Zibb

Ed SperlingOffering news and business analysis for the design engineer, Managing News Editor Suzanne Deffree filters the electronics industry's developments and trends to explain how what's happening in the board room today can impact the tech innovation of tomorrow.



   Advertisement

Profile

RSS Feed

  • Add this blog to your RSS newsreader!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Most Commented On

Archives

By Category

News Center Articles

Blog

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Obama wins, gives nod to tech

Nov 5 2008 9:01AM | Permalink |Comments (22) |


At some point around 11:30pm eastern last night, it became clear that Democrat Barack Obama would be named the United States' president elect when the final electoral votes were in.

And, after a very gracious concession speech from his opponent Republican John McCain, Obama took the stage in Chicago just after midnight where he in turn made gracious comments and specific points of McCain's sacrifices for this country.

Obama even gave a nod to tech in his victory speech. Making example of Ann Nixon Cooper, a106-year-old voter in Atlanta, and describing the change that has come to the US over the last century, the 44th president said:

"A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination. And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote. …"

I slept well last night. Not because of the final outcome, not because glass broke all over Washington as Americans voted in their first minority president, but because many, many of the races were very close thanks to the long lines of Americans who in a time of war and financial crisis celebrated their freedom yesterday and voiced their opinions on how the US should move forward.

Don't let the electoral votes fool you. While Obama ended the night with 338 electoral votes to McCain's 163, giving the Illinois senator more than the 270 electoral votes needed to win, this morning's poll results show approximately 52% of the popular vote went to Obama and 46% to McCain. Figure in a 3% margin of error and see just how tight the race was.

And you, readers of this blog, have also proved how close this election was within our tech ecosystem. All of the vote 2008 entries made to this blog saw comments from both Obama and McCain supporters. And you brought their campaigns into tech perspective, discussing the H-1B visa system, R&D funding, and the multitude of other issues that could be affected in the next four years.

Watching CNN and NBC last night while scanning headlines on my iPod touch, the public's excitement was evident. News broadcasts and stories compared the enthusiasm exhibited by Obama supporters to the Kennedy years, calling this election a point of "profound change" for America, saying it "energized" the nation and demonstrated a "return to greater public involvement" in the government and election systems.

Greater involvement was among the points George Scalise, president of the Semiconductor Industry Association and member of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, made in an October interview with EDN on ensuring US tech leadership through policy action.  In that interview, I asked what the average engineer can do to encourage better policies for tech innovation. Scalise responded by encouraging engineers to seek out their representative to make tech's case and also encouraged greater involvement in bipartisan trade organizations like the SIA (these statements were cut from final article because of space restraints).

Are you energized? Do you believe that change -- better funding for STEM education, tax credits, immigration reform that supports US tech and science leadership, etc -- can be brought about through the everyday engineer's involvement in government processes? Share your opinions on the elections and their potential impact on tech below.


Reader Comments



at 11/5/2008 1:47:12 PM, Duane said:
Yes, we need more government telling us how to do things. They have been so helpful. If you believe that Obama or McCain would help tech, watch the skies as the pigs will be flying tonight.... :-)

We have business sending jobs offshore at a awesome rate but we keep wanting to stick it to the rich. How many bums created jobs last year?



at 11/5/2008 1:56:19 PM, Ralph M said:
Where did you learn civics? A president is not "named" - he or she is elected. A huge difference. As for the difference of roughly 6% that separated Obama from McCain in the actual, counted votes of Americans, THERE IS NO MARGIN OF ERROR. This isn't a poll, it is a vote, and in fact, the margin of victory in votes cast was the largest since Clinton soundly defeated Dole by roughly 8 million votes in 1996. Obama's win was not a landslide, but as presidential elections go, his margin of 7 million votes was more than twice as big as Bush's victory over Kerry in 2004 (Bush, of course, lost the popular vote to Gore in 2000).

Anyway, you might want to go back to 4th grade and get a refresher on these social study basics.



at 11/5/2008 1:56:32 PM, Jarvis said:
As I recall, JFK never told us how to put a man on the moon. He simply set the goal and set about getting the funds.

If BHO were to empanel a science and technology commission--and they were to recommend policy regarding energy uses, sources and distribution, and they were able to deal with the fiction of anthropomorphic global warming, and we properly incented domestic research once again, it could be a whole new ballgame.

The question is, will the new administration have the vision to set such a course?

Ever dollar Kennedy spent on NASA fed $10 into the economy.





at 11/5/2008 1:58:11 PM, Jarvis said:
Oh.. and said panel needs to be made up of scientists and engineers--NOT politicians!



at 11/5/2008 2:10:45 PM, Dave said:
The most important words in his victory speech to show what lies ahead are "We may not be able to do this in one year, or even one term..."

