Senate Sources Say CTO Confirmation a Done Deal 111
theodp writes "On Tuesday, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation will examine the nomination of Aneesh Chopra as the first-ever federal Chief Technology Officer. Senate sources said they were not aware of any debate surrounding his nomination. You'd think the hack-for-$10-million-ransom of Virginia's Prescription Monitoring Program might be good for a question or two. Or the wisdom of appointing a CTO who's no technologist. It might also be worth bringing up Chopra's membership in TiE-DC, a group which promises 'exclusive peer networking events' with government officials and Federal contractors, including TiE-DC sponsor Microsoft. Are there any other issues that might make the Confirmation Hearing more than a rubber-stamping?"
ODF? (Score:4, Insightful)
As a Brit, this appointment won't affect me directly. But indirectly US Government policy has an important global effect. I'll be watching closely to see whether ODF becomes widely used as a document format by the US Federal Government.
The ODF Alliance have welcomed the appointment [odfalliance.org], as have Tim O'Reilly [oreilly.com] and a host of other people [blogs.com] so I'm hopeful that it will turn out to be a good thing
Seriously... (Score:1, Insightful)
Is there no way you could have written a more biased, uninformed summary? Geesh...
It's submissions like this that bring down the quality of slashdot.
Should and will are different (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the question is not are there issues that prevent a rubber stamp, but are there issues that SHOULD prevent a rubber stamp. What happens in Congress and what Congress is supposed to do are 2 different things. Politically, I think this is viewed as a fringe issue few will care about, so no ones wants to rock the popular Obama boat challenging it.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Rubberstamp (Score:3, Insightful)
Dude, Congress ignored illegal wiretaps, Bush signing statements, being lied to about Iraq, and torture. But they did find time [go.com] to have hearings on the Bowl Championship Series playoff system.
Do you think they really give a f*ck about something substantial?
Re:ODF? (Score:2, Insightful)
"Or the wisdom of appointing a CTO who's no technologist."
That's all I need to read to know the following:
-US tech policy will go to the highest bidder.
-That nationalized EMR database? Virginia*50.
-The ODF standard that you're talking about? Open Document Format? "Microsoft has one, and it's perfectly fine."
-Rubber stamping? Nothing to stop this one. With control of the senate in Dem hands, they won't waste time questioning whoever the pres appoints. Even if the Reps were the majority, I don't think anyone in the Senate understands that the internet is anything other than a series of tubes.
Oh - from TFA: "Chopra concedes that he's not an expert on the inner workings of technical systems. 'What I brought to the table was an understanding of the capabilities of new technologies and how they might advance a particular agenda,' he said."
That quote tells me: While he says he's not a tech guy, he thinks he knows more about the tech's potential than those implementing it. That's lovely.
I'm hopeful that I'm wrong. I'll stand up and say that I'm wrong happily if I am.
CxO (Score:4, Insightful)
I think "knowing anything at all about what you're doing" stopped being a requirement for executive positions around the time of Worldcom's collapse... at least if you go by public statements by major corporate executives since then.
Re:Paranoid much? (Score:3, Insightful)
The Indian part does not bother me, the Microsoft part does.
Re:ODF? (Score:5, Insightful)
While I am not a supporter of any particular person, I think a CTO doesnt need to be a specialist but should have the breadth of understanding across a range of issues around technologies, have the strong analytical sense so that he or she can organize problems and solutions in a structure that makes decision making possible. I think it is structured thinking and a demonstrated love for technology that are important not advanced knowledge of a particular focussed discipline.
The real truth... (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting. Why do you believe that?
Because the truth of the matter is twofold:
a) First Democrats were terrified of losing everything in the wake of 9/11. Up until the invasion of Iraq, their strategy was to try and out Republican the Republicans on national security. And, the American people were -super- pissed off. There was a poll that came out just after 9/11 that showed that 90% of all Americans favored the use of nuclear weapons in Afghanistan. Despite the whole classroom incident, Bush on the rubble at the WTC with the megaphone was one of the greatest moments of any President in our lifetime, so great, frankly, that he milked that one moment for the rest of his term without ever really living up to it again.
You have to remember that if Democrats go lefty after 9/11, they might lose the Senate worse than they did. In those days, a Republican veto proof majority meant that Social Security becomes privatized. With the stakes that high, there's really no limit to what the Democrats would do to save their baby.
b) Democrats are actually patriots too, and they might have actually felt betrayed. Let's remember that in the 1990s American policy towards Islam was continually conciliatory in hopes of reaching out. We swept a bunch of terrorist attacks under the rug, pushed for a Palestinian state, looked the other way when Saddam cheated the sanctions, let Pakistan become completely islamified and ignored crackdowns in Saudi Arabia and Iran, and finally we bombed the wrong side in the balkans war, to do a favor to the muslims.
