"Voted for Kerry? We don't want you"

Hobbes

I find this a bit mind blowing to be honest. Mainly because they can get away with it.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050425-4842.html

The short story is, there is a large technical conference for setting the standards in the US for telecoms. Bush has said that anyone who supported Kerry are barred from accessing this meeting.

Time has an article too..
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1053595,00.html

You would think you would pick the best minds, not the best who will follow you.

Nuttzz

hardly mind blowing

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,

seems sensible enough to me, from the bush camp POV

nesf

See the problem with America to a large extent is that certain "influences" effect areas well outside their juristiction. For instance religion playing a major role in politics. Or politics dictating who can sit in on a meeting to decide on the technical standards of telecoms in the US.

I mean really, how would a person's politics effect the setting of telecom standards? Maybe they'd vote for removing the red wire and replacing it with a blue one?

Idiocy in my opinion. Politics is all well and good, but it shouldn't be present in every decision made in a country. Some things are inherently neutral.

Enduro

nesf, If you replace America with Ireland your paragraph will make much more sense.

nesf

Enduro wrote:

nesf, If you replace America with Ireland your paragraph will make much more sense.

No.

Ireland is just corrupt as ****, America has partisian politics, there is a world of a difference.

BlitzKrieg

nothing healthy about this. In the end its Bush's regime that will suffer. One of the strengths of democracy over the *Utopian* politics, is that it works when the government does nothing. Sticking politics into economic affairs like this will only badly affect america's own economy and all in all is a really stupid thing to do.

MrJoeSoap

NOTHING about the United States government surprises me any more.

They have more power than most people realise and aren't afraid to use it and cover their tracks.

Anyone seen the Irish documentary on the coup in Venezuela will know about how inhuman the Bush administration actually is.

Enduro

nesf, seriously, what are you talking about? What do you mean by partisan politics, and can you explain what is so special about Ireland that we don't have it?

How do you think people get appointed to state bodies in Ireland? Do you actually think that people get appointed on pure merit, or do you have any sneaking suspicions that their political allegiances might have something to do with it?

mr_angry

Nuttzz wrote:

hardly mind blowing

seems sensible enough to me, from the bush camp POV

I fail to see why the defining of telecoms standards requires people who "represent the administration positively", or support any administration. Its irrelevant.

Nuttzz

mr_angry wrote:

I fail to see why the defining of telecoms standards requires people who "represent the administration positively", or support any administration. Its irrelevant.

Depends on what the administrations agenda is with regard to telecoms standards, also Company X paid your campaign fund $100,000, company Y paid your opponents campign fund $100,000. its a no brainer....

mr_angry

Nuttzz wrote:

Depends on what the administrations agenda is with regard to telecoms standards, also Company X paid your campaign fund $100,000, company Y paid your opponents campign fund $100,000. its a no brainer....

Why should any administration HAVE an agenda regarding telecoms standards? The idea is simply to get the best performance out of the available media. It doesn't make any sense.

Sparks

Not overwhelmingly new Hobbes, there was a large row within the IEEE in the last year or two when it was discovered that countries under embargo by the US were not being allowed to subscribe to periodicals, attend conferences or anything else.

(The IEEE is the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers and it's meant to be an international body, with members in 175 countries. It publishes much of the research in the areas of electronic and electrical engineering which covers a rather large area from radio propagation to robotics to semiconductor research to, well, lots. It also sets the standards for degree courses in universities and does a hundred and one other rather critical things for engineering in general.)

mr_angry

Keeping technological research out of embargoed countries is one thing though Sparks. Keeping the opinions of Kerry supporters out of telecoms standards conferences is another thing altogether.

sovtek

This has been the Bush family's M.O. for years, generations even. It doesn't matter if you're a criminal or incompetant...as long as your loyal.
That dingbat Condi is a prime example.

Hobbes

Sparks wrote:

Not overwhelmingly new Hobbes, there was a large row within the IEEE in the last year or two when it was discovered that countries under embargo by the US were not being allowed to subscribe to periodicals, attend conferences or anything else.

Yes I know about that (I'm an IEEE member btw ). However that is not the same thing. The embargo thing is not the same issue. All US companies (and any company that does business with/in the US) have to comply to the embargoes.

This on the other hand is stopping people from joining standards bodies because they gave donations to the other guys. I haven't seen a presedent for this. I know of people here who have joined standards bodies and politics doesn't even come into it.

Sparks

Thing about the IEEE embargo though (Hobbes, did you get those emails as well?) was that the embargo was only a US one. And the IEEE isn't meant to be a US company, but an international academic body. And more unpleasantly, noone in the IEEE was told about this, at least not until people in the countries involved started complaining. It was all done on the QT.

Reading the article though, this does appear to be nastier, if a bit smaller in scale.

Hobbes

IEEE is a US company. It is registered in the US. As such it is required to comply with US export restrictions as does anyone of that body. This is really nothing new, I have the same thing in work. You can't deal with embargoed countries/people/organisations. You also can't for example support embargoes not sanctioned by the US.

