Slashdot Mirror
Government Web Sites Are Not for the Incumbents
Hal Plotkin has a column pointing out a severe deficiency in how the U.S. government handles web sites - they are often designed more to promote current office-holders than to conduct governmental affairs. The practice of using official resources for partisan political purposes is not new - the big rush actually hit about 3-4 years ago - but we could make such better use of the web, if only...
Those who seek the power are least deserving of it.
Ravenn
Of all the things you can accomplish by screwing up your face and swearing into a dark room, sleep is not one of them.
the big new here is ?
i mean the president (take your pic any one ive been alive for) has flown all over the counrty on tax payer provided planes and fuel to campain for OTHER canadates in tight races not to mention a convient trip to a party fund raiser
Damn the man!
It's standard practice in .gov to "rewrite" some of the findings, achievements, etc. of the previous administration to appeal to the current politicians thoughts and ideals.
I've always thought what a waste of time and resources it is for a particular State to rewrite road signs and post the picture and "thoughts" of the current governor on the backs of road maps. Of course there's many things you see, such as this /. article that shows just how much waste (and graft) occurs in .gov.
No matter how the politicians spin things, their primary goal is to get reelected. Very few policitians have enough guile to tell the establishment (and stick to their guns) that they're only there for one/two terms, to make a difference.
Jerry Fletcher,
Privacy Protection By:
http://www.cotse.net/servicedetails.html
The US Government promotes candidates currently in office... this can't be fair. we didn't elect them there in the first place.
-1: sarcastic
WTPOUAWYHTTOTWPA
What's the point of using acronyms when you have to type out the whole phrase anyways?
IIRC, there are some limitations to updating an office holders website close to an election.
Certainly incumbents hold many advantages... but perhaps the most important is the turnout: to a large degree, its the same people, especially in an "off-year" election. I'd ask anyone who's unhappy with the way things are to GO VOTE on NOV 5th.
If you have to write-in a candidate just to feel good about your vote, go ahead and do that. Vote for that potted plant, even. I need a laugh.
.sig last updated Jan. 14, 2000
"they are often designed more to promote current office-holders than to conduct governmental affairs."
And the other avenues of communications aren't? How is Congressman Tauzin's self-promotional website different from, say, the form letter I got from Congressman Tauzin explaining how good the Tauzin-Dingel through franked mail (who needs to buy stamps when you're a member of Congress?) in response to the complaint I sent to him about said bill? Tell me how that letter and all the other form letters various members of Congress send to concerned voters isn't just so much political advertising?
No, I'm not saying all members of Congress are guilty of this (at the very least somebody read letters I've sent to my Senators, for example), but there are some who are quite guilty of this, and all we've seen come of it is legislation against using franked mail within X number of days of election day.
Come back when you've noticed the problem in general and not just the websites in particular.
What we need are congressional terms limits and less seneiority priviliges. Once representatives realize that gorverning should be a short detour from their normal lives, and not an occupation, our government should improve.
1. Minor complaint: The article headline is backwards. These sites are biased toward the incumbents, as the article notes.
2. If we want less bias, have a nonpartisan agency write the bios and update the pages. Something like the Congressional Budget Office -- not immune to politics, but one step removed from the process and beholden to no single representative.
3. Incumbents win over 90% of Congressional races and have for some time, so the bias issue really isn't all that important. There is so much inherent bias in the fact that incumbents get to do newsworthy things in front of cameras that websites don't really change anything.
4. The real scandal about government websites, especially the Congressional ones, is the almost total lack of content. The home pages should include all votes cast by the representative -- Thomas is clunky and difficult to use. As the artcile notes, it would also be nice to know when the official is up for re-election. Personally, I'd also like to see links to FEC campiagn finance reports on the same page to make correlating funding sources and voting patterns easier, but asking Congress to commit mass political suicide is probably not a realistic option.
Make cheese not war 8:)
...is designed to favour the incumbents.
The two big parties have enough funding to brainwash the masses into thinking that they are the only parties capable of winning, yet their policies differ very little.
The net effect is that by voting for either of them, you are voting for the status quo - nothing ever happens and they keep lining their pockets.
Vote for someone else. Left or right, it doesn't matter, just shake out the incumbents.
-- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
If it's not nailed down, the fucking crooks are gonna steal it. High dollar trailer trash.
