Slashdot Mirror

"I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists â" and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president."

-- Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA
November 10, 2007

http://change.gov/agenda/ethic...

Yes, this is still up on the Internet, even today.

Yes, this time!

http://change.gov/agenda/ethic...

        "I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists â" and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president."

        -- Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA
        November 10, 2007

I hate to say it, but I told you so. I said it then, and I'll say it now. The moment Obama appointed yet... another... lobbyist to head the FCC, one who spent years as a cable company and telecom lobbyist:

Net... Neutrality... Was DEAD... PERIOD.

Need I remind all of you Obama-lovers of this little tid bit from no other website but ethics.change.gov:

http://change.gov/agenda/ethic...

"I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists â" and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president."

-- Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA
November 10, 2007

I informed you thusly...

I love how Obama signs 100 executive orders a day ordering various federal agencies to implement his radical agenda, but he can't be bothered to ask the Cable and Telecom Monopolist he appointed to chair the FCC to do anything.

Fucking ridiculous.

http://change.gov/agenda/ethic...

        "I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists â" and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president."

        -- Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA
        November 10, 2007

FCC is chaired by one of Obama's Telecom Lobbyist buddies, remember?

What is so funny is that his broken campaign promise is STILL on the change.gov website:

http://change.gov/agenda/ethic...

        "I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists â" and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president."

        -- Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA
        November 10, 2007

They could just link to it. It's still up there on this page:

http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/

No, you don't need Wayback Machine. It's still present on the same website. Not that they've ever tried following whatever they had cooked up some years ago...

I cannot believe that the Feds would do anything to hurt a whistleblower. After all, this text still appears (despite scurrilous reports to the contrary) on the Obama/Biden campaign website:

• Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process.

The politician said it, I believe it, that settles it.

You assume that our government is adequately maintaining the roads. That's not only not obvious to me, but our Glorious President did, back in 2009, pretend to make a huge push for public works projects.

No real discussion of why these projects weren't being done before. Seems like we fail to keep the roads up, unless they are near something important.

> Democrats want less government spending as a percentage of GDP [1]. The TEA Party wants to destroy government [2], unions [3], and the US economy [4].

FTFY.

Democrats want to cut spending? You know that cutting does not mean spend more, right? Take a look at Change.gov, Obama's website. Here are some snippets:

The Obama-Biden emergency plan would make $25 billion immediately available in a Jobs and Growth Fund to help ensure that in-progress and fast-tracked infrastructure projects are not sidelined, and to ensure that schools can meet their energy costs and undertake key repairs starting this fall. ...
Senator Obama pushed for $50 billion in loan guarantees to help the auto industry retool, develop new battery technologies and produce the next generation of fuel efficient cars here in America. Congress passed only half of this amount -- it is critical that the administration speeds up the implementation of the first half and that Congress move quickly to enact the second half. ...
Extend unemployment insurance benefits and temporarily suspend taxes on these benefits ...
Obama and Biden are calling for supplementing the recently passed LIHEAP funding to ensure that cold-weather states can cushion the impact of high energy prices for their residents this winter. ...
Provide $25 Billion in state fiscal relief to help avoid painful property tax increase ...

And that was only the top half of the page. You know, a billion here and a billion there, it soon adds up to real money! Spending more money is not cutting spending. It's just the opposite.

So you honestly believe that the TEA Party wants to destroy government? Wouldn't it be much more likely that they want a smaller government? Most TEA Partiers I've bet want a big military, a court system, the FBI and so on. What they don't want is farm subsidies, federal regulation of local schools and business that happens entirely within a state. Those that literally want to "destroy" the US Government are called "revolutionaries" and those guys are usually wearing a Che shirt. Hardly the typical TEA Partier.

And yes, the TEA Party wants to destroy unions, just as unions have destroyed many industries and governments in the US. Your job treating you unfairly? Quit! You bring up the Wisconsin protests, let me explain to you a few facts. First of all, the government workers and teachers in WI got a pretty sweet deal. Not only did they receive 100% health coverage and pension plans, but the union actually got to OWN the health insurance company that the teachers had to buy from. That's right, the Teacher's Union owned the insurance company that covered the teacher's union. The teachers, of course, would not have to pay a dime this coverage. So if , for example, the insurance company said, "We'll pay for name brand drugs, but raise your premiums by twice the cost", the teachers would be all for it. After all, they would get getting a benefit for zero cost to them. Why wouldn't they? WEA Trust is the insurance company. It was established and closely is associated with the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC). Look it up.

