Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Open Source Foes In Bed With Abramoff

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the perpetrating-a-fraud dept.

230

Will Rodger writes, "Citizens Against Government Waste has said some highly critical things about open source software in the past. They've also pounced on supporters of the OpenDocument Format along the way. Alas, it seems their close ties to Jack Abramoff have drawn the (unfavorable) attention of Senate staff."

cancel ×

230 comments

Vote the bums out (4, Insightful)

BWJones (18351) | more than 7 years ago | (#16414735)

"What is most important, however, is that this matter is kept discreet," Abramoff wrote to a colleague at the Preston, Gates & Ellis law firm. "We do not want the opponents to think that we are trying to buy the taxpayer movement."

This comment is perhaps the most telling in that it shows that Abramoff *knew* what he was doing was wrong and that this would not even pass the sniff test.

The groups are Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform; the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, which was co-founded by Norquist and Gale Norton before she became Secretary of the Interior; Citizens Against Government Waste; the National Center for Public Policy Research, which was a spinoff of the Heritage Foundation; and Toward Tradition, a religious group founded by Abramoff friend Rabbi Daniel Lapin.

This is the sort of incestuous behavior that the current Republican and NeoCon administration encourages. Of course the whako left is not immune from this sort of behavior either, but it seems to have reached a new high in the current political climate. So, regardless of your political leanings, please recognize that this is not the way to run a democratic (small "d") government and now is the time to clean house in next months elections. I'd love to see a complete overhaul of all sitting candidates in favor for new blood, Democrat *and* Republican who can hopefully work together in a more non-partisan way to actually do something rather than continuously position and campaign.

As an aside: How many days a week are our representatives and senators actually on the job in DC? What is their work week like? Anybody here know?

Re:Vote the bums out (4, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 7 years ago | (#16414873)

I'd love to see a complete overhaul of all sitting candidates in favor for new blood, Democrat *and* Republican who can hopefully work together in a more non-partisan way to actually do something rather than continuously position and campaign.

To quote Lewis Black: "The only thing stupider than a Republican or a Democrat is when these little pricks work together."

Re:Vote the bums out (-1, Troll)

MBraynard (653724) | more than 7 years ago | (#16414909)

This is totally Democratic. There are thousands of organizations in DC representing all stripes of citizenry. They work to get people who agree with them elected and then work to help direct that policy after the elections.

There is nothing wrong with any of this - it's just the 1st amendment's right to petition the government in action. Just because you don't agree with the JEWS (that's what you mean by neocon, right - you totally give yourself away there), it doesn't mean there is anything corrupt about it.

To answer your other question, the representatives work about as much as they like to - some work furiously, others just show up and vote and take fact finding vacations. There are these types in both parties. And don't judge the official floor action as work week. During recess they are still working.

Re:Vote the bums out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16414985)

I'm so glad there's someone to reassure me that our system is working well.

I knew it was, but it still feels good to hear it.

Re:Vote the bums out (1)

BWJones (18351) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415023)

Just because you don't agree with the JEWS (that's what you mean by neocon, right - you totally give yourself away there), it doesn't mean there is anything corrupt about it.

Go to Hell. I said nothing of the sort and will not tolerate ignorant asses like yourself. NeoCon actually has a very old etymology going back to around 1921 and has no basis other than political. Read more about the origins of NeoConservatism and how it has been twisted here [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Vote the bums out (2, Insightful)

oohshiny (998054) | more than 7 years ago | (#16417179)

NeoCon actually has a very old etymology going back to around 1921

The fact that the term was used first in 1921 doesn't tell you anything about what it means today. Today, it's a useful, descriptive term that is used both by conservatives and by their opponents. Whatever political baggage it has today has been created by the neo-conservatives and their heritage from Reagan onwards.

and has no basis other than political.

Yes, indeed: we're using political terminology to describe political concepts.

But you apparently subscribe to the typical neo-conservative view that "we're right, and everybody else is wrong and trying to get in our way with politics".

Re:Vote the bums out (1)

BWJones (18351) | more than 7 years ago | (#16417327)

The fact that the term was used first in 1921 doesn't tell you anything about what it means today.

Did you read the sentence *immediately* after what I wrote? Lemme help you: "Read more about the origins of NeoConservatism and how it has been twisted here [wikipedia.org]."

But you apparently subscribe to the typical neo-conservative view that "we're right, and everybody else is wrong and trying to get in our way with politics".

I think you have me confused with someone else. Please be careful to whom you reply.

Re:Vote the bums out (1)

oohshiny (998054) | more than 7 years ago | (#16417627)

Did you read the sentence *immediately* after what I wrote? Lemme help you: "Read more about the origins of NeoConservatism and how it has been twisted here [wikipedia.org]."

Let me help you: if you write about "how a term has been twisted", then, all things being equal, you're implicitly saying that you prefer the original usage and disapprove of the modern usage. I'm saying that the modern usage is what counts; there is nothing "twisted" about the term because people today know what it means and who it refers to.

I think you have me confused with someone else. Please be careful to whom you reply.

I don't. I responded to your statements as they were and in the context they were. If I misunderstood your intent, then you simply didn't express yourself clearly enough.