While this is certainly an unfortunate practice, it's hardly a new one, except perhaps with regards to the internet.
One of the many benefits of incumbency is the access to government resources which can be used in functionally political ways. The most basic of these is what is known in the business as "franking," whereby congresspeople can send mail to their constituents on the public dime. In 1994, the Republicans ran on a platform of reforming the franking rules, but quickly changed their minds when they found themselves in office.
As with most problems related to political campaigning, the only real fix I see is public campaign financing. By allowing anyone, incumbent or challenger, who can demonstrate a certain threshold of public support (typically through collecting a large number of very small contributions), the advantages of incumbency, fund-raising connections, etc. can be mitigated, candidates can be free to spend their time speaking to the issues, rather than raising money, and, once elected, they won't be quite so loyal to big-money interests.
(If you live in Massachusetts, be sure to vote yes on Ballot Question 2, to preserve our Clean Elections public-financing system.)
Red All Over: Rambling Missives from an Aspiring Revolutionary
...once he/she is elected to office is to do everything they can to guarentee they get re-elected the next time around.
I am a firm believer in term limits, and public financing of campaigns. I also believe how congresscritters are paid needs to be changed. Some dork making a hundred grand a year is too out of touch with reality to represent the average American who is making 15 thousand a year. It should work like the Peace Corps...while you're in office, all you get is what the average American makes per year. Then at the end of your (limited) term, you get a lump sum to make up the difference between what the average Joe gets and what a congresscritter is paid.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
His main point seems to be that government web sites should be dedicated to organizing grass roots groups. First of all, the idea of the government organizing grass roots groups is oxymoronic. It is also a pretty dumb idea. I can just imagine the paranoia if the government tried to monopolize all of the grass roots organizations by hosting them on government web sites. "I spent the last 5 hours typing up my opposition to the mayor's speech when my computer crashed and the whole thing was lost. Then I got to thinking, who controls the web site? (The mayor.) Was it really a mistake that my post was lost?"
This guy, Plotkin, should go back and dig up some real abuses to complain about. Lacking that, this article just sounds like a big long whine.
If electricity is produced by electrons is morality produced by morons?
From MoveOn.org ("working to bring ordinary people back into politics") -- download your very own "Regime Change Begins at Home... VOTE!" poster.
Moderation totals that amuse me for one of my posts: Flamebait=1, Insightful=2, Funny=2, Overrated=1, Underrated=1
And a lack of transpanrency? Nonsense, one guy is so open and honest I even managed to find his price list on the net!
Ali
Ph33r m3!!!
Democracy.org lets you find all your local candidates, their voting records and positions on issues, their addresses and websites, etc.
Moderation totals that amuse me for one of my posts: Flamebait=1, Insightful=2, Funny=2, Overrated=1, Underrated=1
One of the more eye-catching examples of this sorry trend occurred earlier this year, when a member of California Gov. Gray Davis' administration issued rules that required state employees to place Davis' picture on every single one of the approximately 100 home pages run by the state, ranging from the home page for the Department of Motor Vehicles to that of the State Energy Commission. (bold by me)
Is it just me, or do any of my fellow Calfornians find all too much irony in Gray Davis trying to promote himself on a website of what is commonly referred to as the bane of his governorship?
they are often designed more to promote current office-holders than to conduct governmental affairs.
If you visit your congressmens' offices in Washington, you find it is exactly the same. The physical office space belongs to the officeholder, and is used by his or her staff to promote a particular agenda.
Of course rival candidates aren't given equivalent resources by the government, but this is a feature, not a bug. The incumbent is the one who currently has the office, after all.
Yes, it is an uneven playing field because the government gives congressmen a web presence. But congressmen can also promote their campaigns and agenda on the House and Senate floors.
It may be unfair to rival candidates, but it would be worse to deny government resources that are needed to carry out representation. And it's really not as bad as it may seem. Voters are not that stupid. They can figure out that incumbents have an inherent advantage and so the voters can each account for this as they wish.
Protect your rights, vote liberatarian this year.
What about memes, or um, something?
Incumbents usually have more money, a government web site and all of these advantages. I would like to say that the government site should have a picture of the incumbent, but they should write the rest of the site so that the rest of it concentrates arounf what the governer, senate member or president do in a general sense. Make them learning ans service access websites and not political ads.