What caused the WI protests. The elected legislature and governor wanted to take away collective bargaining rights for compensation and make each teacher or employee negotiate their own salary based on their performance, and make government employees pay a minuscule portion of their health and pension benefits.

And finally, you think the TEA Party wants to destroy the economy? The article you mentioned does not contain the words "TEA Party" anywhere in it. However, I did find this quote from Obama, "Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." Don't take my word for it. Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4 .

Hmmm. Sounds like I found more evidence that Obama wants to wreck the economy than I could find for the TEA Party.

So you didn't look past just "change"?

Obama was definitely vague on some points of his platform, but he was just as specific on the others. IP was one of those. After he was elected, it became even more clear on short notice - change.gov has been around for a while, and has some rather explicit statements on the subject.

There is a Government Briefing Book hosted at change.gov that asks citizens to rank issues they are concerned with. Online poker is the number one issue in the Technology category. Maybe you're not concerned with the fight against classifying poker as a game of 'chance', while horsebetting is a game of 'skill', but many of us make our living doing this and pay our taxes on it like normal people. Countless others enjoy depositing $50 and enjoying their evening gambling. By a wide margin, most online poker deposits are $100 and 50% of them are made by Americans, and yet there are billions of dollars in prize money handed out every year, so that illustrates the scale of which Americans enjoy a very popular pasttime which the government is trying to end because of a desire to prohibit gambling inside the United States.

> I rather suspect I'm not the only one.

Same here. I was hopeful, but fearful about his policies. Unfortunately, fear seems to be winning over hope. Again. I do NOT support these actions. Maybe we need to start making a fuss on change.gov to get someone more reasonable in there? I, for one, do NOT want an RIAA lawyer running the office.

Although I probably wouldn't change my vote in the prior election even had I known this back then, that doesn't mean I'll vote for Obama in the future.

There's a short video on the change.gov website where Vivek makes an appearance:
http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/inside_the_transition_technology_innovation_and_government_reform/

I pay taxes and will continue to pay them to pay for the bail outs, the handouts, the social programs that I'm not entitled to, the paychecks of people who make far more than I do and the new President's inauguration.

Don't equate taxes with sevice. You apparently don't like taxes. Great. It's a weak straw-man argument here. Bring it up when it's appropriate.

Mr. Obama wants my service even though I'm in college 1/2 time, work full time (paying taxes) and a community activist (various websites, church activities) and yet I'm still "called on" to SERVE by the government!

http://change.gov/americaserves/

Your personal invitation to serve wasn't sent in the mail because Vice President-Elect Biden intervened on your behalf after becoming aware of your extreme workload. Problem solved.

I am expected to put in 100 hours of community service, of which, any hours I contribute at my church or non-government affiliated group, will not count.

This is ridiculous. IF you want to fit 100 hours of community service into your schedule, you might get government money (or, as I suspect you like to call it, 'blood money'). I'm not seeing where hours contributed at a church or 'non-government affiliated group' is mentioned at the link you've provided. I suspect it's your paranoia leading you on.

I'm sorry folks but I can't handle any more "service" for my government.

I pay taxes and will continue to pay them to pay for the bail outs, the handouts, the social programs that I'm not entitled to, the paychecks of people who make far more than I do and the new President's inauguration.

Mr. Obama wants my service even though I'm in college 1/2 time, work full time (paying taxes) and a community activist (various websites, church activities) and yet I'm still "called on" to SERVE by the government!

http://change.gov/americaserves/

I am expected to put in 100 hours of community service, of which, any hours I contribute at my church or non-government affiliated group, will not count.

I'm done. Sorry. I want Mr. Obama, when he is President Obama, to hold to the US Constitution and respect the 13th Amendment.

http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/ideas/viewIdea.apexp?id=087800000005BUn

*slowly clicks my Leica M2's shutter* :) totally bro, I find remember exactly what you did for each frame teaches me more than anything else. And the fact that the camera doesn't have EXIF forces you to remember.

