Political Litmus Tests for Technical Confrences - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Yakk · 04-25-2005, 12:26 PM

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...053595,00.html

Quote:

Any Kerry Supporters On The Line?
The Bush Administration punishes some Democrat backers
By VIVECA NOVAK AND JOHN DICKERSON

Sunday, Apr. 24, 2005
The Inter-American Telecommunication Commission meets three times a year in various cities across the Americas to discuss such dry but important issues as telecommunications standards and spectrum regulations. But for this week's meeting in Guatemala City, politics has barged onto the agenda. At least four of the two dozen or so U.S. delegates selected for the meeting, sources tell TIME, have been bumped by the White House because they supported John Kerry's 2004 campaign.

The State Department has traditionally put together a list of industry representatives for these meetings, and anyone in the U.S. telecom industry who had the requisite expertise and wanted to go was generally given a slot, say past participants. Only after the start of Bush's second term did a political litmus test emerge, industry sources say.

The White House admits as much: "We wanted people who would represent the Administration positively, and--call us nutty--it seemed like those who wanted to kick this Administration out of town last November would have some difficulty doing that," says White House spokesman Trent Duffy. Those barred from the trip include employees of Qualcomm and Nokia, two of the largest telecom firms operating in the U.S., as well as Ibiquity, a digital-radio-technology company in Columbia, Md. One nixed participant, who has been to many of these telecom meetings and who wants to remain anonymous, gave just $250 to the Democratic Party. Says Nokia vice president Bill Plummer: "We do not view sending experts to international meetings on telecom issues to be a partisan matter. We would welcome clarification from the White House."

So, we have a commision whose purpose is to deal with the technical of telecommunications issues and spectrum sharing. And it appears that giving 250$ to the Democratic Party means that you are no longer qualified for it.

Is it just me, or is this kind of thing sickening?

Now, possibly it's misreported. And maybe that guy who gave 250$ to the democratic party also had sex with a republican senator's daughter. But, on it's surface, this looks pretty damn politically toxic.

The Trent Duffy mentioned above is a spokeman for the whitehouse:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0041230-4.html

Quote:

MR. DUFFY: ... The President continues to monitor the terrible disaster and the emergency recovery and relief effort underway. And at this point, allow me to read for you a statement by the President: All Americans are shocked and saddened by the tragic loss of life and the destruction around the Indian Ocean. ...

Is this kind of thing appropriate?

guy44 · 04-25-2005, 01:09 PM

Of course it isn't. Bush is making political viewpoints with the President an a priori requirement for a job. Just as it is wrong to deny someone a job because they are black or a woman or like the Cardinals for G-d knows why, it is absolutely against everything America stands for to fire people because they supported a different political candidate.

And the Bushies CANNOT play the "well, these guys have to represent our views accurately" card. That standard means that anyone in the federal government who doesn't support the President's reelection campaign can be penalized for that. Furthermore, it isn't as if the topics discussed at this conference were what I'd call partisan:

Quote:

Recommendation for 400 MHz bands
RLAN in the 5 GHz band
Recommendation on harmonized frequencies for property protection
Revision to Recommendation PCC.II/REC. 67 (XIX-01) on Low Power Radiocommunication devices,
Radio frequency identification devices (RFID)
Broadband Power Line Communications (BPL)
Refarming of 700 MHz band
Answer to Market questionnaire on IMT 2000 and systems beyond
Results of the video conference on wireless broadband

Link.

Something tells me there's no Republican vs. Democrat position on those.

Yet another abuse of power from the Bushies.

alansmithee · 04-25-2005, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

Of course it isn't. Bush is making political viewpoints with the President an a priori requirement for a job. Just as it is wrong to deny someone a job because they are black or a woman or like the Cardinals for G-d knows why, it is absolutely against everything America stands for to fire people because they supported a different political candidate.

Tell that to all the people that have been appointed by Bush who will get the boot in 2009.

Quote:

And the Bushies CANNOT play the "well, these guys have to represent our views accurately" card. That standard means that anyone in the federal government who doesn't support the President's reelection campaign can be penalized for that. Furthermore, it isn't as if the topics discussed at this conference were what I'd call partisan:

Link.

Something tells me there's no Republican vs. Democrat position on those.

Yet another abuse of power from the Bushies.

Everything now is partisan. Bush was totally correct in what he did. If it is a commision based on appointments, he doesn't have any requirement to send X number of Dems, or even approve those initially selected.

Yakk · 04-25-2005, 04:43 PM

Is this sort of thing normal?

guy44 · 04-25-2005, 05:20 PM

alansmithee, there are positions which get appointed by the President and vacated when the President leaves office. So yeah, a lot of those people will be gone in 2009. Because they were appointees for only Bush's administration.