Re:Vote the bums out (2, Insightful)

illegalcortex (1007791) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415043)

Just because you don't agree with the JEWS (that's what you mean by neocon, right - you totally give yourself away there)

Speaking only for myself, I have heard and used the term for quite some time before I'd ever heard the whole jewish conspiracy angle. So there's at least ONE person out there who says neocon not because they're anti-semitic, but because they need some term to distinguish between old style conservatives and new style conservatives. I think such a term is needed, as I agree on many points with old style conservatives, but far fewer with the current incarnation.

Re:Vote the bums out (3, Insightful)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415063)

This is totally Democratic. There are thousands of organizations in DC representing all stripes of citizenry. They work to get people who agree with them elected and then work to help direct that policy after the elections.

Ok, so who is representing the guy who lives paycheck to paycheck and would be homeless (along with his wife and children) if his job got outsourced? I don't know of a single lobbyist who works for free, do you?

Slow Down Cowboy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16415507)

Nobody represents that chump.

Hmmm. (1)

Duhavid (677874) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416863)

Taxation without representation......

And the names even match! Bonus!

Re:Vote the bums out (1)

Secrity (742221) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415555)

Ok, so who is representing the guy who lives paycheck to paycheck and would be homeless (along with his wife and children) if his job got outsourced? I don't know of a single lobbyist who works for free, do you?

It The group that you describe believes that the Republicans represents them -- it's who they vote for. It used to be that the labor unions lobbied for laws that would help these people.

Re:Vote the bums out (3, Insightful)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415697)

Of course, my point is that as long as money is considered free speech, it doesn't matter who is in power- those who are rich will be able to afford lobbyists, those who are middle class or poor won't; and union dues don't change that. Neither does voting- Democrats and Republicans are purchased just about equally- all choices on the ballot have been bought and paid for.

Re:Vote the bums out (1)

El Torico (732160) | more than 7 years ago | (#16417297)

Exactly.

Re:Vote the bums out (1)

megaditto (982598) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415857)

Unions.

Unions are supposed to represent paycheck-to-paycheck guys (which currently they fail to do).

Re:Vote the bums out (2, Interesting)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416197)

Only 3 out of every 100 American workers currently belongs to a union- and companies like Wal*Mart work very hard to close any retail store that tries to form one. So that is not an adequate answer.

Re:Vote the bums out (1)

megaditto (982598) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416635)

Well, maybe it's a good thing.

1) Companies get greedy and fuck up, weakening their home country.
2) Said country is relegated to the ash-heap of history.
3) A new stronger country emerges to dominate the World?

Re:Vote the bums out (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 7 years ago | (#16417113)

Say hello to Chinese communism. They seem to be poised to be the next superpower based on industrial power alone.

Re:Vote the bums out (1)

killjoe (766577) | more than 7 years ago | (#16417133)

"Ok, so who is representing the guy who lives paycheck to paycheck and would be homeless (along with his wife and children) if his job got outsourced?"

If he is a member of a union then his union is doing heavy lobbying. If he is not a member of a union then he is SOL. Those are the breaks. If you want to get anything done you need to get organized.

Jews? (0, Flamebait)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415205)

Just because you don't agree with the JEWS (that's what you mean by neocon, right - you totally give yourself away there), it doesn't mean there is anything corrupt about it.

Where in the hell did you find that in the original post?

Toward Tradition was mentioned right alongside the Heritage Foundation, which got its start from the Coors family, hardly a bastion of pro-Jewish advocacy. The fact that some of the leading lights of the Neoconservative movement are Jews doesn't mean that Neoconservatism is a Jewish movement, and it doesn't mean that pointing out financial connections between religious groups (Jewish or otherwise) and Neocons makes you an anti-Semite.

I agree with you that interest groups are part and parcel of democratic governance, but I don't like the Neonconservative movement any more than the original poster does. Neocon policies are wrong not because of who advocates them, but because they are harmful to America and to the rest of the world.

Re:Jews? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16415347)

The original Neocons were all Jews who abandoned the New Left.They were(and are) hated by their former comrades.
NeoCon is one of those terms whose meaning is little known by the sheep who bandy it about parrotting their Stalinist slavemasters.

My Stalinist Slavemaster isn't watching... (1)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415635)

... so I'm able to make this post. I don't have much time though. He'll be back and cracking the whip again real soon.

The original Neocons were all Jews who abandoned the New Left.They were(and are) hated by their former comrades.
NeoCon is one of those terms whose meaning is little known by the sheep who bandy it about parrotting their Stalinist slavemasters.

Yes, Neoconservatism originated with Jewish intellectuals who wanted to break with the Left. My point is that arguing against Neoconservative policies doesn't make you an anti-Semite. It is also worth noting that there are plenty of people who buy into Neoconservative arguments who are not Jewish. The Vulcans (Cheney, Rumsfeld, and arguably Rice) aren't Jewish. Ronald Reagan wasn't Jewish. Neither was Jeane Kirkpatrick. They both, however, put Neoconservative principles to use during the Reagan Era. Then there's that Dubya guy.

Crap. The Stalinist slavemasters are back. Gotta run. I'm totally wishing the Americans will win this Cold War, so I can be released from the Gulag. Bahhhhh!

Re:Jews? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16416285)

I have met lots of people who are Jewish. I have met lots of people with neoconservative political views.
I have never met anyone who fit both of these descriptions -- all of the neoconservatives I've met are Christian.

Re:Jews? (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416777)

I only know one Jewish neocon. Paul Wolfowitz.