Enduro

Lads,

What do you think are the factors used to appoint the board members of COMREG in this country. What do you think the factors are behind practically every appointment to every state board in this country, including those charged with technical tasks, such as COMREG? Political alegiance is a significant (If not THE signifcant) factor in most of these appointments. Why do you think there is a rush to appoint people to state / semi-state boards before a change of government in Ireland?

The Americans have nothing to teach us about political interferance in what should be non-political areas. It would be more useful if you constuctively directed your ire against innapropriate political appointments in your own country before waging in against the Americans.

mr_angry

As far as I'm aware, the charter of this board says nothing about discussing only Irish politics - posters are free to discuss any international political decisions. And while I agree that the appointment of semi-state comissioners may be a problem here in Ireland, it is a different issue to the American administration preventing individuals from attending a discussion on telecoms standards because of their political affiliation.

nesf

mr_angry wrote:

As far as I'm aware, the charter of this board says nothing about discussing only Irish politics - posters are free to discuss any international political decisions. And while I agree that the appointment of semi-state comissioners may be a problem here in Ireland, it is a different issue to the American administration preventing individuals from attending a discussion on telecoms standards because of their political affiliation.

Exactly the point I was making earlier.

We have alot of corruption in this country and this has resulted in alot of the public positions in the civic service and elsewhere being awarded according to back handers and who knows who, not based on merit.

In the US, the partisian nature of politics there is so divisive that it has effectively driven a wedge between large parts of the community, and a person's politics over there can mean an awful lot. The geographical spread of democrats and republican power blocs, just results in very divisive and seperatist attitudes to be held.

As for this country, well, to be perfectly honest, at the age of 23, I can only think of one friend of mine who actually supports a political party, the others just don't care about irish politics, or don't see much of a choice presented by the Irish political parties. Yes to a certain degree politics in this country pervades somewhat into your personal and work life, but it is no where close to what it's like in the US.

For instance, on the IRD boards you will find people who support a myriad of parties and people with no real political affiliation. In the US it is becoming a case of, a person must pick a side and then that choice will and can be used discriminatingly against or for them depending on who is in power etc.

Our political system is very corrupt, I don't think anyone can deny that. But we don't ahve partisian politics in this country. We might have other problems but the idea of coalition governments are not anathema to the Irish public, while the idea of a coalition government in the US would be.

Enduro

As far as I'm aware, the charter of this board says nothing about discussing only Irish politics - posters are free to discuss any international political decisions.

I didn't mean to imply that, and I apologise if I did. I'm simply trying to say that people in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones. And I do think it would be more productive for people who are anti-politcal interference would direct their energies at eliminating the political interference in our own country rather than worrying too much about what the Americans get up to.

The geographical spread of democrats and republican power blocs, just results in very divisive and seperatist attitudes to be held.

Every country, Including Ireland, has a geopgraphical spread of political allegences. How many green TDs are there outside of urban areas. How many PD TD are there outside of Urban areas. Where are FF TDs in a distinct minority. We don't notice it as much here because we have multi-seat PR constituencies. America would have a similar spread of representatives if they used a similat system to us. There are no states in America where either the Democrats or the Republicans don't have significant levels of support.

As for this country, well, to be perfectly honest, at the age of 23, I can only think of one friend of mine who actually supports a political party, the others just don't care about irish politics, or don't see much of a choice presented by the Irish political parties. Yes to a certain degree politics in this country pervades somewhat into your personal and work life, but it is no where close to what it's like in the US.

Are you trying to say that having enough interest in politics to support the political party that most closely represnts your views is partisan, and that not caring enough about politics to support any party is non-partisan?

Personally I think it would be a good thing that enough Americans take an interest in their society to care about which party they should support and vote for. Thats not partisan. Thats healthy democratic participation.

In reality the voter turnout figures would suggest that the America you are describing does not exist in reality. If 50% of their electorate don't even bother to vote then it hardly a society riven by divisive partisan politics is it?

For instance, on the IRD boards you will find people who support a myriad of parties and people with no real political affiliation. In the US it is becoming a case of, a person must pick a side and then that choice will and can be used discriminatingly against or for them depending on who is in power etc.

IRD boards on the internet do not reflect American society as a whole. It only reflects IRD boards on the internet.

It has long been the case that if you wnt to get appointed by the government to some postion in Ireland you must pick a side, and that choice will then be used discriminatingly against or for them depending on who is in power. America has a much more open and transparent process for most of its public appointments, as it has a much more open and transparent politcal process in general.

Our political system is very corrupt, I don't think anyone can deny that. But we don't ahve partisian politics in this country. We might have other problems but the idea of coalition governments are not anathema to the Irish public, while the idea of a coalition government in the US would be.

Our political system has corrupt aspects within it, but overall its not very corrupt at all. There is an international index for corruption, and we don't rate too badly.