The point with this conference is that the delegates were non-partisan, for a non-partisan meeting on a non-partisan issue. Bush actually deselected appointees because they had the temerity to not support him. Nobody asked him to send x number of Dems or Repugs. This was something that should barely even be on his radar. The people selected were going because they were the best qualified to go. In essence, Bush sent less qualified people to the conference because they supported him instead of Kerry. If he had removed more qualified white people from the commission in favor of less qualified minorities, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you'd bitch and moan about affirmative action.

What he did is WRONG.

filtherton · 04-25-2005, 05:24 PM

The message to big business apparently is: vote for bush and you'll get more of a say in the way your industry operates.

Unfortunately, politicians being douchebags is business as usual.

Ilow · 04-25-2005, 05:29 PM

I think that this is an example of how thin-skinned and narcessistic W. is. This is exactly what moderates, Democrats and sensible Republicans are referring to when they laugh at the idea that Bush will be a uniter and not a divider. He is not and never will be. He is small minded, partisan and vindictive.

alansmithee · 04-25-2005, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

alansmithee, there are positions which get appointed by the President and vacated when the President leaves office. So yeah, a lot of those people will be gone in 2009. Because they were appointees for only Bush's administration.

The point with this conference is that the delegates were non-partisan, for a non-partisan meeting on a non-partisan issue. Bush actually deselected appointees because they had the temerity to not support him. Nobody asked him to send x number of Dems or Repugs. This was something that should barely even be on his radar. The people selected were going because they were the best qualified to go. In essence, Bush sent less qualified people to the conference because they supported him instead of Kerry. If he had removed more qualified white people from the commission in favor of less qualified minorities, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you'd bitch and moan about affirmative action.

What he did is WRONG.

First, it's not non-partisan. Nothing is non-partisan.

And second, have you checked the respective qualifications of those who replaced the initial choices, or the credentials of the initial conference members? You must have, because you said that those Bush selected were less qualified. If not, you were just spouting a baseless opinion.

And as for my stance on affirmative action, I have made it clear in many threads that I support it in most cases. Although what affirmative action has to do with this situation I have no idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

The message to big business apparently is: vote for bush and you'll get more of a say in the way your industry operates.

Unfortunately, politicians being douchebags is business as usual.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

host · 04-25-2005, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

First, it's not non-partisan. Nothing is non-partisan.

And second, have you checked the respective qualifications of those who replaced the initial choices, or the credentials of the initial conference members? You must have, because you said that those Bush selected were less qualified. If not, you were just spouting a baseless opinion.

And as for my stance on affirmative action, I have made it clear in many threads that I support it in most cases. Although what affirmative action has to do with this situation I have no idea.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Sorry alansmithee, your argument does nothing to address the damage to the perception of the Bush admin., and of Republicans. Perceptions are everything, especially when they are associated with people's pocketbooks and the economy.

The two companies mentioned in the lead article,

Quote:

<a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1053595,00.html">http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1053595,00.html</a>
The White House admits as much: "We wanted people who would represent the Administration positively, and--call us nutty--it seemed like those who wanted to kick this Administration out of town last November would have some difficulty doing that," says White House spokesman Trent Duffy. Those barred from the trip include employees of Qualcomm and Nokia, two of the largest telecom firms operating in the U.S., as well as Ibiquity, a digital-radio-technology company in Columbia, Md. One nixed participant, who has been to many of these telecom meetings and who wants to remain anonymous, gave just $250 to the Democratic Party. Says Nokia vice president Bill Plummer: "We do not view sending experts to international meetings on telecom issues to be a partisan matter. We would welcome clarification from the White House."

<a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=nok">Nokia</a> and <a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=qcom">Qualcomm</a>, have combined market capitalization of $130 billion. That dollar figure represents an investor interest in the success, linked to maintaining a technical lead in a still emerging and cutting edge technology, of both of these companies.

I think that your apologist stance in the wake of poor and petty decision making of Bush admin. officials, is off the mark nearly as much as Bush and his people are on this one. The Nasdaq tech stock index has not recovered from it's 80 percent decline between March 2000, and March, 2003. This article appears in the new Time magazine. Is not the risk that Bush will be spun as unsupportive of leading tech companies and their shareholders, much greater than any future political support of a party that already owns the business lobby can hope to gain?