Re:Vote the bums out (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415519)

Just because you don't agree with the JEWS (that's what you mean by neocon, right - you totally give yourself away there), it doesn't mean there is anything corrupt about it.

Wow, accusing a guy of antisemitism? I think the ad hominem attacks are hitting a new low here. If you can't argue with him, just shut up, eh? Tell you what. You explain how our exploding debt, peeking into every single person's shopping list and phone call, and massive concentration of power at the federal level are "normal" conservative ideals, and I'll back down on that.

it's just the 1st amendment's right to petition the government

As for your "first amendment rights" to bribe congressmen, please show me where in the constitution that corporations are citizens of the country and receive these rights? Bush doesn't believe non-citizens receive those rights, though that kind of hypocrisy is par for the course for government.

If they want to petition their representatives, they can do it the same way I do, by having their employees write them a letter and tell them that if they don't vote a certain way on a certain issue, they're not going to vote for that congressperson (except that I have to write my letters myself, since I don't have employees).

Re:Vote the bums out (0)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415787)

As for your "first amendment rights" to bribe congressmen, please show me where in the constitution that corporations are citizens of the country and receive these rights?

An 1876 interpretation of the 14th Ammendment, Southern Pacific Railroad vs Santa Clara County, made corporations citizens of this country with *superior* first ammendment rights to single human beings. I personally consider this the end of democracy as we knew it. It has now been in place so long that neocons who fancy themselves to be promoting *Jewish* values think that it's a basic right to set up a corporation and bribe politicians.

Re:Vote the bums out (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 7 years ago | (#16417219)

Even if you're willing to state that corporations are citizens (and IIRC the ruling merely classified them as people, they'll still need to study and take the oath before becoming a citizen), petitioning the government and bribing the government are two different things.

Re:Vote the bums out (2, Funny)

Rei (128717) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415825)

If you can't argue with him, just shut up, eh?

Aha -- this isn't actually about what the parent wrote after all! It's because the parent's username, MBraynard, suggest's that he's SWEDISH. You think that all SWEDES are inferior scum, don't try to hide it by couching your words. Take your anti-nordicism elsewhere!

(/sarcasm)

Re:Vote the bums out (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415593)

There is nothing wrong with any of this - it's just the 1st amendment's right to petition the government in action. Just because you don't agree with the JEWS (that's what you mean by neocon, right - you totally give yourself away there), it doesn't mean there is anything corrupt about it.

You're right. What the parent poster meant to write was :

"This is the sort of incestuous behavior that the JEWS encourage, what with their diamond-hoarding plague-ridden hooked noses and their beady little JEW eyes, twinkling as they plan the next 9-11 over bagels made by the sweat of the gentiles that they crush under their JEW feet."

The parent obviously self censored out of fear that The JEWS(tm) would come to his house and drink the blood of his Christian children. It's a clear case of anti-semitic bias -- no doubt about that.

Re:Vote the bums out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16415955)

Just because you don't agree with the JEWS (that's what you mean by neocon, right - you totally give yourself away there), it doesn't mean there is anything corrupt about it.

If the Anti-Defamation League was actually concerned with what their name implies (defaming Jewish people), this is exactly the kind of comment it would be condemning.

Although this kind of comment pretends to be defending Jewish people, it is actually conflating Jew interests with the deeply unpopular neo-conservative policies. This comment is basically pulling a Mel Gibson: making it seem like Jewish people are somehow responsible for the failed policies of the neo-conservatives including the deeply unpopular war in Iraq.

Sure, there are Jewish people who support the neo-conservative policies but there are also Jewish people who strongly oppose the neo-conservative policies. Claiming that neo-conservatives are acting in the interests of Jewish people is like claiming that white supremacists are acting in the interests white people.

Neo-convervative policies are not Jewish policies.

Re:Vote the bums out (1)

MoxFulder (159829) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416519)

Just because you don't agree with the JEWS (that's what you mean by neocon, right - you totally give yourself away there), it doesn't mean there is anything corrupt about it.

Jews? What the hell does that have to do with any of this? You've come perilously close to invoking Godwin's Law [wikipedia.org] here!

There may be a lot of Jewish neo-cons, but I don't think there's a sufficiently close association that the one could plausibly be used as a euphemism or slur for the other! Nor did the grandparent poster make any attempt to associate them. What a lame troll. (FWIW: I'm Jewish myself, and fairly prickly about Jewish conspiracy theories)

Re:Vote the bums out (1)

Eccles (932) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416737)

My wife, kids, mother-in-law, father-in-law, etc. are all Jewish. And all ('cept the kids) Democrats. (I register independent.) We all oppose the Neocons. In the words of Dick Cheney, "Go f--- yourself."

Re:Vote the bums out (1)

oohshiny (998054) | more than 7 years ago | (#16417223)

It certainly is not "Democratic".

And it is arguably not "democratic" either, because paying people for political influence is not acceptable behavior in a democracy.

Re:Vote the bums out (2, Insightful)

sheldon (2322) | more than 7 years ago | (#16417467)

Neocon doesn't mean Jew.

Re:Vote the bums out (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16414969)

So it's the fault of "NeoCons" that corrupt Democrats accepted bribes from Abramoff?

http://sibbyonline.blogs.com/sibbyonline/2005/12/m ore_sd_democra.html [blogs.com]

Whatever you say, PaleoLib. Don't let facts get in the way of your idiocy, please carry on.