Meaning: "Don't expect this to happen soon, if ever."



at 11/5/2008 2:10:51 PM, Slow Old Poop said:
Maybe Obama will actually honor one of his campaign promises to establish a national health plan. As a layoff victim, and currently paying $1200 a month for a COBRA, I welcome such a plan. I don't want anybody to GIVE me anything...just make it possible for me to BUY a health plan. As it is now, in a little more than a year, I'll be without health insurance--unless I find a job.



at 11/5/2008 2:11:03 PM, Policebox said:
When will you people realize that who or what is to blame for global warming doesn't matter. It is here, it is real. The questions are: will we be comfortable with the results (probably not) and can we do anything about it. The answer to the last is yes. By reducing CO2 emissions we can at least slow it down so that we and the rest of nature has time to adapt. If we are the cause, we can reverse it.



at 11/5/2008 2:25:08 PM, leftover PCBs said:
You all have it wrong!!Stop complaining and jump on the Free ride band wagon. Forget hi-tech embrace no-tech. remember we are all going to share in the wealth. And we are going to scare you into voting for more free stuff 4 years from now.



at 11/5/2008 2:40:14 PM, george said:
Yes, I am for many reason not the least of which is that I hope the constitutional rights of Americans ( all Americans ) will be protected for the rest four years. And yes by the way health care is the right for the people and is a great competitve advantage for our US businesses. And finally, the goverment always funded development in US through Darpa. We may be able to do the same through some non military investment too. I hope that such an investment will happen and will revitalize the economy and the engineering profession



at 11/5/2008 2:48:11 PM, rebuttal said:
If global warming were man-made then logic would suggest that man could undo it. The logic that if man-made CO2 emissions didn''t cause it that still somehow by reducing those very same emissions that it could reverse it is certainly not sound reasoning (i.e. it borders on lunacy). Pehaps a more accurate syllogism is that because global warming and its associated hysteria are in fact caused by political forces, then indeed politicians ought to be able to correct the problem. The fallacy in this logic is that there is no impetus for the politicians to do away with the myth of global warming. There is simply too much power, money, and control involved in promulgating the frenzy.



at 11/5/2008 2:51:26 PM, StarDisk said:
The Democrats owe big payola to Silicon Valley giants. So, you can be sure that the H1B floodgates will open wide along with "pathway to citizenship" for 12-20M illegals. You think your wages are surpressed now, just wait and you will be one of those getting a tax handout insteand of earning enough to pay taxes. And, like my 1400 SAT son who thankfully refused to study engineering because, "I can't compete with all those H1Bs." Forget about homegrown talent as they will not see the reward waiting at the end of the hard work. Got a ticket to Australia anyone?




at 11/5/2008 3:06:51 PM, H1B said:
For those who forgot how America becomes such a great powerhouse of Science and technology: Immigrant is it. At least, that is how it was started.



at 11/5/2008 3:27:27 PM, Ed said:
Kudos to StarDisk; all those illegals are democrats ready to hatch -- no incentive for the Dems to seal the border. As an older engineer I see Obama as a smooth talking pied piper who has enchanted the young'uns into electing him. Unless he can surprise me and back up his rhetoric with wise appointments to his administration I fear we will all have to pay this piper.



at 11/5/2008 4:44:59 PM, Waiting2See said:
No matter whether you voted for Obama, McCain, Nader, or whoever...it's clear that the expectations for Obama are incredibly high. He will be under exceptional scrutiny, probably more so than any president in history. If he can live up to half of what he promised, then we'll be a better country. For the sake of the USA, I can only hope that he hasn't overcommitted. The consequences of not delivering on promises are not trivial.



at 11/5/2008 6:59:44 PM, Kate W said:
I agree with Waiting2See. The author asks if you are willing to get involved and fix the problems and most of the comments instead carp and nitpick. Pathetic. No wonder this country is so screwed. And Bush was NAMED not elected.



at 11/5/2008 7:47:44 PM, Russ said:
Yes we can.....here''s the thing the Manhattan project figured out how to harness the power of the atom and put it to horrific use. It also taught us how to use it for peaceful purposes in what is arguably the ideal power source - quiet clean, plentiful and safe.

Kennedy set a goal to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. The government and industry put both oars in the water and on July 20th 1969 Neil Armstrong stepped on the lunar surface.

These are nothing short of amazing accomplishments. We were determined to acocmpish these things as a people, as a nation.....and we did.