When the decisive time comes, such as shooting the president, you don't use a silly DoF that doesn't cover his ears.

http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg

I spent a year shooting film and I found it helps me shoot faster. We all know what faster means ;)

Actually, there's a direct link to the full-sized photo itself. You can see almost every pore on his forehead!

There's an idle tag, but honestly, I think this is below the bar, even for idle.

I disagree. While this may not be newsworthy, it's at least (apparently) accurate. Idle is often incorrect or simply moronic.

The summary could have included a link to the portrait, though.

Is anyone else sick of getting the links 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th hand?

Here's the direct one for those interested.

Is the posted 1916 x 2608 version not sufficient?

Since Obama is wearing a US flag pin, does that make him a patriot? Or a jingoist?

Just trying to keep up, since I'm guessing a Republican wearing a flag pin would instantly be called a jingoist.

Or, perhaps, is it not the ridiculous black/white mindset of "all conservatives are evil and wrong and all liberals are enlightened intellectuals" that some make it out to be?

I'm going to go with the latter.

Bravo! I suggest everyone that agrees with the parent post this letter here.

It's funny that you'd hear all this bitching about his appointment rather than trying to do something. Nemyst had it right. Do something about it. I just went to Change.gov under the open for questions section and posted a question. You can moderate questions up or down and even submit questions.

Even though you have to register to vote on the site or submit questions, it's still an avenue to be heard. The guys who are too afraid to be recognized to be heard, bury your head in the sand. Anyone who gives a shit, be heard.

Let's see. We spent the last decade or so focusing on consumer electronics and where has that gotten us? We owe China over half a trillion dollars. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt.) We owe our souls to the credit card companies. (http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=6397.) The U.S. lost a half-million jobs in November. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/06/business/economy/06jobs.html.) Maybe it's time to focus on something besides game consoles and big-screen TVs.

There's plenty of important things that we can be doing with technology. Here's one http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/american_recovery_and_reinvestment:

To save not only jobs, but money and lives, we will update and computerize our health care system to cut red tape, prevent medical mistakes, and help reduce health care costs by billions of dollars each year.

Why don't we spend some time and money on something more important than shiny new toys?

Well there was a Supreme Court case that upheld private gun rights, so I don't think we'll have to worry until new Supreme Court justices are appointed

As glad as I am that Heller was decided the way it was, I doubt it will make any real difference here in New York for a long time to come. I'd still wager on the NYS Legislature passing more gun control laws. The fact that those laws might eventually get struck down is small comfort -- that will take years and in the meanwhile our rights are infringed upon.

On the Federal level, Obama's own website states that he is in favor of a new assault weapons ban and "child proofing" guns (whatever the hell that means). Sorry, I don't have much faith in our rights not being attacked in the next four years. I hope I'm wrong but history suggests I'm not.

Why would I start defending this? I don't like it one bit. I don't want someone who will twist the law working for the DoJ, especially not someone using RIAA tactics.

I plan to complain via change.gov and see if Obama will change his mind. If enough of us do that, he might reverse course.

Seriously though, isn't it wonderful anti-gun nuts can't even make that weak argument anymore.

Oh, just wait. At the very least we've probably got another assault weapons ban coming back. You really would have thought that the Democrats would have learned by now.

Open for Questions because Closed for Questions at 12AM today. I pity the poor souls who now have to wade through that drek and formulate answers that don't begin with "In response to IheartDick443@hotmail.com's dumbass question..."

the latest archive seems to be utterly riddled with dupes, pretty much all of them focused on the war on drugs, to the exclusion of almost all other issues, including an economy quickly sliding to 1933 levels.

I say they need to go through multiple rounds of moderation.

First to categorize them generally, then to choose the best from those categories to avoid most dupes.

I posted a question before looking up whether its already been asked. Of course it was, more or less. Well here's the link, if anyone else wants to support Tesla:

http://moderator.change.gov/?embed=http://change.gov/openforquestions#9/e=8&t=tesla

A further note: It appears this user is simply repeating the same questions endlessly. The first five I saw from him were as follows: The one listed above. "Why do you act black?" "Is it hard to be such a fucking phony all the time?" "Will you pardon Ronnie Gardocki?" "Will you support the decriminalization of lysergic acid diethylamide?" http://moderator.change.gov/?embed=http://change.gov/openforquestions#11/e=8&t=aghhc2tvYmFtYXIQCxIIRG9yeVVzZXIY9a4BDA I think any censorship of his views are entirely deserved, and feel there is a desperate need for metamoderation or something similar to minimize this sort of systemic abuse.