Re:Vote the bums out (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415179)

Congratulations, you just committed the "B.b.b.but Clinton!" fallacy.

Re:Vote the bums out (1)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415663)

B.b.b.but Clinton got a blowjob from some girl he wasn't married to, so we can bomb the shit out of anywhere and kill over 600,000 people! - Typical Neocon

Re:Vote the bums out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16415325)

Here's a fact, while some Democrats did get Abramoff money through tribal contributions [washingtonpost.com] :
Of the 18 largest recipients of tribe contributions directed by Abramoff's group, six, or one-third, were Democrats.


Here's another more important fact: instead of taking responsibility, Rebuplicans created and passed a do-nothing bill.

Party loyalty is admirable, but get serious here. Any congressman for sale is doing his constituents a disservice. Not holding them strongly accountable for this is just begging for more of the same.

Re:Vote the bums out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16415447)

>Any congressman for sale is doing his constituents a disservice

It's worse than that. Any member of representative government for sale is doing his entire country a disservice. A seat in congress should not be about stregthening a fifedom, it should be balancing the needs of the consititency with the those of the nation.

When a special interest group can buy a vote, the system has failed as it is no longer representative (of and for the people) government.

Re:Vote the bums out (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415413)

Speaking of letting the facts get in the way of idiocy, lets see what those commie tree-huggers at Bloomberg (certainly not as reputable as "Sibbyonline.blogs.com", I know) have to say [bloomberg.com] .

Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff gave more than $127,000 to Republican candidates and committees and nothing to Democrats, federal records show. At the same time, his Indian clients were the only ones among the top 10 tribal donors in the U.S. to donate more money to Republicans than Democrats.

Bush's comment about Abramoff in a Dec. 14 Fox News interview was aimed at countering Democratic accusations that Republicans have brought a ``culture of corruption'' to Washington. Even so, the numbers show that ``Abramoff's big connections were with the Republicans,'' said Larry Noble, the former top lawyer for the Federal Election Commission, who directs the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics.

``It is somewhat unusual in that most lobbyists try to work with both Republicans and Democrats, but we're already seeing that Jack Abramoff doesn't seem to be a usual lobbyist,'' Noble said.

Re:Vote the bums out (4, Insightful)

Rei (128717) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415049)

Well, I'll put it this way: when my uncle was in the US House, he was busy nonstop. I lived at his house during that time, and he made it home (to his new home which he had just built before he was elected, and which he loves) for 1-2 evenings a month. The rest of the time he was in a little apartment in DC or other places in work-related travel. He worked on things related to his job almost nonstop. Late in his term, he had a heart attack. His doctor gave him a choice: cut down on the stress, or die early. He didn't run again.

Also, I should add that you're stereotyping of all politicians as being the same is pretty silly and unjustified. It's hard for most people to realize that these are people -- all with their own individual beliefs, opinions, principles, and moral convictions.

Talking about trying to get people to get more accomplished is contrary the very design of our government, which tries to slow down legislative action. You don't *want* laws too change too quickly, or a short-term shift in the balance of power can lead to long-lasting negative rammifications. And, contrary to popular belief, "compromises" are not necessarily better than *either* side, let alone the particular side that one chooses to believe in. Should the north have "compromised" on the issue of slavery -- "Well, you can keep them as slaves, but they get days off"? Should we have compromised on ending Vietnam -- "Well, we'll take *half* of our troops and equipment from Vietnam"? Of course not.

People stick to their moral viewpoints because they believe that they're right and a compromise is bad. When they think that a compromise is in the best interests of the nation, they work toward it. It all depends on the situation.

Talking about trying to get people to get more accomplished is contrary the very design of our government, which tries to slow down legislative action. You don't *want* laws too change too quickly, or a short-term shift in the balance of power can lead to long-lasting negative rammifications. And, contrary to popular belief, "compromises" are not necessarily better than *either* side, let alone the particular side that one chooses to believe in. Should the north have "compromised" on the issue of slavery -- "Well, you can keep them as slaves, but they get days off."? Should we have compromised on ending Vietnam -- "Well, we'll take *half* of our troops and equipment from Vietnam."? Of course not.

People stick to their moral viewpoints because they believe that they're right and a compromise will work out poorly. When they think that a compromise is in the best interests of the nation, they work toward it. It all depends on the situation.

Re:Vote the bums out (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415085)

Grr. This system lag is messing up my attempts to type. :P Sorry for the copy-paste error.

Re:Vote the bums out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16415473)

"Also, I should add that you're stereotyping of all politicians as being the same is pretty silly and unjustified. It's hard for most people to realize that these are people -- all with their own individual beliefs, opinions, principles, and moral convictions."

hahaha everybody knows politicans don't have moral convictions!

Re:Vote the bums out (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415875)

Most politicians don't have moral convictions. That's why they're "politicians", instead of "statesmen".

Having moral convictions keeps people from getting elected, because politicians' way of getting elected is to say whatever pleases the most people in their constituency, instead of what they really believe in.

Re:Vote the bums out (1)

Pxtl (151020) | more than 7 years ago | (#16417481)

A statesman is just a dead politician.

We need more statesmen

(props to Bloom County)

Re:Vote the bums out (3, Insightful)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415983)

Parent should be modded up- this is the way things are supposed to work.