All of this brought us nothing, but 9/11. So yeah, they were in a political climate where they felt they had to be ruthless, or lose everything.
Why Open Things Up fopr Debate? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you thought the Republicans did a lot of damage controlling the Executive and Legislative, just wait. The Democrats have an opportunity here with the overwhelming majority to do far more. For all of you scientists out there you are going to get a crash course in faith because that is about the only thing we can have that bad does not become worse over the next two or more years. We certainly don't have any control or checks or balances.
Understand that this is not a Republican vs Democrat rant. I don't trust any of them to look out for the good of the nation. That's why I am deeply concerned about any one party dominating government.
Re:Why Open Things Up fopr Debate? (Score:0, Insightful)
Understand that this is not a Republican vs Democrat rant
I understand. The Republicans screwed some things up when they had this, but the Democrats will REALLY screw things up, and we should be REALLY worried. Yup, that's apolicital.
Re:Why Open Things Up fopr Debate? (Score:3, Insightful)
I doubt that the Democrats could top the Republicans in starting an unneeded war, cutting taxes for the rich by $1 trillion, embarking on a $50 billion (unfunded) Medicare prescription drug program, illegal wiretapping, torture, outing a CIA agent for political gain, allowing North Korea to gets tehs nukes, ban stem cell research, make political affiliation a criteria for selection of Department of Justice employees, or unrestricted instances of extraordinary rendition.
Should Chopra Clarify His Position on Offshoring? (Score:3, Insightful)
Since the White House said Chopra will be creating jobs and reducing health care costs [whitehouse.gov], it seems a question or two about his involvement with Healthaxis should be asked. In 2005, Chopra took a seat on the Board of Healthaxis [findarticles.com], which was brokered as part of an offshoring deal [sec.gov] that required Healthaxis to throw offshoring work to an investor's BPO company in an effort to reduce the costs of its Utah and Jamaica resources [sec.gov]. At the time of his 2006 resignation, Healthaxis reported to the SEC that Chopra, who also sat on the firm's Compensation Committee, had 'no disagreement [sec.gov] with the Company on any matter'.
Re:ODF? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why Open Things Up fopr Debate? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ODF? (Score:3, Insightful)
While I am not a supporter of any particular person, I think a CTO doesnt need to be a specialist but should have the breadth of understanding across a range of issues around technologies, have the strong analytical sense so that he or she can organize problems and solutions in a structure that makes decision making possible. I think it is structured thinking and a demonstrated love for technology that are important not advanced knowledge of a particular focussed discipline.
This is the usual argument in support of the proposition that management is a generic skill that can be applied to any area of endeavor without specific expertise in that domain. In practice, a high level manager of technology with no technology background will be a disaster every time.
The poster child for this is John Sculley, parachuted in from Pepsi to be CEO of Apple and nearly driving it into the ground. There are many other examples. Color me highly skeptical of the proposition that management without understanding ever makes sense. At best, a nontechnical CTO will try to get by with good advice. But this is inefficient, and no substitute for first hand knowledge. Furthermore, management by committee as this strategy amounts to tends to degenerate into a scramble to serve non-technical, you could say political, issues, pushing good technological policy to the side.
Imagine how a country might fare at war if civilians were its generals.
Re:More centralization! (Score:3, Insightful)
Except freedom to keep most of what we earn, unfortunately.
Move to Sweden, then complain about taxes.
Most Americans wouldn't know real taxation if it came up and bit their faces off.
Re:The real truth... (Score:1, Insightful)
What color is the sky in your world? Sheesh, cherry-picking geopolitical events to fit your wierd-ass narrative is hardly insightful, moderators.
Islam isn't a monolith, your claimed greatest photo-op mention is virtually never politically mentioned by historians or the media, you ignore a decade of declining US stature and the economic damage parallels between USSR-Afghanistan and US-Iraq wars, torture, blue dogs and RINOs, the religious right's influence on politics, plagues, stripmining the oceans and droughts, peak oil, flattening of world economics, trade expansions, oligarchs, Putin, Turkey vs. kurds, Dubai and UAE economics, the entire pacific rim, China, the second wave of capitalistic internet...
and yet you found time to decide that wars in the Balkans were about doing a favor for muslims.
Seriously, if the sky is pink where you live and the shipping costs aren't too steep, I've got some wicked biotechnology plans that don't work well under a blue sky.