Tech Review

One of the more curious types of people are those who think that whatever they like should be provided by the government for free. As a teacher, I often encounter these well-intentioned and children-loving, but naive persons. I've met several teachers, for instance, who think that the government should provide trips to the beach (I live in Los Angeles) because "It's a shame that some kids don't get to go."

"Well, probably most of the world, including most Americans in the mid-West, don't get to go the beach. Are they all deprived? And how will the beach make them any better people?" I remember thinking.

One might as well say, "I really like my new Nikes. They help me run better. If everybody had some, everybody would run better. They should be given to everybody." or "I read in Men's Health that whole grains are better for you. The government should place a bag of Cheerios on everybody's doorstep every day (and milk, of course. I can't eat them strait out of the box)."

Excuse the semblance to Ron Paul and I know you heard something like this from your father when you were nine, but the problem with the "Give everybody what I like" approach to policy is simply that doing things for people atrophies their ability to do things for themselves. If Hillary Clinton sent a gardener to everybody's house once a week in order to beautify lawns, I'm sure some would get done that otherwise wouldn't, but many who did their own lawns would stop and those that helped their sick neighbor mow the grass would instead squeeze in another football game.

What about the person who has no money, friends, or garden clippers? I suppose living in a big-boy world means that some people might have messy lawns. But just like one would rather see one hundred guilty men go free so that one innocent man doesn't go to jail, I'd rather see one person with overgrown weeds than see a whole society infantilized.

So, I'm reading my PC Magazine and in between the 1&1 ads and I come across this article by Dan Costa. Let's look at Dan's governing priorities:

Six Tech-Savvy Things the Next President Should Promise
07.11.07

By Dan Costa
Presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani recently fumbled answering one of the dumbest questions asked since "boxers or briefs?" Campaigning in Alabama, he was asked, "What is the price of a gallon of milk?" He was off by a buck or two, thus failing a tiresome common-citizen test. But far more important questions need to be posed. Let's start with asking our future leaders about how affordable PCs, broadband Internet connectivity, and other information technologies are transforming the lives of every American.

Pretty good so far. All of these things are low-cost, of course, without the help of the government. In fact, that's probably why they've gone down in price so much.

Follow up:

The standard for poli-technical cluelessness was set last year by Senator Ted Stevens (R–Alaska). In a speech opposing Net neutrality, he infamously said, "The Internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck. It's a series of tubes." Now, our senators don't need to be regular Slashdot contributors. Net neutrality is a fairly complex issue, and, as metaphors go, there are worse comparisons than a "series of tubes." Still, Senator Stevens was the chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which controls telecom regulation. He's regulating an industry he simply doesn't understand. We have to demand better.

All things being equal, it's better to know something than to not, but do you really care if your senator knows how the internet works? Do any know how waste gets treated? Do any know the best corn seed for cold climates? How about how to perform a "cordon and search" in Iraq? Can they still chair environmental, agricultural, and defense committees?

Today's campaign managers know how to use technology to get their candidates elected. For example, no candidate's campaign is complete without a MySpace page, YouTube channel, and a Web site that accepts donations. A few campaigns are even trying to ride the Web 2.0 bandwagon to Washington. John Edwards was in on the ground floor with Twitter, beaming riveting campaign updates ("Looking forward to our first 'Small Change for Big Change' event at San Jose State University tonight at 5 p.m.") to 3,000 online friends.

I'll guess he's being sarcastic about John Edwards.

Technologically savvy campaigns are one thing, but we also need candidates who themselves have a basic understanding of how this stuff works. We need to elect the first tech president. The Personal Democracy Forum (PDF) is leading the charge with a six-point technical agenda it is hoping the presidential candidates will support. If a candidate disagrees with part of it, I want to know why.

As if Costa would vote for the other party because their candidate knew how to upgrade a video card.

In 2008, Vote Viral Video!
Declare the Internet a public good. This means treating Internet access the same way we do water, electricity, highways, and public education. The government would have an obligation to enable low-cost universal access.

And we know how efficiently the government spends on highways. And the quality of our public schools? This is just silly. What happens if your electricity goes out? Do you think a blackout would be more inconvenient than your DSL acting up? What about water? Let's see, water or buying things on eBay? Tough one!

The fact of the matter is that internet access is already free or costs about $10.00 a month. Anybody who wants to research nuclear physics can already do so or go to a library if he ran out of free AOL minutes. And the internet being a public good? You might as well say television is a public good. With free broadband, most people would just surf porn, read a blog on Paris Hilton, or play World of Warcraft. How do those things improve our nation?

Commit to providing affordable high-speed wireless Internet access nationwide. Protect and expand unlicensed spectrum for public use. The PDF suggests spending $20 billion on an Internet Innovation and Investment Fund that would guarantee and spur development of a wireless broadband blanket and make sure the Net reaches every segment of the population.

Dan Costa likes his broadband. He wants everybody to have it. Now, why exactly do people need to have wireless access every moment of the day? Is our society worse because people have to wait four hours to download the latest 50 Cent from iTunes?

Declare a Net neutrality standard. This would prevent ISPs from discriminating among content based on origin, application, or type. And with no tiered service pricing, big corporations couldn't buy their way into the fast lane, leaving smaller firms and individuals behind.

In other words, people shouldn't be able to run their own business. Well, I think it's unfair that only wealthy corporations can buy advertising on PC magazine. It shuts me out. Is it fair that PC Magazine's content comes up higher in Google than mine? Get rid of pagerank.

Make "Every Child Connected" our goal. If major corporations are able to increase the productivity of their workers by equipping them with PCs, cell phones, and Internet connections, we owe it to our children to offer the same infrastructure in schools.

So, kids need more cell phones. What do kids do with cell phones now? Do they ask information where the closest soup kichen is so they can help feed the homeless? What about an iPod filled with Beethoven for every child? That way they'll appreciate the classics.

Commit to building a connected democracy. Local and national government proceedings should be broadcast on the Internet so anyone can hear them anytime.

This one's not to bad. Of course, if people wanted to hear it, it would exist already. That's how CSPAN came into being.

Create a National Tech Corps. This group would respond to emergencies by reestablishing communications, networks, and databases, and providing tech support for relief and recovery efforts.

I hope they already have something figured out. Why can't local governments do this? Why does everything have to be national?

There is more than a fair amount of idealism in these six requirements. Efforts to wire our schools, have been under way for years. And $20 billion to build a public wireless broadband network seems like a pipe dream (Tube dream?). Still, the candidates' views on these issues are more important to our nation's future than the price of milk.

I suppose. I hope their views aren't as foolish as Costa's

Here at PC Magazine, we want to do our part to educate our future leaders about the 21st century. Therefore, our circulation department has added each candidate to our comp subscriber list. 

Thanks for letting us know. I'm sure John McCain put down his Iraq war briefs so that he can read about Web 2.0.