However, I don't know how long ago your uncle served in the US House, but the events of the last 15 years, particularily the last 5, have basically proven to me that if anybody is in Congress due to their conscience they made it there because their conscience conviently fits in with the multinational corporate cabal that pays for our campaigns through lobbyists.

Re:Vote the bums out (1)

rbochan (827946) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416123)

...you're stereotyping of all politicians as being the same is pretty silly and unjustified...


That's because 99% of politicians give the other 1% a bad name.

Re:Vote the bums out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16416551)

Well, I'll put it this way: when my uncle was in the US House, he was busy nonstop. I lived at his house during that time, and he made it home (to his new home which he had just built before he was elected, and which he loves) for 1-2 evenings a month. The rest of the time he was in a little apartment in DC or other places in work-related travel. He worked on things related to his job almost nonstop. Late in his term, he had a heart attack. His doctor gave him a choice: cut down on the stress, or die early. He didn't run again.

Oh, bullshit! At any given time, even when Congress is in session, a nuke would only get 1/3 of the bastards! They poll every time a vote is taken, it's a matter of public record, check for yourselves.

Also, I should add that you're stereotyping of all politicians as being the same is pretty silly and unjustified. It's hard for most people to realize that these are people -- all with their own individual beliefs, opinions, principles, and moral convictions.

You're uncle would be proud. ...individual beliefs, opinions, principles, and moral convictions. Thank you, Mr. Foley.

People stick to their moral viewpoints because they believe that they're right and a compromise will work out poorly. When they think that a compromise is in the best interests of the nation, they work toward it. It all depends on the situation.

Thank you, Mr. Hastert.

Re:Vote the bums out (5, Insightful)

7Prime (871679) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415153)

Bi-partisian-ism, is as bad for people as are oil companies who collaborate to fix gas prices. One of the basic principals of capatalism is that any system works best if all parties (be it corporate or political) are under the pressure of competition, and even better if that competition is fairly even, so that all parties are constantly having to look over their shoulder. What we have now is a bloated government caused by a severe imbalance of power, a political monopoly, of sorts, by the extreme right. Just as bad as a monopoly, however, is the consistant agreement between parties. Way too much blood has already been spilt under the cliched and dubious banner of "bipartisanship". No, what we need are strong leaders who will fight for their convictions, but who are willing to play by the rules set by the US consitution. THAT'S how a good system works. Some of the most prosperous periods in US history were caused by a balance of power... the 90's being one of them. Both Clinton and the Congress were at their best when they were at odds with each other... that was a fine example of our system of checks and balances in operation.

The term "bipartisan" is simply a catch phrase, used, usually by the far right, as a way of trying to move the public perception of the "center" over to their side. It's a Rovian tactic, it's anti-capitalist, it's tacky, and most of all, it's not even an idea that we really want. What we need is compromise under the pressure of heated debate... NOT Bipartisanship.

MOD PARENT DOWN (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16415219)

Typical Republican Troll....
Poster claims the left would do the same thing.
All intelligent /.ers KNOW it would be an open source free as in everthing civil liberties paradise if only the stupid voters would realise all their votes for the freedom (democrat) candidate are being discarded by Diebold and changed to votes for the RepubliNazis.

..and the sheeple will follow the next batch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16415595)

I love how people like you seem believe that only THIS batch of politicians
is bad and if we change for others, it will change.

Only people more annoying are the do-gooders who think that if we only got rid of Dubya earlier, the Iraq fiasco would have been different. It doesnt matter to these people that you could not tell a democrat from a republican when it came to Iraq during the last election.

Between the republicans and the democrats (remember that Clinton bombed more countries than Bush...so far), the difference is minuscule: the neocons with their long planned mess or the PC bullcrap from the dems which got us to bomb two countries who had huge problems with terrorism and allow the forming of two muslim strongholds in europe; Bosnia and Kosovo. Kosovo is a pit straight out of Mad Max by all recent accounts and Bosnia's terrorist cells were involved in 9/11, the madrid bombing as well as being the training ground for three recent Al Quaeda heads in S.Arabia.

Would you rather be fingered by Capt.Hook or raped by Jack the ripper?
Because that's what our choices are.

And the system which created this batch of politicians is primed not only replace this batch but most likely by a group which will most likely be even worse.

But hey, if whistling by the graveyard makes you feel better...good for you.

Maybe you could also try to click your heels and wish really, really hard and who knows...

Re:..and the sheeple will follow the next batch (2, Insightful)

Deagol (323173) | more than 7 years ago | (#16417621)

I love how people like you seem believe that only THIS batch of politicians is bad and if we change for others, it will change.

To concentration of power in the same boys' club is the problem. Turn things upside-down, and mix things up a little -- like the whole Tower of Babel thing.

The new blood in the House and Senate may very well be as potentially corrupt (some day) as the current batch of incumbants. However, the incumbants (many have been around for seemingly forever -- see my Utah's Orrin Hatch as an example) have spent years acquiring power and connections.

Throwing out the baby with the bath water this election would bring the government to a screeching halt, which is just what we need.

My voting philosophy in 2004 was: 1) Vote 3rd party if there is such a candidate; 2) Vote Democrat if between Democrat vs Republican; 3) If between candidates of the same party, vote out the incumbant. I'll do the same this election

Absolute Power (1, Redundant)

Tancred (3904) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415779)

As they say, it corrupts absolutely. The Republicans have had the Senate, the House, the Executive branch and the Judiciary for nearly 6 years. That's too much for any party. Vote Democratic this time for a check on that power. Then push for all you're worth to get some real change - publically financed elections and some sort of vote ranking / instant runoff voting.