"When will you come clean on the the Black Mesa incident? The creation of portal technology allowed the creatures from Xen to this planet.... And When Is Episode 3 Coming Out?!!?!?!"

http://moderator.change.gov/?embed=http://change.gov/openforquestions#9/e=8&t=black+mesa

And they best be scared... look at what has already ranked pretty high... http://moderator.change.gov/?embed=http://change.gov/openforquestions#9/e=8&t=open+source

That story you linked to says that people logging in to the site flagged the questions as inappropriate. The questions are still visible on the site.

Of course they don't:

"As President, will you appoint a special prosecutor with impeccable credentials to reopen a comprehensive investigation of 9/11, in order to discover the truth about the events of that terrible day, and find out who was responsible?"

Here. Also:

"Will you consider reforming the debt based economy and reinstate a standard of value to the US dollar (such as the Gold, Silver or Infrastructure standards) in order to preserve the value of the dollar and protect it from uncontrolled inflation?"

Now the cranks can see for themselves just how irrelevant they are.

Of course they don't:

"As President, will you appoint a special prosecutor with impeccable credentials to reopen a comprehensive investigation of 9/11, in order to discover the truth about the events of that terrible day, and find out who was responsible?"

Here. Also:

"Will you consider reforming the debt based economy and reinstate a standard of value to the US dollar (such as the Gold, Silver or Infrastructure standards) in order to preserve the value of the dollar and protect it from uncontrolled inflation?"

Now the cranks can see for themselves just how irrelevant they are.

If you hadn't noticed, the original submission implied that Obama would use this for illegal wiretapping. The person I responded to implied that if the same accusation was made of the Bush administration, no one would complain.

First: If that accusation was made of the Bush administration, it would have some basis.

Second: There has been a lot of complaining about it.

Now, about your post. The EVERYBODY PANIC! is much better when you use all caps. If you bother to RTFA:

Obama's plan will include funds to make public buildings more energy efficient, repair roads and bridges and modernize schools. His plan for schools is to repair aging buildings, make them energy efficient and install new computers in classrooms, he said. "To help our children compete in a 21st century economy, we need to send them to 21st century schools,"

You ask how can we afford this and I ask you how can we not? You imply that more social programs will be made but from that statement it seems that he wants to bolster current programs to bring them up-to-date. From what part of that do you draw an conclusion that the money used will have more social programs rather than go to existing programs that already serve the purposes covered in the address? From what part of the address do you come to the conclusion that the government is going to run broadband?

The address in question: President-elect Barack Obama lays out key parts of Economic Recovery Plan.

This looks like a solution in search of a problem. We do have massive problems with some of our public schools

So, do we or do we not have a problem?

but throwing laptops at them isn't going to help them at all.

So, how does "His plan for schools is to repair aging buildings, make them energy efficient and install new computers in classrooms" get morphed into "throwing laptops at them"?

Gavin Newsom has also attempted something similar. Local pundits are trying to get him to follow Obama's lead by licensing content CC, which Obama has done recently.

Slashdot seems to have missed this entirely:

http://change.gov/about/copyright_policy

"Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Content includes all materials posted by the Obama-Biden Transition project."

And from http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/towards_a_21st_century_government/

"there are links to high-resolution QuickTime video files beneath embedded videos (these are also available via the Transition's podcast), so that the video can be saved to a computer and edited at will."

The only direct shortcoming is the MPEG4 licensing issuesâ"but nobody except RMS can't play MPEG4 files. The Creative Commons license that these (hi-def, by the way; 1280x720 resolution) video files are under places no objections to transcoding and redistributing them in a truly free format, as long as you give proper attribution.

Simply the fact that the Obama camp is releasing everything on their site (including all speeches and agendas) under an open license is a massive step forward. Nitpick about format licensing and patent openness once as many or more computers can play Theora or Matroska videos as MPEG4.

Slashdot seems to have missed this entirely:

http://change.gov/about/copyright_policy

"Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Content includes all materials posted by the Obama-Biden Transition project."