Gorkman
Shame on any politician for putting a picture of himself/herself/itself on web pages his/her/its department creates. Oh gosh, would you look at that, the author's placed a picture of himself at the bottom of his article.
Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
I go to the freedom.gov site, and get:
"The site freedom.gov wishes to set a cookie. Do you want to allow it?"
It's important that the government tracks everyone interested in freedom very carefully, after all.
Why do some sites try to set cookies when there isn't any sensible reason for them doing so, from my POV? I can understand when I actually have some server state to be linked with, but can setting cookies on the main page right away have any credible purpose, apart from tracking?
...is politics in general. As many people,so tritely, observe... people who want power are usually very self-centered and have no concern for the betterment of their fellow man. This is, sadly, completely out of alignment with what politics were originally intended to be. Let's take a look at the official definition of politics and break it down:
The science of government; that part of ethics which has to do with the regulation and government of a nation or state, the preservation of its safety, peace, and prosperity, the defense of its existence and rights against foreign control or conquest, the augmentation of its strength and resources, and the protection of its citizens in their rights, with the preservation and improvement of their morals.
First, let's start with the fact the politics is considered a science, where "science" is taken to mean:
Any branch or department of systematized knowledge considered as a distinct field of investigation or object of study.
By this definition, a politician should have a great body of knowledge regarding ethics, citizens and their rights and proper morals. If you apply that branch of logic to the politicians of the last few decades, we find that there is something that has slowly gone seriously wrong. Our politicians tend to be anything but knowledgable, ethical, moral or have any concern for citizen's rights!
We will start with our current administration. While the polls say that G.W. Bush has had anywhere from a 49% approval rating at lowest and as high as his post Sept. 11th rating of 93%. While this speaks well of him, it completely obscures many well known facts regarding his knowledge (quite lacking), ethics, morality and feelings on citizen's rights. If we delve deeper, we find that he, in fact, has very little knowledge about the system. Further evidenced by the fact that he is a poor speaker and his father's former cabinet appears to be running the entire show. He is just a mouthpiece.
Regarding ethics, I would question any politician's ethics who would have other men in thir cabinet involved in scandal. Especially in a position so close to the power seat as vice-president Cheney. Mr. Cheney's desire to conceal the connections between Enron and the current administration are very disheartening. Even the staunchest conservative must admit that this was not one of the finer moments in conservative history. (The liberal-controlled media argument doesn't wash here either as the news sources that reported negatively on this story tend to be just as far right as you can get.)
While Mr. Bush professes to being a good christian. He hasn't always been that way. His morals are not exactly what one would call "good". It's very well known the George W. Bush, was quite the party down, rich kid. As he grew away from his "youthful errors", he became quite the shady businessman. I would have to say that his morals are questionable at best.
Civil rights and the current administration are at odds with each other. This has been an ever increasing problem since Sept. 11th. As most Americans blindly wave their flags, their ability to do much of anything else to affect their own well being is being erroded by things like "The Patriot Act". In the name of security, the man in the white house and his staff are trying to convince us that it's good to lose your freedoms sometimes. This is quite damning evidence that he does not understand or care about the citizen's of this country's rights.
Seeing that all of this is true, it appears that George W. Bush fails to live up to the definition of what a politician should be, as do many of his cabinet.
The last administration has it's blemishes on many counts as well. Analyzing Mr. Clinton in the same way, we find that his knowledge of the governmental system was stronger than Mr. Bush's. (If anyone can provide links to examples please do so, I couldn't find any.)
Where ethics are concerned, Bill Clinton had his share of gaffes. Not to mention the more serious allegations regarding his time as Governor of Arkansas. No... Sadly, we can't say that Mr. Clinton has shiny repution either.
Everyone knows about his moral problems since they've been beaten to death. Like him or not, Bill Clinton was not a man of morals by strict definition.
As geeks, we all know that it was his administration that passed the DMCA which has potential to seriously impinge on citizen's rights. Not just your ability to "swap songs", but you ability to write code freely!
So, by the same analysis, Bill Clinton fails the test of what a good politician is. As do most other politicians. Why is this? Because we are humans. We have imperfections that prevent us from being able to truly hold to the ideals of what how politics should work. Some do better than others, but in general the lot of them are corrupt.