This is a juvenile and petty new practice on the part of this administration, and IMO, you work against your own reputation as a thoughtful participant on these threads by supporting this disenfranchisement and deliberate interference in the management decisions of these tech companies, since employees planning to attend this conference were, if not selected by their superiors, were certainly approved by them to spend the time and the money to represent the interests of the companies who they work for.

alansmithee · 04-25-2005, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Sorry alansmithee, your argument does nothing to address the damage to the perception of the Bush admin., and of Republicans. Perceptions are everything, especially when they are associated with people's pocketbooks and the economy

What damage? There were some people switched on a largely inconcequencial conference. Nobody really cares, not one vote will be gained or lost over this. Were you or guy44 huge Bush supporters before hearing about this? No. This is a non-issue; for dems/Bush-haters it's just another proof of how petty, partisan, vindictive, etc. he is. To the others, it's just business as usual; either old-school cronyism or the just appointment of people who share the admin's views on the issues that may arrise from the conference's findings.

Quote:

The two companies mentioned in the lead article,

<a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=nok">Nokia</a> and <a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=qcom">Qualcomm</a>, have combined market capitalization of $130 billion. That dollar figure represents an investor interest in the success, linked to maintaining a technical lead in a still emerging and cutting edge technology, of both of these companies.

Well, those companies should have either supported Bush, or sent rep's that supported Bush if they wanted a say in policy. Or at least not send reps that didn't want him in office.

Quote:

I think that your apologist stance in the wake of poor and petty decision making of Bush admin. officials, is off the mark nearly as much as Bush and his people are on this one. The Nasdaq tech stock index has not recovered from it's 80 percent decline between March 2000, and March, 2003. This article appears in the new Time magazine. Is not the risk that Bush will be spun as unsupportive of leading tech companies and their shareholders, much greater than any future political support of a party that already owns the business lobby can hope to gain?

What apologist stance? I was merely pointing out that this is business as usual. This kind of thing has been going on by both parties since there were parties. This isn't limited to just one side or the other, as much as the Bush haters would like to think.

And what does the NASDAQ not recovering have to do with anything? Dems still seem hung up on the phony economy of the mid/late '90's. The NASDAQ's great rise during that period wasn't based on solid economic growth, but on pipe dreams. If you were to have studied any of the main financial metrics of 90% of the companies that contribute to the NASDAQ, people would have seen this themselves. And why should a sitting Pres worry about how he's going to be "spun"? No matter what Bush does, it will be spun negatively by certain elements. The best way to operate is to ignore those elements.

Quote:

This is a juvenile and petty new practice on the part of this administration, and IMO, you work against your own reputation as a thoughtful participant on these threads by supporting this disenfranchisement and deliberate interference in the management decisions of these tech companies, since employees planning to attend this conference were, if not selected by their superiors, were certainly approved by them to spend the time and the money to represent the interests of the companies who they work for.

This is not a new practice. The same thing has been going on for at least 200 years. I really don't care who goes to this conference. But I felt it necessary to respond to yet another tired attack on the Bush administration. It's obvious that some people hate Bush and everything he does, but that doesn't mean that everything he does creates some new nadir of evil, nor that it's even noteworthy.

And Bush is not interfering in the management decisions of any company. Obviously it is at the admin's discretion as to who goes, so it is the admin's choice. The tech companies are operating in a consulting/nominating role, nothing more.

Kadath · 04-26-2005, 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

What damage? There were some people switched on a largely inconcequencial conference. Nobody really cares, not one vote will be gained or lost over this. Were you or guy44 huge Bush supporters before hearing about this? No. This is a non-issue; for dems/Bush-haters it's just another proof of how petty, partisan, vindictive, etc. he is. To the others, it's just business as usual; either old-school cronyism or the just appointment of people who share the admin's views on the issues that may arrise from the conference's findings.

That for me is the most telling part of your screed; why can't you understand that this conference isn't and should not be about politics? It's about technology. Myself, I'd like the best minds at the conference, not the best Republicans.

I used to work at a county courthouse. In the days before I came there, a shift in power between the parties signaled a major change in employees across the board. That was done away with when people realized how fucking stupid and childish it was; you can push paper around just fine regardless of your political affiliations. Accepting something just because it "has always been that way" is what makes you a conservative; you are either afraid of or uninterested in positive change. So long as you aren't bothered, you don't take an interest. One day this sort of thing will affect you and you will cry bloody murder, but no one will care.

alansmithee · 04-26-2005, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kadath

That for me is the most telling part of your screed; why can't you understand that this conference isn't and should not be about politics? It's about technology. Myself, I'd like the best minds at the conference, not the best Republicans.

Again, the assumption that the people Bush appointed were less qualified. What if the Republicans were as qualified, or more qualified?