Just imagine if we put that kind of effort into developing technologes to achieve energy independence. I have no doubt that "Yes we can".....and will.

Now here is the basic problem. All the indicators tell us that kids just aren''t becoming those scientists and engineers we need in the long term to achieve these goals. They are more interested in being lawyers, doctors and <gasp> bankers. That brings us to the second thing that needs to happen. We need to instill that wonder in kids today that many of you probably experienced somewhere along the line to want to be the nerds that you are. That could be the largest challenge of all.

Attendant to that, it should not be a surprise to any of you that the "H1B floodgates" are opening. The talent pool appears to be a little shallow these days. Besides, where else can you get a guy, who wants out of his country, with a PhD for the price of an associates degree? That, of course, might be a third thing we need to focus on correcting in the near term. How to make companies think about something other than how they are going to make ever more profit that next quarter.



at 11/6/2008 6:19:12 AM, 4Liberty said:
A right to health care and a right to science and technology subsidies? Why don't we make it clear that such "rights" really represent the right to be a parasite and force others to sacrifice for your benefit? This is not what our forefathers had in mind and it certainly isn't what made this country the most prosperous in history. I guess we're in for another hard lesson in economics and history.



at 11/6/2008 1:57:56 PM, H1B said:
Just to build on what was commented yesterday. Without those German rocket scientists, we would have not being able to get to the moon as fast as we did.



at 11/6/2008 3:00:24 PM, theDagda said:
I guess fear mongering knows no social/economic/professional level. How sad.

BTW - just how is someone with a H1B Visa an illegal immigrant? Course, who am I to question it; I'm the "hatchling" of those g-d Irish immigrants from the late 1800s. My ancestors stole coal mining jobs from hard working "true Americans".

The more things change, the more things stay the same.



at 11/7/2008 6:44:41 PM, Russ said:
I would like to say to ''4Liberty'' that the right to healthcare is something that should indeed be the right of all Americans. With nearly 40 million people without healthcare (and oh by the way lots of working Americans don''t have healthcare through their employers and can''t afford it any other way). I think if you opened up a history book, other than the one you read in 4th grade, you might discover that we are the only industrialized nation on earth that has no system of healthcare that makes provisions for EVERYONE to to be able to access that care. It isn''t a matter of being a parasite. It''s a matter of the common good. The benefit of ALL. There is more to this life than just YOU. A society is measured by its ability to take care of ALL of its citizens. If that were truly the measure we would fail miserably. The reason our health care system is the way it is really is no mystery - it''s money. Money to the pharmaceutical companies who rape the insurance companies of this country with outragsoue drug costs, hospitals throwing people out in the street for their inability to pay, doctors practicing medicine based on what the insurance company will or will not pay for.

It''s not unlike the realization Alan Greenspan came to with regard to the horrific financial bind the USA and the rest of the world find themselves in today. Alan underestimated the force of greed in the marketplace. When profits are your god, everything else be damned and that includes you and me.

The system is broke. And it''s not getting any better. So......when do we decide to change it?



at 11/9/2008 8:26:42 PM, babyBoomer said:
> george said: I hope the constitutional rights of Americans ( all Americans ) will be protected for the rest four years.

With Obama, they only count as Americans after they breath their first breath, and then only if they are "wanted." Until then they can be tortured for stem cell cures or simply discarded. How barbaric.



at 11/15/2008 6:30:40 AM, H1B said:
When it comes to health care, There are projects that can only be taken cared of by the government. Rights and responsibilities are tied together. For the sick and elderly with no incomes and no family support, the government should lend a helping hand. For those who are able to work and not motivated to earn a living and health care, It is also government''s responsibility not to provide free hand outs. In terms of subsidies for Science and technology, I submit that Corporate CEO''s are not in a position to invest in long-term R&D with high-risk. The corporate world is set up such that CEO and CFO''s are slaves to the stock market. Their frame of mind is how to boost the stock price for next quarter, not how to achieve the scientific greatness for the country. Take home message: The government does have a role to play. However, the role should not have been meddling in how the loan should be given out, and how the GM of the world will survive the next year. The greatness of the capitalist society lie in the fact that we allow the weak corporate entities to die, if they have out-lived their time. They have the opportunity to reinvent themselves for their own viability. If the government keeps bailing out inefficient companies like the Big Three, this looks very much like the communist countries in China back in 1970’s. We should ask ourselves the following question: Is this the world we want to live in?

Post a comment



Display Name

Change Image
Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above.
Note the letters are NOT case sensitive.


ADVERTISEMENT

©1997-2009 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Please visit these other Reed Business sites