What’d you expect from old people?
I imagine this same problem exists on the other side of the aisle:
Here are two responses I got. First Senator Dianne Feinstein raised her hand and said, “Senator Daschle, the Internet is full of pornography and pedophilia, and until that’s clean up, I don’t think the Senate should be on the Internet.” (And she represents Silicon Valley!) Afterwards, another senator came up to me and said, “Andrew, I get 10,000 emails a day into my office. How do I make it stop?”
I worked for a guy once who had an assistant check and print his email for him. These older folks tend not to be technologically savvy and their failure to embrace technology is disheartening. Politicians just don’t get it. It also makes you wonder if Dick Cheney can check his email on Al Gore’s Internets.
Kevin, unfortunately, ends with this anti-corporate boner:
… the GOP is the worst of both worlds as far as technology aware voters are concerned: a combination of giant corporations that hate the idea of any innovation that didn’t originate from them and blue hairs whose idea of a good time is a book-burning.
Yeah, because only the GOP is in the pockets of industry. And those evil corporations hate the idea of technological advancements they didn’t create. That’s why all corporations use only computers they build, running only operating systems they designed, and only using financial packages they developed. That’s why Oracle, SAP, Dell and Microsoft are out of business. Oh, wait.
August 17th, 2005 at 9:36 am
First, dude, its not even in question that the GOP is the corporate party. they are proud of that – -they thin its a good thing.
“And those evil corporations hate the idea of technological advancements they didn’t create. ”
Well, yeah, man. Pay attention to the IP and copyright issues, the encroachments on fair use, and the break is clear: older companies that thrive in the current technological and competitive environment, like MS and the record and book companies, and the telco and cable companies, are on one side and companies that want to expand the boundries through technology, like Google and Tivo, are on the other. In the aggregate, the first side is MUCH bigger and they have not bee afraid to through their money around DC.
And Dell isn;t a technology comnay – -they are a reseller of other people’s technology. 🙂
August 17th, 2005 at 9:43 am
Yeah, unless those corporations are movie companies, accountants, lawyers, unionized, etc.
August 17th, 2005 at 1:31 pm
“Yeah, unless those corporations are movie companies, accountants, lawyers, unionized, etc”
Well, no — look it up. The corporations that produce and distribute entertainment tend to either split or lean GOP, whatever individuals in entertainment do. Same with lawyers – -what kind of law they do is the marker, not the fact that they are lawyers. And I am not aware that being unionized makes a compnay give to Dems. Certianly hasn’t done that for Catepillar, to pick an example off the top of my head.
August 17th, 2005 at 3:10 pm
err, yeah.
August 17th, 2005 at 4:37 pm
What’s your point? Seriously– never mind that your methodology is flawed (comparing the top 20 of anything is pretty much meaningless for comparing the entirety of the things), what do you think you’ve proved?
Assuming names I cannot recognize are law firms:
For the Dems, 10 of the top 20 came from corporations or lawyers. 16 of the GOP’s did. So your list “proves” that corps give more to the GOP. So my first point is taken care of.
Onto the kinds of corps that give to the GOP and the Dems. Of the 10 corps/law firms on the Dem side, 3 are financial firms, 3 are law firms, 1 is an anomaly — a small time media firm whose owner seems to be dedicted to gay rights and thus a Dem giver, 1 is a small movie studio, and one is ambiguous. It’s either a bottled water company or a web accelerator company.
So, how many big tech companies are on your list? None. Assuming Propel is the web accelerator company, the only technology firm is one on the cutting edge of expanding the usefulness of the web — not a big company afraid of new technology. There are two entertainment companies, but one seems focused on gay rights, and, besides, as a small collection of TV and radio stations it has an interest in expanding fair use laws and making sure copyright is less restrictive (more stuff to show on TV). So your list proves my notion of Democrats –what companies with an interest in technology are on the list are in favor of more technology, fewer IP restrictions, and fair use expansion.
Now lets look at the GOP. As already mentioned, they have far more corps on their list than the Dems. Lets look at the kinds of companies on their list. 4 financial services/insurance firms, including one that gives to the Dems. 6 firms involved in medicine, pharmaceutical or Gm crops – -thus firms that have strong interests in limiting technology growth in certain areas, expansive copyright and patent protections, and limited fair use exceptions (GM and pharm companies have an interest in keeping their research out of the hands of academics that come to different conclusions than they do, and they have an interest in keeping their “trade secrets” as opposed to copyrighted and patented material out of the public domain even after those secrets have been leaked) There is one tobacco company that might fall with the other six, but to be generous, is most likely on the list to stop the government tobacco lawsuits. There are two telecommunication firms with strong interests in limiting municipal Wi/Fi and competition on the broadband circuitry in general, with side issues in keeping new communication technology under control unless and until they can control it. And there is Microsoft — no fan of innovation it does not control. Oh, and a casino.
So, of the 16 firms on the list for the GOP, nine of them have reason to fear innovation that did not come from them and have a history of supporting things like the DCMA, expansive patents, etc that support the contention — they hate any innovation that threatens their business model.
Again, your methodology is flawed, but since you seem to accept it, here is what it says:
The GOP gets support form more corps, and it gets MUCH more support form companies whose businesses are threatened by new innovations.
August 17th, 2005 at 4:45 pm
Of course, both sides of this tangent miss the larger point, which was discussed in Uncle’s original thread accusing the Democrats of being more the “party of the rich” than the Democrats: it doesn’t much matter who votes a certain way or who gives to whom; what matters is the policies that the parties support.
The GOP’s policies are much friendlier to the wealthy than are Democratic policies (and no one disputes this), thus they are the party for (if not “of”) the Rich.
Similarly, the GOP’s policies are much friendlier to corporations than are Democratic policies (and no one disputes this), thus they are the party for corporations.
August 17th, 2005 at 4:49 pm
My point is that, as i said before, that not just the GOP is in the hands of industry. And that a lot of D contributers are unions. And, golly gee, there’s an entertainment firm and some lawyers.
August 17th, 2005 at 5:25 pm
If that’s your point, it’s not disputed. Let me use an extreme example to illustrate our point, however. Soldier X in Iraq killed several people. Charles Manson killed several people. This does not make Soldier X and Charles Manson equivalent.
Just because two people or groups sometimes do the same thing doesn’t make them equally guilty of that thing, or that we should pretend that one isn’t worse than the other.
August 17th, 2005 at 5:33 pm
Uncle
Your point appeared to be that I was mischaracterizing the GOP. If you note, I mentioned in my original post that the the Dems, when they pay attention to these things, do come down on the side of entertainment companies. Your list actually kinda refuted that as none of the big content producers showed up on the list, and one fo the entertainment firs was clearly in it just becasue of gay rights. The GOP list did contian a wealth of corps that have a vested interest in preventing technological advances unless they can control them or sue them to control consuner habits, and that have a history of acting on that incentive. So I don’t see how anything you said refutes my basic contentions. nor do i see what non-technology companies and unions have to do with the issue at hand.