And from http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/towards_a_21st_century_government/

"there are links to high-resolution QuickTime video files beneath embedded videos (these are also available via the Transition's podcast), so that the video can be saved to a computer and edited at will."

The only direct shortcoming is the MPEG4 licensing issuesâ"but nobody except RMS can't play MPEG4 files. The Creative Commons license that these (hi-def, by the way; 1280x720 resolution) video files are under places no objections to transcoding and redistributing them in a truly free format, as long as you give proper attribution.

Simply the fact that the Obama camp is releasing everything on their site (including all speeches and agendas) under an open license is a massive step forward. Nitpick about format licensing and patent openness once as many or more computers can play Theora or Matroska videos as MPEG4.

This week the videos are available in MPEG4 format. Is that open enough?

http://change.gov/newsroom/blog/

*Is* the Office of the President Elect a part of the federal government, though? AFAIK it's being run by the Obama-Biden Transition Project, which certainly isn't a federal office, regardless of it being hosted on a .gov domain.

That said, Obama et al have responded to Lessig just a little while ago in making Change.gov licensed under CC-BY, rather than just a straight copyright. (You can also view the Change.gov copyright policy page.) Once again, I'm surprised and kinda shocked by how quickly they will respond to people. It's almost like they're responsible to the people or something.

Pretty soon they'll be cracking http://change.gov/cms and stretching even more

Payroll taxes go directly to Social Security and Medicare. In other words, they go to that taxpayers retirement and health care. Everybody pays them whether they use the services or not.

Yes... so what? Point is, they pay taxes, and under Obama's plan they'll end up paying less in taxes overall (thanks to a negative income tax bill). The GP tried to paint this as some kind of absurd promise, when in fact it's quite straightforward.

The link you provided says Social Security will run out of money in 30 years and will not be able to pay benefits to 25% of the recipients. That sounds like a train wreck to me.

Then you're not thinking very hard about it. In 2041, the trust fund reserves will run out and Social Security will be able to pay 78% of benefits from tax revenue alone; it will still be able to pay 75% of benefits in 2082. That doesn't mean 25% of people get nothing - it means everyone gets a smaller check than they're expecting.

But that's only if nothing changes. The solution is simple: collect more revenue. Raising the cap on the payroll tax would be one way; Obama's plan is slightly different but still boils down to collecting more from higher income earners.

Obama plans to take money from the "rich" and give to everyone else. To "everyone else" it appears free. However, the "rich" take the money they otherwise would pay to Obama and invest it in things like alternative energy and in innovative businesses that create jobs. Google? Started with VC money from the "rich". Get the point?

Raising the top tax bracket from 36% to 39%, where it was during the Clinton years, is not going to spell the end of investment. Besides, you can't run an economy on investment alone: you need consumption too, and to do that you need to get money in the hands of lower income earners.

I am a Obama supporter and I doubt writing to http://www.change.gov/page/s/ofthepeople is going to do anything. It might be more helpful to write to the senators on the conformation committee. It won't get him blocked but at least maybe he can explain himself and let him know this is an issue people are concerned about.

Speaking of, from their transition site:

• Protect the Openness of the Internet: Support the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet.
• Encourage Diversity in Media Ownership: Encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum.
• Protect Our Children While Preserving the First Amendment: Give parents the tools and information they need to control what their children see on television and the Internet in ways fully consistent with the First Amendment. Support tough penalties, increase enforcement resources and forensic tools for law enforcement, and encourage collaboration between law enforcement and the private sector to identify and prosecute people who try to exploit children online.
• Safeguard our Right to Privacy: Strengthen privacy protections for the digital age and harness the power of technology to hold government and business accountable for violations of personal privacy.

Mostly seems reasonable to me, although the third is a little worryingly vague on the 'increased enforcement resources' and 'collaboration between law enforcement and the private sector' (is this code for wiretapping?). I guess we'll just have to see how it goes.

Obama and Biden say that they are listening, so tell them how you feel about curtailing our rights and freedoms in the name of protecting the country.

You can always go over to change.gov and tell him what you think of this guy.

But to be fair, it wouldn't hurt to see if this guy has changed his mind any time in the last decade or so. I mean, back in the 90s, they were clamoring to have encryption regulated as a munition and now you see them talking about requiring it...