04.30.09
Why the United States is Likely Last to Migrate to Free Software
God bless Microsoft?
Summary: Another closer look at the issue of Microsoft intersection with US politics
Microsoft is already close to the Democratic Party [1, 2, 3]. It smoothly realigned itself after the parties had swapped positions*. Some days ago we saw Obama putting a FOSS-hostile person from Microsoft inside the Technology Advisory Panel and now we are seeing this:
Does experience at Microsoft make for a good politician?
State Rep. Ross Hunter, a former Microsoft general manager, announced today that he’s running for King County Executive, competing against four other candidates for the position. He’s one of many former Microsofties now in the political arena — and he’s pointing to his experience at the Redmond company as a major selling point
We’ve already covered what some people call the "Microsoft religion" and others call the Microsoft "political movement". It’s a huge subject that we’ve explored in many dozens of posts already and to give just example, Bill Gates’ father, who has connections with the BSA, is doing quite a lot politically. Last month we saw the BSA lobbying the government to put corporations in charge of security. Coincidentally, around the very same time, a Microsoft employee was put in change somewhere at the DHS (Department of Homeland Security).
There are other examples of Microsoft people in the US government. And this is why — as the title already stated — the United States is likely to be last to migrate to Free software. █
______
* Not as a matter of rule, to the best of my understanding, the United States virtually relies on one big party (the business party) which comprises two separate factions (blue and red, just like the flag). The party rallies the two sides at the same time and funds them handsomely to take turns and run PR campaigns with prospective leaders serving as icons, brands/slogans, or even mere symbols, whose role more of less resembles that of the Queen of England. A lot of the impact comes from behind the leadership, so while the two sides do take turn (illusion of choice), votes never receive a real opportunity to elect decision-makers. Information as seen on TV (also owned by big business) assures that a barrier is installed before those who challenge the status quo of this unbalanced system.
JohnD said,
April 30, 2009 at 8:14 pm
While the Federal government wields considerable influence – the states still control their own destinies. Any state is free to make it’s own IT decisions see:
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2195494/massachusetts-settles-odf-vs
IF the “business party” does make the rules – it’s because of voter apathy, not design or foul play. The US constitution provides a basis for states and/or the general public to completely bypass the President and Congress – it’s the same tool that was used to ratify the Constitution in the first place.
aeshna23 said,
May 1, 2009 at 8:52 am
I suppose if one ignores the news, has paranoid delusions, and lives in a fantasy world, one could come to such a conclusion. In the real world, the two parties have vastly different agendas and both parties have large power groups that have nothing to do with big business. The social conservatives have much more power in the Republican Party than I would like, and while the crypto-socialist of the Democratic Party instinctually like large, powerful organization while denying they do, they are certainly not friends of big business.
And, anyway, the group in America most likely to create political pressure in America for FOSS and oppose software patents is big business, since businesses would rather not be paying the Microsoft tax. So even if this paranoid fantasy version of American politics were true, it would be in the interest of Linux.
Roy Schestowitz Reply:
May 1st, 2009 at 9:13 am
And again, who do you think funds and runs these parties?
JohnD Reply:
May 1st, 2009 at 11:36 am
I didn’t realize a British national was so plugged in to US politics.
Why major corporations do fund politics, there are limits on just how much they can legally contribute. Also they usually fund both sides in an effort to curry favor regardless of the winner. Getting caught taking money in exchange for political favors can carry a high price tag ie Abramoff, the bone head from Ohio who tried to sell Obama’s seat, the dude from Alaska.
Eric Blair said,
May 1, 2009 at 3:23 pm
> I suppose if one ignores the news, has paranoid delusions, and lives in a fantasy world, one could come to such a conclusion. In the real world, the two parties have vastly different agendas and both parties have large power groups that have nothing to do with big business.
Since the ‘news’ is largely written by big business it would support the supposed liberal/conservative contest. But as here where we have a ‘labor’ party acting largely for the interests of big business, the dialogue is largely bogus. It don’t matter who gets in, it’ll be business as usual. Most bad for democracy.
Roy Schestowitz Reply:
May 1st, 2009 at 3:29 pm
I didn’t want to turn this into deeper political discussions, but someone has just mailed me “how business is really done in Washington”, saying that: