The political topic that must not be discussed in USA

Hey how about how this nation is trillions of dollars in debt, and gov’t spending is out of control? And if you raise taxes, all you’ll do is drive investments to lower tax jurisdictions (as California has been proving for years).

We have to cut spending like right away!

Very good as usual and posted it over at the Medical Quack, has healthcare written all over it! You know what you do in covering all of technology is very valuable. Healthcare could almost use it’s own “Robert Scoble” as it is exploding. Shoot I talk to folks they are not even aware of people walking around today with electronic brain implants , about 500 or so on clinical trials. Maybe I could use one of those someday for a gradual lobotomy (grin). That was a joke, but the implants are real. In writing the blog I uncover some of the most innovative and growing healthcare projects, funded and non funded and shoot some of the stuff is neat and other parts of it scare the daylights out of me at times!

This was a real good interview and I will have to get the book. I felt so very at home in listening to her as it’s exactly what I talk about in pretty much the same fashion, although theres a big change in the audience I can capture (grin). I’ve written a ton of eye opener stuff, like the condition of our hospitals, etc. and where the money is and is not, hoping to open some eyes to both sides of the coin.

One of these days when I feel so inclined I’m going to dig up an old letter of reprimand I got while working for a Fortune 500 company years ago telling me I could not use my PDA (this was back when they were black and white and not connected to a phone) in meetings as they thought I had a toy and I was taking notes, boy have things changed!!

Again, back the interview, great choice of people and topics and it’s over at the Quack.

http://ducknetweb.blogspot.com/2008/09/interview-with-judy-estrin-author-of.html

I believe that the Libertarian Party of the United States addresses all the issues you bring up. By principle, the Libertarian Party opposes excessive regulation and taxes, as well as advocates the granting of significantly more immigration visas to get highly educated and innovative immigrants. It is also for more innovation and diversity in the realm of education. The Party advocates the restoration of the right for parents to choose what school they want their children to attend.

From their website (lp.org):

3. Tear down barriers to entrepreneurism and economic growth

Almost everyone agrees that a job is better than any welfare program. Yet for years this country has pursued tax and regulatory policies that seem perversely designed to discourage economic growth and reduce entrepreneurial opportunities. Someone starting a business today needs a battery of lawyers just to comply with the myriad of government regulations from a virtual alphabet soup of government agencies: OSHA, EPA, FTC, CPSC, etc. Zoning and occupational licensing laws are particularly damaging to the type of small businesses that may help people work their way out of poverty.

In addition, government regulations such as minimum wage laws and mandated benefits drive up the cost of employing additional workers. We call for the repeal of government regulations and taxes that are steadily cutting the bottom rungs off the economic ladder.

Robert – read something about politics before you go off about it. Both presidential candidates have addressed this issue. There are scads of pundits and political consultants on both sides of the aisle that regularly bring this up. There are entire special interest groups and blogs devoted to this concept with considerable funding and readership.

Step outside your bubble and do some research before you speak, instead of parroting what folks you interview tell you. It’s just as bad as copying and pasting a press release.

Robert:

I think you have some great points to make regarding the need for broader discussion about the topic of innovation. I mus, however, take issue with the premise (and snarky repetition) that such subjects are not being discussed in the broader context of the political debate in this country.

The fact of the matter is that numerous politicians around the country have addressed the need for greater focus on innovation as a concept, and have supported their bullet points by contributing significant policy pieces to the larger discussion. A cross-sectional review of campaign websites reveals various levels of support of the idea of “innovation” through increased education funding, energy independence research, green technology job retraining, etc.

The problem, as I see it, is that private sector leaders such as yourself and those who follow your work are not stepping up to the plate and becoming actively involved in the campaigns’ efforts to reach the greater population. As a former campaign veteran I can tell you, if the industry and thought leaders are there pushing the issue with a particular campaign, the campaign will focus on it. That can include giving money to a particular campaign that “gets it” and can move things forward vs. one that pushes a status quo agenda.

Politics is not rocket science. It is about relationships, just like what you and other industry/thought leaders do every day. The problem is that too many people with a “public voice” would rather sit back and blog/vlog/speak about the issue; rather than actively become engaged at a meaningful level in the political process. It is easy to see what happens when particular audiences are engaged (i.e. the religious right) at a meaningful level…things happen and agendas are established. When people don’t take the initiative to engage with campaigns and their supporting organizations (the committees) at the state and national levels, they should not expect that the overall idea of “innovation” as a key priority will ever reach the level they purportedly expect.

In short, I challenge everyone who reads your post to really think about whether they are personally putting their own skin in the game by becoming actively involved with the idea of establishing “innovation” at all levels as a national priority. Or, alternatively, are they just bitching and moaning about it? My guess is that everyone could “step it up” and raise their level of true commitment above what they are doing now.

