Linux fan to run against Arnie in California election (Silicon.com) [LWN.net]

Linux fan to run against Arnie in California election (Silicon.com)

Posted Sep 5, 2003 20:34 UTC (Fri) by rknop (guest, #66)
In reply to: Linux fan to run against Arnie in California election (Silicon.com) by JoeBuck
Parent article: Linux fan to run against Arnie in California election (Silicon.com)

I'd advise against publishing this kind of story in LWN in the future, as it's irrelevant to Linux and likely to just generate a lot of political argument.

I disagree.

Politics is FAR more important than technology to Open Source in general and Linux in particular at the moment. If LWN is serious about promoting Linux (and the survival of free software), social and political issues are the first things they need to focus on.

We suffer, we suffer greatly, because none of us, not even Lawrence Lessig, realizes that we need set our differences about other issues aside and truly unite on the issues of free culture. Everybody is going to vote for their traditional party (Demo or Repub or Green or whatever) based on the economy, the war, the environment, what your union says, what your business says, or etc. We all seem to think that intellectual property issues are "not important enough" in comparison to those other things. The result: every politician knows that they will lose no elections based on their free culture position, and therefore they would be insane not to whore themselves out to big-donating corporations who want terrible things like DRM and software patents and supoena power for media companies and other things that will make life difficult for free software writers.

We need to pull our heads out of the sand and realize that *politics matters*. If we refuse to talk about it because it's contentions and because we all *do* have very different opinions about defense, abortion, etc., then the issues we all agree on will wilt and die.

I wish all geeks would unify, truly unify, behind Georgy Russell. Agree to vote for her, agree to campaign for her, and get the word out to others. Even if you disagree with some of her other politics-- the fact that she has at least a clue about software and those issues means that she's a better choice than anybody else, specifically for these issues. Hold your nose on the other issues if you don't like them, but until we're willing to really come together behind somebody who's on the right side of "our" issues, those issues won't really be taken seriously.

There's also the fact that the country is, effectively, held at the mercy of the Republican and Democratic machines. That the most well-known state governor who was not from those parties turned out to be a disaster makes things worse. We will continue to be at the mercy of those party machines and those who fund them so long as we maintain the mentality that a vote for anybody other than the front runner is a vote wasted. The Internet and our common shared interest in free culture gives us the opportunity to unite behind somebody who is *different*. If that somebody turns out to be smart and competent, it might just be the first drop in turning the tide.

I don't agree with all of Georgy's positions. But if I still lived in California, I'd vote for her, becuase I'm sick and tired of people making decisions that have tremendous implications for freedom in the digital age without the first clue what they're doing, and thus listening to the arguments of their campaign donors.

-Rob

to post comments

Linux fan to run against Arnie in California election (Silicon.com)

Posted Sep 5, 2003 21:00 UTC (Fri) by chethcoat (guest, #4535) [Link] (2 responses)

Well said, rknop. Open software is less and less about technology, and more and more about patents and copyrights: who has and doesn't have the right to use it, who tries to prevent others from using it, who tries to abuse others with it, etc. Important stuff, abysmally covered in the popular media. Keep it coming, LWN.

Linux fan to run against Arnie in California election (Silicon.com)

Posted Sep 5, 2003 21:13 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] (1 responses)

I'm all for publishing articles about relevant politics. The fact that one of the 135 candidates for California governor is an attractive young woman who likes Linux is not relevant politics.

Linux fan to run against Arnie in California election (Silicon.com)

Posted Sep 5, 2003 22:14 UTC (Fri) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link]

Isn't it?

Nobody who isn't one of the "party machine" candidates is ever going to get elected if we don't find somebody who has a clue about our issues and attempt to throw their weight behind them, even if that somebody is a dark horse nth candidate.

The only other alternative is to continue settling for one of the two front runners and hoping against hope that they will either accidentally do the right thing free culture wise, or that we'll just be lucky and they'll get by unnoticed as a free culture sort. (I do have hopes that Howard Dean will turn out this way, given that he blogged at Lessig's place, but that he sees blogs as a good way for grassroots organization is the only indication we have that Dean has a clue about technology issues and "free culture" issues. )

-Rob

Linux fan to run against Arnie in California election (Silicon.com)

Posted Sep 6, 2003 18:41 UTC (Sat) by fx (guest, #12077) [Link]

Well said, rknop. If the OSS community forces itself not to talk about politics it'll simply not be represented. This is also as if one would deliberately abstain from free speech. Corporate sponsors would reign (this is in fact what they do now). Definitely not what we want. Go Georgy !

The end, unfortunately, doesn't justify the means

Posted Sep 7, 2003 12:01 UTC (Sun) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link] (3 responses)

Other than the OSS stuff, Georgy appears to be simply a political trendy - which is a recipe for disaster. If she did get in, then went down in flames, the OSS cause could, in spirit "go with her".

Her point about weed needs reversing: why do we tolerate so much physical (car accidents) and medical (cirrhosis, battery, name it) damage from alcohol? Should we make it worse by legalising other intoxicants? Or should we do something about making the existing drug less attractive?

If cancer is bringing our health insurance systems to their knees (to say nothing of the agony and anguish implied in that volume of slow, painful death), should we unleash another form of smoking on the public, or should we do something positive and permanent about the existing forms?

The end, unfortunately, doesn't justify the means

Posted Sep 7, 2003 12:30 UTC (Sun) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link]

Her point about weed needs reversing: why do we tolerate so much physical (car accidents) and medical (cirrhosis, battery, name it) damage from alcohol? Should we make it worse by legalising other intoxicants? Or should we do something about making the existing drug less attractive?

Ultimately, the reason we tolerate so much damage from alcohol is that we tried outlawing it back in the 1920's, and it was a disaster.

-Rob

The end, unfortunately, doesn't justify the means

Posted Sep 8, 2003 3:00 UTC (Mon) by utidjian (guest, #444) [Link]

"If cancer is bringing our health insurance systems to their knees (to say nothing of the agony and anguish implied in that volume of slow, painful death), should we unleash another form of smoking on the public, or should we do something positive and permanent about the existing forms?"

Well cancer is, for the most part, due to the success of "modern" medicine and general public hygiene. Before we got things like vaccines and cleaner food and water we tended to die earlier. We have to die of something... so the longer we live the more likely it is that we will die of cancer or stroke. By your logic we should prohibit tobacco smoking even more so than it is... to the point of criminalizing it. Do you think that it would have a large effect on public health... worth the cost?

-DU-

legalizing marijuana

Posted Sep 13, 2003 16:45 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link]

Should we make it worse by legalising other intoxicants?

No. But that is no reason to keep those intoxicants illegal. We should correct the unfairness, inconsistency, and assault on freedom of our current illegal intoxicant laws by (in part) legalizing marijuana and we should simultaneously do other things so that the level of the intoxicated driving, etc. problems don't go up. Like add some restrictions evenly applied to ALL intoxicants.

Singling out prohibition of marijuana as a means of controlling intoxicated driving is like having a law that says black people can't drink in bars because it would reduce the amount of drunk driving (due to the lower number of people drinking in bars).