Quote:

I used to work at a county courthouse. In the days before I came there, a shift in power between the parties signaled a major change in employees across the board. That was done away with when people realized how fucking stupid and childish it was; you can push paper around just fine regardless of your political affiliations. Accepting something just because it "has always been that way" is what makes you a conservative; you are either afraid of or uninterested in positive change.

I accept it because there's no other option. If there was a viable option to the Republican/conservative side, I would select it. It has nothing to do with being afraid or uninterested in positive change. Neither party is interested in positive change. Don't think that Dems don't pull this kind of power play. As I said, this is a non-issue, the only reason it appeared here was in another tired attempt to show how supposedly bad the Bush admin is.

Kadath · 04-26-2005, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

Again, the assumption that the people Bush appointed were less qualified. What if the Republicans were as qualified, or more qualified?

I don't assume they were less qualified, I just assume we are pulling from a smaller pool. If you are looking for the best minds and you exclude half the total pool on something other than intellect or ability, chances are you're not going to get all the best.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

I accept it because there's no other option. If there was a viable option to the Republican/conservative side, I would select it. It has nothing to do with being afraid or uninterested in positive change. Neither party is interested in positive change. Don't think that Dems don't pull this kind of power play. As I said, this is a non-issue, the only reason it appeared here was in another tired attempt to show how supposedly bad the Bush admin is.

Please, I beg you, STOP MAKING THIS ABOUT DEMOCRAT VERSUS REPUBLICAN. I don't care if the Democrats would do this, I don't care that this makes Bush bad, I want it to stop. I don't believe there's no other option, and that you DO believe it is holding you back. You are only seeing things in black and white, or, in this case, Democrat or Republican. It's okay to have your own political views that don't necessarily line up with either of the two major parties, or with any party.

Yakk · 04-26-2005, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

I accept it because there's no other option. If there was a viable option to the Republican/conservative side, I would select it. It has nothing to do with being afraid or uninterested in positive change. Neither party is interested in positive change. Don't think that Dems don't pull this kind of power play. As I said, this is a non-issue, the only reason it appeared here was in another tired attempt to show how supposedly bad the Bush admin is.

I assume you have instances. You have attacked others in this thread for making statements that seem reasonable (that the first choice of technology companies may be the most qualified). You have made the statement that democrates pull off this kind of power play.

If you don't have such citations before you made the statement, you are "spouting a baseless opinion", to quote alansmithee.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

What damage? There were some people switched on a largely inconcequencial conference.

Was it inconcequencial? I assume you researched the impact of the confrence on economic and technological growth before you made your statement.

Feel free to live up to the standard you place on others.

If anyone was as asinine as to push the party line into a technical confrence, I don't care which side, I would think they where small-minded fools who should be made fun of and punished for their actions.

If you fail to punish people for doing stupid shit, there is no incentive for them not to do stupid shit.

This is the reason why capitalism works: it punishes people who do stupid shit. This is how democracy works: it punishes people who do stupid shit.

If you want to get foolish stuff like this out of politics, then you have to object to it. You are either with people who think this shit is stupid, or you are against them, to borrow another quote.

Paq · 04-26-2005, 10:45 PM

seriously, in what way is this partisan? I agree that limiting the appointees to people who supported bush is assanine.

I honestly believe this is truly representative of how america is currently two countries with no middle ground anymore. I mean, at what point does the partisanship stop for bush? Are the 50 million kerry supporters traitors now or , at least, not fit for any gov't work?

alansmithee · 04-26-2005, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kadath

I don't assume they were less qualified, I just assume we are pulling from a smaller pool. If you are looking for the best minds and you exclude half the total pool on something other than intellect or ability, chances are you're not going to get all the best.

Please, I beg you, STOP MAKING THIS ABOUT DEMOCRAT VERSUS REPUBLICAN. I don't care if the Democrats would do this, I don't care that this makes Bush bad, I want it to stop. I don't believe there's no other option, and that you DO believe it is holding you back. You are only seeing things in black and white, or, in this case, Democrat or Republican. It's okay to have your own political views that don't necessarily line up with either of the two major parties, or with any party.

I did put it in a politial context, as did you. From your earlier post:

Quote:

Accepting something just because it "has always been that way" is what makes you a conservative; you are either afraid of or uninterested in positive change. So long as you aren't bothered, you don't take an interest. One day this sort of thing will affect you and you will cry bloody murder, but no one will care.

You categorized me as a conservative, so I dealt with the issue from a partisan standpoint.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

I assume you have instances. You have attacked others in this thread for making statements that seem reasonable (that the first choice of technology companies may be the most qualified). You have made the statement that democrates pull off this kind of power play.

If you don't have such citations before you made the statement, you are "spouting a baseless opinion", to quote alansmithee.