Scott Foval
ScottsBigMouth
http://www.scottsbigmouth.com / http://offthebus.ning.com/profile/ScottFoval
scott@foval.com

Scoble

as both a Democrat and a techie, what do you you think about Meg Whitman (of ebay) and Carly Fiorina (of hp) speaking at the Republican National Convention

Scott: fair enough. I’ve gone to Washington and invested a bit of my time on learning about this issue and done lots of interviews about it, with more to come.

redfish: it’s pretty common for execs in Silicon Valley to be Republican (same thing I saw at Microsoft). Business executives see in their faces every day the pressure to be profitable and the costs that taxes and other regulations have on their businesses. I’m used to CEOs doing this, even as they form bedfellows with the religious social conservatives. I wonder if they too are religious, or if they simply hold their noses around those types?

Mark “Rizzn”: I go to http://www.memeorandum.com/ and I don’t see a single word about science, technology, or innovation. Here it is in between our two political conventions and we’re talking about lots of other stuff. So, I guess you are reading something I’m not. Our nation is NOT focused on these issues. If you think it is, can you please pass the bong?

Robert,

When the so-called ‘Reagan coalition’ was originally built, I think everyone was on board together, because many older business leaders feel that standing on values and morals helped them build up their companies succeed in the business world. Also a lot of these older business people are sort of like Ross Perot, who had all of his employees wear suits and shave their beards, and demanded a work ethic—think of IBM before the 80s. Perot as I know isn’t that strongly social conservative but was a strong proponent of the drug war. I think its sort of different today, and people involved in business now are quite a bit more libertarian, and want the hands of government off of everything

But I think it has to be pointed out that not everyone thats socially conservative are fundamentalist types like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. There are a lot of people who are on the conservative side of the spectrum on social issues who have legitimate points of view and their politics isn’t scary.

Hi Robert,

I am the co-founder of the Tech Policy Summit conference…I’ve been meaning to contact you and this post is a great reminder. We’ll be debating this issue, and others like it, at our next Summit in 2009. If you’re interested in being part of the program, we’d like to have you there. It’s March 23-25 in San Mateo (so no plane flight required for you!).

I’ll email you as well, but I thought I’d ask you in public since that’s where you spend most of your time.

For the record, because we get asked about this, we’re not affiliated with any political party, trade association, lobbying group, etc. The Summit is strictly nonpartisan. We’re *just* a startup that produces tech events.

Mitch Kapor, Esther Dyson, David Hornik, John Chen, Craig Newmark, Chris Shipley, Kim Polese, Reid Hoffman and Prith Banerjee have agreed to volunteer for our 2009 advisory board, and we’re looking forward to creating an event that sparks discussion…and action!

We’re still in the early planning stages on the agenda, but I hope you can participate as a speaker. Feel free to DM me on Twitter at TechPolicy.

Thanks,
Natalie

Judging by the talking points both sides have decided on, through focus groups and the nature of our sound bite culture, it seems they think the public is just too dumb to handle discussions of science, technology and innovation.

While I agree with you that this SHOULD be a top issue and not a bullet point in a pamphlet, I have seen enough of “the public” to know that the politicians might just be right on the money with their assessment of what the lowest common denominator in our country can handle a lengthy discussion about.

I saw a woman this week on CNN, when asked if she knew who John McCain picked as his running mate, answer Barack Obama.

I’ve seen a ton of other such people representing what the politicians refer to as “hard working Americans” handle similar types of questions with some of the most outrageous answers you can imagine.

So, SHOULD we be talking about innovation and keeping America in the forefront? Absolutely. Can the average American handle anything beyond a debate over creationism vs. science? Sadly, I think not.

Apparently, the politicians and focus groups think the same way.

Promote innovation? This is not hard at all. Get the government out of the way. Abolish IP law. Lower taxes. Abolish regulations. That’s the only thing that will do it.

Great post. Although I would like to mention to some that “talking points” on a politicians website do not constitute a discussion about the issue.

I’m pretty sure that the policies for Obama look a lot like: If it moves, tax it!

McCain isn’t much better but I think his administration would be more likely to hold the line on bigger government.

Our current rate of growth in government is unsustainable. We can wait till the system colapses, or we can fix it now. Sooner the better as far as I’m concerned. I don’t normally hawk my blog here, but these two videos (not by me) have SOME ideas thta might address the problems you raise. I’m quite sure the “change” Obama talks about doesn’t look anything like this… if it did, I’d probably vote for him.

http://www.youtube.com/user/DanDyer4

Actually, that’s a direct link to the video, I bypassed my blog entry.

The problem is that nearly everyone is sitting around waiting for others to take the lead on these roles.

It ain’t gonna happen, people!

Look in the mirror. Look at your kid’s classrooms. Look at what schools have to work with. We have succumbed to the notion of hands-off education. We have suffered from a generation of teachers who thought they knew more than the rest of the working world.