I still don't see how you can say we don't have partisan politics in this country. I still don't fully understand exactly what you mean by this. People support political parties in this country, just like in America. People can get/ not get appointed to positions based on their allegences, just like in America. If you think we are more relaxed about politics here then you obviously have no memory of the Abortion referenda. (Not to mention 30 years of murder and mayhem up in NI)

Coalition governments are standard in the U.S. Both the Republicans and the Democrats are very broad coalitions of many different and often contradictory opinions. They are coalitions by their very nature (The Democrats have been talking about Rainbow coalitions for years).

nesf

This really is off topic for this thread, I'll post one more reply then if you wish to further the conversation start a new thread about it.

Partisan Politics, to define it very broadly is where there is an extreme or major bias towards a particular political party or concept. This bias is generally not present due to idealogical differences only, but stems from a "If you are not with us, you are against us" style of thinking.

Yes in any political system, political parties and their supporters are biased towards themselves and away from other parties, but in the US it has taken itself to a higher level.

When I talk about partisan politics in the US, I am referring to the unjust extreme bias on both sides against the other. Political parties rarely agree, but partisan politics takes this outside of the political arena where it is a fact of life, and into the public arena where it has no place in a democracy.

In the US opinions can be dismissed by certain quarters purely based on whether they are a democrat's or a republican's opinions. Preferential treatment being shown to people who fly the current leaders flag is common place in modern democracies, but the barring of people because they support a different cause, from fully taking part in their job or society has no place in a democracy, and would only be fitting in a despotic regime.

The key reasoning behind why I consider the US to suffer from partisan politics, versus our situation here with irish politics should be quite clear from the above. (I think, I could be wrong, am not thinking overly clearly today).

In short, if Fianna Fail turned around today and said that everyone who was a supporter of Fine Gael, Labour, etc couldn't take part in a meeting to discuss telecoms regulations in this country, even though these people had been invited to discuss this topic since they are experts in the field. What would you think the reaction would be?

Do you think that such blatant bias against members of the general public who supported a party other than FF would be acceptable in Irish Politics, or that the public would stand for it?

I didn't think so. Now think about the US and how it's happening over there, and you really can see the difference between the regular bias shown by any political party in a democracy and the extreme bias shown by the Republicans in the US.

Does this level of bias and control befit a country that calls itself a democracy? I don't think so. But then again, that is only my opinion, but I hope you can see why I differentiate between the two and why I don't consider us to suffer from partisan politics when compared to the US.

StupidLikeAFox

Hobbes wrote:

I find this a bit mind blowing to be honest. Mainly because they can get away with it.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050425-4842.html

The short story is, there is a large technical conference for setting the standards in the US for telecoms. Bush has said that anyone who supported Kerry are barred from accessing this meeting.

Time has an article too..
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1053595,00.html

You would think you would pick the best minds, not the best who will follow you.

Short Answer:

Big Deal!!

bonkey

Other than the blatant honesty of the Republican Party, I'm not entirely sure what the fuss is about.

Take, for example, the oft-mentioned critiques of the like of Bruce Schneier on the post-Sep11 "security measures". Alternately, have a gander at Electronic Voting and how that was implemented in the US. Hell - don't limit yourself to the US. Look at EV here in Ireland....or any of the issues that Mark Thomas liked to bash the establishment in Britain over the head with.

The simple truth is that politicians don't limit themselves to politics. Indeed, its impossible that they do.

Taking the case at hand to illustrate what I mean....

No matter how the US set the standards, they will have mandated that standards be set. Thats already interfering....possibly needlessly, possibly not, but interfering nonetheless. Now, they may insist that the system not make electronic wire-tapping impossible. Thats interferences based on their opinion of how things should be done. Whether its to make ppl more secure, or to say it is so they can spy on them is neither here nor there....they will want the standards to reflect - wherever relevant - the Administration's ideology. At the very least, they'll want to make sure that the ideology isn't fundamentally undermined by those who see a different set of ideals, and who - as a result - will push a differing (and potentially incompatible) agenda, because they have a better vision of what is The Best Solution [tm].

Over the four years of Bush's first term in office, I grew used to reading the all-too-regular complaints in the editorial of Scientific American about how Bush was pushing politics over science - typically choosing his scientific advisors to back up his pre-formed opinion, rather than to offer balanced scientific arguments allowing him to come to a more balanced and informed decision. Now...and here's the kicker....its no secret he did this for his term in office, and he was re-elected. This is effectively a tacit seal of approval on such behaviour. Whether we like it or not, or approve of it or not, or point out that Ireland/the EU/whoever-you-want-to-group-the-lefties-with is really no different makes not one jot of difference. The People's Choice did this stuff for four years, and got re-elected and is continuing to do it.

Why? Who cares why. Maybe its to ensure his buddies in industry get looked after. Maybe its to ensure that privacy isn't allowed to creep back in, or indeed to continue to kick it a bit more while its on the ground and no-one's kicking up a fuss. Who cares why. Its SOP for the current Administration, and while they may be more blatant and (somewhat) more extreme about it....its SOP for politicians anywhere. If they didn't believe in their policies being the right ones (even if only the right ones for themselves), they wouldn't be in politics.

jc