Publically financed elections would save lots of money. Politicians would have to convince the voters to vote for them by words and actions instead of their fund-raising prowess. They would no longer be indebted to big money interests, but to each voter equally. They would not have to spend half their lives chasing the big money and instead could spend it talking to and working for their constituents.

Vote ranking / instant runoff voting would allow us to vote for a third party without throwing away our votes. That would bring real choice to the system.

Public financing would probably have to come first, as both major parties will protect their duopoly as long as they need their party's support to finance their election. So far Maine and Arizona have public finance laws on the books and more are coming.

Re:Absolute Power (2, Interesting)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416363)

Publically financed elections would save lots of money. Politicians would have to convince the voters to vote for them by words and actions instead of their fund-raising prowess. They would no longer be indebted to big money interests, but to each voter equally. They would not have to spend half their lives chasing the big money and instead could spend it talking to and working for their constituents.
In Canada, political parties receive money according to the number of votes they received at the last election.

During elections, only political parties can run advertising, and each advertisement, down to each poster and pamhplet has to be accounted for.

There are also talks of absolutely prohibiting croporate political donations, like it has been the case in Québec for nearly 30 years.

Canada always have had 3 parties (conservatives, liberals, new-democrats [labour]), which makes for a more balanced parliament, even more so for the last 2-3 years where minority governments have been elected.

Re:Absolute Power (1)

epee1221 (873140) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416405)

Publically financed elections would save lots of money. Politicians would have to convince the voters to vote for them by words and actions instead of their fund-raising prowess.
How dare you suggest we follow the lead of some wussy country like France or ... someplace? </sarcasm>
Seriously, though. That sounds like the first step to making getting elected less expensive (i.e. more democratic).

OMG! BUSH IS TEH EVIL (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16414745)

TEH EVIL I TELLS YA!

All of them? (4, Funny)

Mendak Jemuna (998832) | more than 7 years ago | (#16414755)

All of them?

Must be a big bed.

Re:All of them? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16415091)

I don't think the size of the bed is so interesting. You can always make a bed larger by adding more mattresses side by side.

More importantly, what kind of laundry detergent do they use? A bed full of political lobbyists... those must be some dirty sheets.

Re:All of them? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16415299)

More importantly, what kind of laundry detergent do they use?

Detergent? Just throw them in the incinerator with your receipts from that taxpayer-funded resort trip. The real question is: what incinerator manufacturer will give you the best deal if you lobby them a tax cut?

Re:All of them? (5, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415357)

> All of them?
>
>Must be a big bed.

It went well until everyone decided to do introductions and handshakes.

"Foley, Jack Abramoff."

Then things got weird.

Mod Parent Up (1)

MadUndergrad (950779) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415631)

I wish I weren't out of mod points; that post made me laugh out loud.

Re:All of them? (1)

BoomerSooner (308737) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415539)

only if Foley had a say in it ;)

Well you know what they say ... (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416133)

... about politics making strange bedfellows.

Oooh the Irony (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16414767)

Owe the irony hurts

Citizens Against Govt Waste (5, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 7 years ago | (#16414813)

I've often wondered about this group. They remind me of something my college accounting prof. warned us about. (He's a CMA-Certified Management Accountant, outside the classroom.) Bean counters should never be put in charge of a business, long-term. They tend to focus too much on the money aspect rather than if the long-term is better served by a few extra expenses, e.g. getting a tetanus shot for $ rather than fighting the disease later for $$$$$.

CAGW has struck me as being too pennywise in the past. Not that they haven't had some good points, but their focus is often too narrow.

Looks like this kind of irony is something they could use, if they chose to, as a learning experience.

Re:Citizens Against Govt Waste (1)

stevesliva (648202) | more than 7 years ago | (#16414919)

They tend to focus too much on the money aspect rather than if the long-term is better served by a few extra expenses, e.g. getting a tetanus shot for $ rather than fighting the disease later for $$$.
It's been called, "stepping over dollars to pick up nickels."

Re:Citizens Against Govt Waste (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16415233)

They're a bunch of damn whores, IMHO. Don't get me wrong--I actually think that they might even believe in this stuff ("it's wasteful for the government to save money! open source is communism!!!"), but I have absolutely nothing but contempt for CAGW. Their ideas about what's "wasteful" range from sensible things to outright lunacy.

And I say this as a lifelong registered Republican.

They're nothing but a bunch of kooks who spout Libertarian-esque crap, but in reality care more about money than people. Which is, of course, one of the big reasons I'm unhappy with the party right now.

Re:Citizens Against Govt Waste (3, Insightful)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416915)

I don't know if "kooks" is quite fair, but they do seem to rail about inflammatory issues, rather than issues that really affect the national economy.

example: I did the math, and I think "pork barrel" spending amounted to about 1% of the national budget ($23B of 2 or so trillion). Pork is bad on principle, of course, but if you think that's the biggest waste in America's federal budget you're just parroting something you heard on talk radio.

More info about what exactly they said... (4, Informative)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 7 years ago | (#16414815)

If you're like me, you're probably wondering, "The who said what about what?"

Wikipedia to the rescue [wikipedia.org] .