So we protect our kids from ideas. We protect our people from experimenting. We legislate all sorts of things such as how large a ham radio tower you can erect in your back yard, what chemicals you can buy over the counter, where you work on your car, change your oil –we’re even trying to legislate what one can do with one’s own computer with the DMCA.

So people lack the enthusiasm of innovation. Busybody protective laws have killed interest in anything technical for kids. They’d rather engage with online games and pretend play. They’re not stupid, they know that technically inclined people are nerds who will never be in charge. And what does media emphasize? Leadership!

There are many flavors of leadership and they don’t have to be in business.

When was the last time your kids made a kite and flew it? Have your children ever been to a small airport to see the airplanes? Have your children tried making a hologram? Looking for sunspots? Exploring the airwaves on a short-wave radio?

And then we sit around wondering why we don’t have innovation… It’s not about money. It’s about giving your time and sharing your experience with children.

The problem isn’t that politicians don’t want innovation. It’s that we’ve let them kill it before it even had a chance to happen.

The power of innovation at this point in history really hits home if one has been fortunate enough to visit a place such as Beijing. And it’s not just China, India, and Brazil who are coursing ahead at full steam — even “staid” old Europe is racing to innovate. Every other nation on earth sees innovation as the key to its future and thus it is a daily, national priority. Americans who haven’t seen it for themselves have no idea how fast the global race has become.

In my opinion, the greatest gift any American could give himself or herself right now — particularly Americans in any position of responsibility or influence — is to find a way to travel overseas and see it in person. Take the next plane. And take the next generation with you.

By allowing our public schools to compete in a free market for the best and brightest; by eliminating any form of affirmative action; and by creating scholarships based on intelligence rather than need we can easily regain our spot as top innovators.

This is a tough;especially with a huge % of our population still in the, “creation” versus “evolution” debate. A huge block just does not want innovation, unless of course it is framed as competition.

I think this might be what is necessary – harness our jingoistic instincts towards innovation instead winning wars and sporting events.

Mr. Scoble, you may be interested in my recent monograph, Against Intellectual Property. A free, online PDF can be found here Mr. Scoble, you may be interested in my recent monograph, Against Intellectual Property. A free, online PDF can be found here. I’m a practicing patent attorney, and a pro-free market, pro-innovation, pro-property rights libertarian. As I explain in my monograph, I believe abolishing the patent system is one step towards promoting innovation and freedom; and as a libertarian, I would argue that abolishing taxes, regulation, and indeed the state itself, are the only ways to really create an environment that permits innovation to flourish.. I’m a practicing patent attorney, and a pro-free market, pro-innovation, pro-property rights libertarian. As I explain in my monograph, I believe abolishing the patent system is one step towards promoting innovation and freedom; and as a libertarian, I would argue that abolishing taxes, regulation, and indeed the state itself, are the only ways to really create an environment that permits innovation to flourish.

[last post formatting messed up--re-doing] Mr. Scoble, you may be interested in my recent monograph, Against Intellectual Property. A free, online PDF can be found here. I’m a practicing patent attorney, and a pro-free market, pro-innovation, pro-property rights libertarian. As I explain in my monograph, I believe abolishing the patent system is one step towards promoting innovation and freedom; and as a libertarian, I would argue that abolishing taxes, regulation, and indeed the state itself, are the only ways to really create an environment that permits innovation to flourish.

Thanks for the ideas.I love this site and it was very helpful.

The main problem is that for a number of reasons the technical professions don’t go into politics – its noticeable that lawyers predominate – I remember discussing some new employment laws that where coming in and the General Consul I was talking to pointed out some of the areas of the law where there where major areas un certainty and he commented well makes works for their mates in the legal profession.

Politicians love to paint them selves as modern and certainly in the UK have a naive view of the ability of technology to solve soft human problems look at the blind faith in identity cards, child databases the Tony Blair and his followers have.

If you would like a transcript (rough) of the interview with some summary thoughts you can go here:

http://timbauer.bauerfive.com/2008/09/05/judy-estrin-author-the-four-keys-of-innovation/

From my view she was dead on. I look at my three boys (under 11) and ponder what will inspire them into the science and tech fields. Unless I shoulder the burden I suspect it will not come from schools and ambient experiences.

Robert, you REALLY need to avoid political topics. It’s the easiest way to expose your ignorance. Please cite the Article or Amendment in the Constitution where is says it is either the President’s or the Federal Govt’s responsibility to establish “policies on innovation”. I don’t even know what the hell that means from a political perspective. Check that, it sounds like more govt. regulation and higher taxes. Thank God they aren’t talking about it, then. This is something left to the free market.

“Unless I shoulder the burden I suspect it will not come from schools and ambient experiences.”

What’s bad about you shouldering the “burden”?. It sure as hell isn’t the President’s or the Federal Govt’s responsibility. Not sure what leads you to believe it won’t be taught in schools.