I didn't attack anyone. I merely didn't jump on the bash Bush bandwagon that seems to be the norm for threads such as this. I didn't make citations because I don't see posting on these boards as an assignment. I often read them in between studying. I don't usually have the time to research every post I make, or to find web sources for everything I read in a newspaper/magazine or see on television. If you would like, I'll go back later and edit all my posts on this topic to have footnotes, but I currently don't have the time.

Quote:

Was it inconcequencial? I assume you researched the impact of the confrence on economic and technological growth before you made your statement.

Feel free to live up to the standard you place on others.

If anyone was as asinine as to push the party line into a technical confrence, I don't care which side, I would think they where small-minded fools who should be made fun of and punished for their actions.

If you fail to punish people for doing stupid shit, there is no incentive for them not to do stupid shit.

This is the reason why capitalism works: it punishes people who do stupid shit. This is how democracy works: it punishes people who do stupid shit.

If you want to get foolish stuff like this out of politics, then you have to object to it. You are either with people who think this shit is stupid, or you are against them, to borrow another quote.

It is inconsequential from a politial standpoint. This is the politics board, so I looked at the issue from a political standpoint. If this was on the tech board, then it would be an issue.

And from a political standpoint, what Bush is doing here isn't stupid. Also, many things in capitalism and democracy reward behavior that could be categorized as stupid.

Is what Bush is doing petty, partisan, and somewhat vindictive? Undoubtedly. But it's also politics as usual. And I personally don't desire to wail at windmills, I'd prefer to focus on things that can be changed.

Kadath · 04-27-2005, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

I did put it in a politial context, as did you. From your earlier post:

You categorized me as a conservative, so I dealt with the issue from a partisan standpoint.

This is my very last try.

No one had to put this in a political context; this is the politics board and it was a political action. I am not trying to stop this from being political; I am trying to stop it from being about Democrat versus Republican. Conservative != Republican.

Finally and for the lasttime, you don't need to try to win. Try and pretend for a moment that there might be some value in having a discussion rather than an argument. Run with that idea.

alansmithee · 04-27-2005, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kadath

This is my very last try.

No one had to put this in a political context; this is the politics board and it was a political action. I am not trying to stop this from being political; I am trying to stop it from being about Democrat versus Republican. Conservative != Republican.

My above post would be just as valid replacing Republican w/ conservative and Democrat w/ liberal. Honestly, there currently isn't much difference in the terms when used in a political context.

Quote:

Finally and for the lasttime, you don't need to try to win. Try and pretend for a moment that there might be some value in having a discussion rather than an argument. Run with that idea.

I'm not "trying to win". I was discussing the issue; it's possible to have a discussion without everyone being in agreement. It was others who tried to argue with me simply because I didn't immediately echo the "Bush is bad" line that was developing. Maybe YOU should drop the attitude and acknowledge that there are other viewpoints just as valid as yours.

04-25-2005, 04:43 PM	#4 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	Is this sort of thing normal? __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

04-25-2005, 05:20 PM	#5 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	alansmithee, there are positions which get appointed by the President and vacated when the President leaves office. So yeah, a lot of those people will be gone in 2009. Because they were appointees for only Bush's administration. The point with this conference is that the delegates were non-partisan, for a non-partisan meeting on a non-partisan issue. Bush actually deselected appointees because they had the temerity to not support him. Nobody asked him to send x number of Dems or Repugs. This was something that should barely even be on his radar. The people selected were going because they were the best qualified to go. In essence, Bush sent less qualified people to the conference because they supported him instead of Kerry. If he had removed more qualified white people from the commission in favor of less qualified minorities, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you'd bitch and moan about affirmative action. What he did is WRONG. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

04-25-2005, 05:29 PM	#7 (permalink)
Ilow Junkie Location: Pats country	I think that this is an example of how thin-skinned and narcessistic W. is. This is exactly what moderates, Democrats and sensible Republicans are referring to when they laugh at the idea that Bush will be a uniter and not a divider. He is not and never will be. He is small minded, partisan and vindictive. __________________ "Religion is the one area of our discourse in which it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about" --Sam Harris

04-26-2005, 10:45 PM	#15 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	seriously, in what way is this partisan? I agree that limiting the appointees to people who supported bush is assanine. I honestly believe this is truly representative of how america is currently two countries with no middle ground anymore. I mean, at what point does the partisanship stop for bush? Are the 50 million kerry supporters traitors now or , at least, not fit for any gov't work? __________________ Live. Chris

04-25-2005, 05:24 PM	#6 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	The message to big business apparently is: vote for bush and you'll get more of a say in the way your industry operates. Unfortunately, politicians being douchebags is business as usual.