Read on past the Linux stuff. This is the same group that took money from Phillip Morris and then (can you imagine?) complained that the Department of Health and Human Services report on the dangers of smokeless tobacco was a waste of taxpayer money. Go figure.

Abramoff also in bed with software patent trolls (4, Informative)

linefeed0 (550967) | more than 7 years ago | (#16414865)

This is a repost [slashdot.org] of a comment I have made previously, but I think the connection is important. Jack Abramoff took money to lobby on behalf of a company, eLottery, whose business model basically depends on software and business method patents in order to raise the cash they need to spend on lobbyists. Without the patents, there would at best be a trade association for such companies in a competitive market, probably more open in its dealings with government as well.

An article several months ago in the Washington Post [washingtonpost.com] described more about how Jack Abramoff took money to influence congressional proceedings. In this case, it was to scuttle a bill that would have prohibited state lotteries from going online. As with his work with Indian casinos, Abramoff pulled strings to get otherwise anti-gambling members of Congress to vote against a law prohibiting companies like eLottery from conducting lotteries over the Internet.

Oh, did I say "companies like"? Oops, no, just eLottery. They seem to have some patents [elottery.com] "broadly covering Internet retailing of state lottery tickets". In other words, software patents, or actually business model patents (legalized monopolies) disguised as them. Of course, those patents let them raise capital from investors eager to profit from that legalized monopoly. Where did that capital go? Right into lobbyists' pockets.

DID YOU SAY PATENT TROLL? (1)

LOL PATENTS RULE LOL (903720) | more than 7 years ago | (#16414923)

TIME TO FILE AN LOLSUIT!

Open Source Allies charged with murder (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16415037)

Which is worse??

Re:Open Source Allies charged with murder (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16415409)

Which is worse??

It depends on who they killed.

CAGW once ran a hit piece on me (5, Interesting)

touretzky (215593) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415041)

Citizens Against Government Waste once ran a hit piece [cagw.org] on me, prompted by the Church of Scientology. (What I don't know is whether the Scientologists actually paid them cash to do it, or merely supplied the material.) They ran this piece without ever attempting to contact me or Carnegie Mellon University to verify their facts, or ask for a comment. They also didn't have the guts to post the URL for the web site they were complaining about, which concerned the Sherman Austin [cmu.edu] free speech case. As far as I can tell,they're just a bunch of clowns pretending to guard the people's interests while cynically pursuing their own -- much like the rest of Washington.

Re:CAGW once ran a hit piece on me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16415259)

...a bunch of clowns...

I could think of a few other things to call Scientologists.

Re:CAGW once ran a hit piece on me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16415315)

Couch Jumpers?

Re:CAGW once ran a hit piece on me (1)

Swave An deBwoner (907414) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415435)

touretzky writes: Citizens Against Government Waste once ran a hit piece on me, prompted by the Church of Scientology. The cagw.org article you linked to, nowhere mentions Scientology.

Re:CAGW once ran a hit piece on me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16415503)

I find it hard to understand how you can stand up for the free speech of an anarchist you disagree with and yet be "a registered Republican, a proud supporter of President Bush[...]".

I mean that as no put-down. I mean it seems unusual for people with an unwavering sense of that liberty and a rationality-based sense of fairness to stand with today's Republican Party. They've utterly abandoned the true conservativism that holds government power in healthy suspicion. And, as the Abramoff scandal shows, they've abandoned some of the avowed principles that got them into power.

Out of honest curiosity, what is it that you do like about today's Republicans enough to be a proud supporter?

Re:CAGW once ran a hit piece on me (1)

Plutonite (999141) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415891)

This piece [cmu.edu] from your website is incredibly revealing. I knew the "Scientology" freaks were crazy, but this is a little too much. Their association with groups like the one in this story is alone quite a blow.

Re:CAGW once ran a hit piece on me (1)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 7 years ago | (#16417281)

Thanks from all of us for your dedication to free speech. Are you aware of some other enemies of free speech [go.com] who are currently active?

Hypocrites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16415229)

I love how their website is running Apache on Linux. What a "waste", by their standards anyways.

"Now-disgraced lobbyist" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16415319)

What did he do now that disgraced him? Seems to me that as soon as he put on the title "lobbyist"
he disgraced himself. Of course, I doubt that in Abramoff's case that his conduct wasn't disgraceful before his career as a lobbyist.

We'd do well to rid the body politic of these vermin.

Lobbyist is only a bad word (1)

geoffrobinson (109879) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415475)

Until they are lobbying for something you agree about. The right to petition the government is a very essential right. Lobbyists, for good and ill, are a part of that right.

Re:Lobbyist is only a bad word (1)

cswiger2005 (905744) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416615)

The right to petition your government is essential.

The "right" to bribe politicians to vote your way isn't a right, much less essential-- and I'd be just as happy to see a bright light pointing at these scumbags, and see just how many lobbyists and dirty Congresscritters we can convict and jail from what we get out of Abramoff. Whether the politicans are Democrats or Republicans doesn't matter one bit to me...what matters is whether they are honest or for sale to the highest bidder.

Told 'ya so! I wrote about this half a year ago. (5, Insightful)

Bruce Perens (3872) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415367)

In my Open Source State of the Union [technocrat.net] given at the Boston LinuxWorld Expo, on April 5, I mentioned the Abramoff connection. It's interesting to see more documentation.

