD for technology. (none / 0) (#9)
by erotus on Thu Oct 12, 2000 at 07:19:14 PM EST

Well... Since Bush wants to cut some of the funding to education, I don't see how he is the better candidate. Sure, kids need good writing and mathmatical skills, but putting Bush in office will not make that any better. Computers in schools is a good thing. Like I've said on Kuro5hin before, if you are an IT professional and you like the idea of funding computers in schools (more jobs for techies) then you will vote for Gore. Bush publicly blamed the internet for the Columbine deaths. This seems odd coming from a "family values" president. Would it not be more logical for him to blame the parents and their wayward children - so much for personal responsibility. Oh yea, I forgot, Bush endorsed the ultra right/religious right. He could have said the devil made them do it. Nah... blaming the internet is much safer in the public eye. He wouldn't want to lose votes of the more sane members of his party now would he? Since Al Gore "invented" the internet, blaming it for the Columbine murders indirectly implies that Gore is to responsible. Great, since I'm in the IT profession I guess I'm partially responsible too. Sorry Bush, you're not getting my vote.

[ Parent ]
Re: Bush is BAD for technology. (4.00 / 1) (#10)
by bmetzler on Thu Oct 12, 2000 at 11:02:05 PM EST

Like I've said on Kuro5hin before, if you are an IT professional and you like the idea of funding computers in schools (more jobs for techies) then you will vote for Gore.

What do you mean by more jobs for tech? You mean that all the schools will have to hire system admins to keep the computers running? Is that what are schools should be? Just a place to exploit to get a job for money?

I'm an IT professional, and always have been. But I do *not* support computers in school. School, I might remind you is supposed to be a place where kids learn the subjects important in life. Reading, Math, and other subjects. There are many things that schools shouldn't be expected to teach. You've learned many things yourself outside of school. For instance, riding a bicycle. Learning the art of being a magician. And perhaps how to fish and hunt.

I believe that the most important thing the new administration could do would be to cut funding for education, and make every school go back to simply making sure that kids can read, write and do math at a decent level, and teach the other basics like History and Science.

www.bmetzler.org - it's not just a personal weblog, it's so much more.
[ Parent ]
Re: Bush is BAD for technology. (none / 0) (#13)
by jmc on Fri Oct 13, 2000 at 08:08:08 PM EST

If you're an IT professional and care about issues like internet censorship, you better not vote for Gore! I see you caught Bush's "dark hearts" quote, but missed Gore's immediate response:

We do have a serious problem in our culture. Tipper and I have worked on the problem of violence and entertainment aimed at children. She's worked on it longer than I have, but I feel very strongly about that. And if I'm elected president, I will do something about that.

Read the whole Gore/Nader debate... I think you shouldn't worry about the internet economy collapsing (any more than it already has this month!) under Bush, but you should worry about issues like IP laws and censorship. These have been terrible under Clinton/Gore and are likely to get worse with Gore/Leiberman.

I would argue that for this issue, Bush is actually better than Gore. He doesn't understand the issues well personally, of course. When he's trying to figure out how to screw the people on behalf of HIS friends, the oil companies will get the benefits instead of Gore's friends in the media. Bush has fewer contacts with people who will buy laws like the DMCA along with some judicial appointees to pretend they are constitutional.

I'm not arguing you should vote for Bush... his open support for privatizing education is just one reason not to. But just remember your early 90's history and look at how much of the federal government Gore managed to get to... I sure don't trust him to keep public education or social security in the hands of the public, no matter how many empty promises or arrogant, oversimplified explanations he makes. A vote for Gore or Bush is wasted, because people's lives won't be significanly better or worse no matter which of the two wins. A vote for Nader is a start at building a viable 2nd party who can get us out of this whole mess!

[ Parent ]

Go Ralphy, get stupid (3.66 / 6) (#5)
by Wah on Thu Oct 12, 2000 at 04:10:50 PM EST

This article highlights some of the reasons why I am voting for Nader.

His best stuff comes out on the second response. While Hundt slaps himself on the back for creating "the most pro-competitive and pro-investment rules of any country in the world." Nader counters with real world examples of how these rules have become quite literally "anti-citizen (or consumer, if you prefer that term)".

He also scores big with me when pointing out the inherent hypocrisy of the C/G Internet policies, which on the one hand are very reluctant to create any laws which limit the amount of information companies can gather and share about individuals, and on the other hand moves forward with IP laws as fast as lobbyists can write them up. Both of which play directly into the hands and bottom lines of the media industry.

When reading this debate, compare the number of concepts and buzzwords Hundt uses vs. the examples that Nader brings to the table. I'm curious to see where this debate goes, and how stupid GWB will sound when/if he joins in.

Fail to Obey?

Hundt makes me want to vote for Nader (none / 0) (#11)
by reshippie on Fri Oct 13, 2000 at 09:25:39 AM EST

I encourage all to read the back and forth between Nader and Hundt. It's amazing how dumb Hundt comes off. (And that's not an accusation I make of most people)

Hundt actually claimed,
"Presumably no one thinks that in his well-publicized Larry King interview Al Gore meant to say that he invented the software protocols that allow communication across interconnecting networks (hence the name "Internet"). "
Now it seems that Gore wrote TCP/IP, not Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf.

He then begins to rethink this idea,
"And even if Al Gore did not write the software or dig the trenches..."
But doesn't actually retract his statement.

He also asks Nader, several times, to join Gore's campaign. Now I was never going to vote for Shrub(little Bush), but after seeing who Gore appointed to represent him, I sure as hell don't trust him to appoint a cabinet to help run this entire country.

*Deep Breath*

I read this last night, and I'm still tense about it this morning, either Hundt is a complete moron, or is simply dillusional.
Ok, i'm rambling, just giving my thoughts.

Those who don't know me, probably shouldn't trust me. Those who do DEFINITELY shouldn't trust me. :-)

Nader on free software movement! (none / 0) (#12)
by jmc on Fri Oct 13, 2000 at 01:06:55 PM EST

Check out Nader's latest article, in which he discusses a lot of issues close to our (dark) hearts, including privacy regulation for e-commerce business, software patents, ICANN elections, lawsuits over hyperlinks, and the free software movement. Here's a great quote:

In looking at the Internet, one might also ask what has the administration done to support the open-source movement, either through procurement policies (very little), funding for open-source software (not something the administration talks about) or protecting free software developers from software patents and anticompetitive practices targeted at the free-software movement?

In the area of corporate welfare, tax breaks and subsidies for big corporations, there is no end to what this administration will do for the e-commerce industry.

But when it comes to supporting an astonishing citizen movement that is protecting the Internet from Microsoft and other would-be monopolies and providing huge benefits to the economy, the administration is completely inarticulate.

US Presidential debate on technology policy | 13 comments (9 topical, 4 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:


All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!