Bruce

Re:Told 'ya so! I wrote about this half a year ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16416031)

Prescient indeed.

Here is a different part of Microsoft's long term strategy [sfgate.com] -- buying a voice in the academia of IP law. Who knows, maybe they'll have their own Supreme Court Justice or two.

Re:Told 'ya so! I wrote about this half a year ago (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416829)

It's interesting to see more documentation.


It's funny that you say that... I seem to remember people asking for just that when you made the connection in your speech. :)

Jack Abramoff? (5, Funny)

Shishberg (819760) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415439)

Who's Abram?

Are They Really *Evil*? (5, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415443)

Abramoff's other business with Dennis Hastert (R-IL) included a child slavery industry [dailykos.com] in Saipan, the Northern Marianas Islands US territory (near the Phillipines). Sex slavery and manufacturing slavery (child and adult). Hastert was simultaneously covering up for Mark Foley (R-FL) while Foley was molesting House pages. Interestingly, ABC News' Brian Ross broke both stories, but hasn't yet connected them.

Abramoff raised money to elect Republicans, Hastert controlled those House Republicans (and through their majority, the House). Together they made laws for the past 6+ years.

Now they're revealed to be in league to suppress open source. Are these Republicans really evil, or does it just require corrupt politicians to give evildoers the advantage they need to win? Is there a difference?

Not to say it's wrong, mind you... (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416411)

Abramoff's other business with Dennis Hastert (R-IL) included a child slavery industry in Saipan, the Northern Marianas Islands US territory (near the Phillipines). Sex slavery and manufacturing slavery (child and adult). Hastert was simultaneously covering up for Mark Foley (R-FL) while Foley was molesting House pages. Interestingly, ABC News' Brian Ross broke both stories, but hasn't yet connected them.

Do you have any sources on this other than The Daily Kos?

Re:Not to say it's wrong, mind you... (2, Informative)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416543)

That article at the Daily Kos to which I linked itself links, in it's third sentence, to the ABC News transcript [globalexchange.org] of 5/24/99 documenting Brian Ross investigating Abramoff's slavery biz in Saipan. But the Daily Kos article was written by someone who's been covering the abuses in the islands for a long time. It includes copies of Preston, Gates lobbyist conspiracies [flickr.com] to protect the Marianas abuses. And compiles lots of other cited evidence into a good picture of the racket Abramoff's Republicans, including Delay and Hastert, were running in their "Conservative Paradise", making a travesty of American borders, Chinese trade, and other "Conservative" values. Read it and judge for yourself. That's the power of the Web. Google the facts presented in DKos, and make your own decision.

So instead of seeing a Daily Kos link and caving in to Republican "shoot the messenger" copouts, just click it [dailykos.com] and see all the facts and logic painting this picture. Not that you [slashdot.org] are copping out, but others reading this thread have to fight off several layers of Republican media brainwashing. We're just here to help.

Re:Not to say it's wrong, mind you... (2, Informative)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 7 years ago | (#16417351)

Closed source in bed with Abramoff... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16415479)

Duh. Film at 11.

Sticky Abramoff Web (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415517)

Check out just a few links in the Abramoff Web [dailykos.com] of corruption. For extra points, google each player to see how deep in jail they are already.

Any sources other than The Daily Kos? (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416605)

Check out just a few links in the Abramoff Web of corruption.

Two links to The Daily Kos in three articles, both by the same poster. Again, do you have any other sources, that people other than those on the far left side of the "Progressive Movement" might find credible?

Open source already has a reputation for being left-wing. But The Daily Kos has one (even among Democratic politicians) for being so far left wing that it's brewing the Kool-Aid for the entire Democratic party.

If we're to get Open-Source adopted by businessmen (who tend to be on the conservative side, at least when it comes to economics and business issues) and governmental IT bureaucrats (who tend to listen to powerful non-profit groups), we need to establish credibility with them.

Right here we have an opportunity to discredit one of the major voices against use of open source in government, by tying it to Microsoft through the Abramov lobbying scandal. But if we are heard quoting even ONE bogus item that decision-makers recognize as coming from what they perceive as a left-wing looney bin, it's all over.

Abramoff a real piece of work (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16415597)

I recently watched this Moyers special on pbs about Abramoff and DeLay. Definitely worth a viewing.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/capitol/ index.html [pbs.org]

Corrupted Windows Filing System (4, Informative)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415667)

'"What is most important, however, is that this matter is kept discreet," Abramoff wrote to a colleague [washingtonpost.com] at the Preston, Gates & Ellis law firm. "We do not want the opponents to think that we are trying to buy the taxpayer movement."'

Preston Gates & Ellis [wikipedia.org] : 'The "Gates" in the firm's name is William H. Gates, Sr., father of Microsoft founder Bill Gates.'

Abramoff's gang of Republicans took control of the entire elected government in 2001.

"The DOJ, now under the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush, announced on September 6, 2001 [wikipedia.org] that it was no longer seeking to break up Microsoft and would instead seek a lesser antitrust penalty."

linux fags (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16415807)

you make me laugh you little idiots. cheap rat bastards

what do you expect? (1)

oohshiny (998054) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416683)

Management that doesn't have any qualms about cheating their customers out of billions of dollars through monopolistic practices, FUD, and manipulation of IP laws won't have any qualms about bribing politicians either.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...