Most politicians are only interested in politics due to their hunger for power. Just that alone is damning as it points to a deep seated greed and selfishness that is almost required to be a politician. So how is it that our system even works? In reality, it doesn't.
Most of what the operations of the government and the way they affect us are almost 100% happily incidental. Ocassionally one person somewhere deep in the system does one thing right. Another one somewhere else in the system does something else right. And so on... There are the few people here or there who intentionally or unintentionally (They're human, remember?) do something wrong. But the aggregate result is something that more or les resembles a system that works. This illusion trickles upward toward the leaders (Senators, congressmen, governors, and ultimately the president) and makes them look good. (It works this way in any large organization) So... for now we are stuck with a system that appears to work, but is solely based on chance. Or looking at it another way, real politics (as opposed to the ideal defined above) is just another form of gambling.
In closing, I'll offer you this joke about politics:
Son: Dad, I have a special report for school. Can I ask you a question?
Dad: Sure son, what's the question?
Son: What is politics?
Dad: Well son, let's take our home for example. I am the wage earner, so let's call me the management. Your mother is the administrator of the money, so let's call her the government. We take care of you and your needs, so let's call you the people. We'll call the maid the working class and your baby brother the future. Understand?
Son: I'm not really sure dad, I'll have to think about it.
That night, the boy is awakened by his baby brother's crying, so he went to see what was wrong. Discovering that the baby had a heavily soiled nappy, the boy went to his parent's room and found his mother fast asleep. He than went to the maid's room, where, peeking through the keyhole, he saw his father in bed with the maid. The boy's knocking went totally unheard. The boy went back to his room and went to sleep.
The next morning...
Son: Dad, I think I understand politics.
Dad: That's great son, explain it to me in your own words.
Son: While the management is screwing the working class, the government is fast asleep, the people are being completely ignored and the future is full of shit.
---Whew! All that work just to post this---
-I am a Windows user
-I am also a f4g0rt
-All Windows users are f4g0rtz
-Bill Gates loves men
-Linux is the sux0rz
-BSD is dying
-Stephen King loved goatse.cx before he died
-75% of people in the US make up 3/4 of the US population
-Adolph Hitroll is my bitch
-RecipeTroll loves the cock too
-Natalie Portman is naked and petrified
-I poured hot gritz down my pants and all I got was this lousy T-shirt
-R.M.S. is a commie
-Linus Torvalds is keeping his brotha down. Free him!
-Looser = Loser and vice-versa. Stop complaining and learn New English
-Imagine a Beowulf cluster of trolls
-The CowboyNeal jokes are old
-X is unstable, let's get rid of it
-KDE is the sux0rz, GNOME rules
-Real men use TWM
-vi is better then emacs (no it's not, emacs is better than vi)=Tastes great/Less Filling
-Ford sucks
-Chevy sucks
-Capitalism is dying
-Linux on the desktop is dead
-IE won the browser war, give it up Mozilla. (No. The war's not over yet M$)
-MySQL is robust and scalable
-PostgreSQL is better than MySQL. Nyah!
-So you like your pages W I D E N E D?
-I 4m 1337. giv3 m3 w4r3z d00dz.
-w00t!
-In other news...
-1. Steal concept from open sores 2. ??? 3. Profit!!!
-RMS is a dirty hippie
-Moderation sucks
-UNIX will never be as secure as VMS
-GayPee is not a hacker, he's a dork
-General strike!! Now!!!!!!
-ESR is a homo
-Grok THIS you GIMP!
-Corporations are evil
-Corporations are good
-Quake is the sux0rz, give me Unreal Tourney! (You Canadian f4g0rt, UT sucks, Quake 0wnz j00)
-Canadians are gay
-Americans are stupid
-Brits are assholes
-For hot gulrz see: http://www.bakla.net
-~the fux0rz has spoken~-
Is anyone else here uncomfortable with "government agencies" trying to "facilitate a wide variety of bottum-up groups to tackle ... problems"? It is hard enough to gather a group
of people with enough energy and committment to address a
problem. When such efforts are "facilitated" by the government
itself, all that energy is likely to get co-opted.
That's the "bloody shirt" to be waved about while organizing. E.g., chatting with your barber, you might say, "I checked out the (local governemt) web site just to see who I could call to ask a question about my water bill, and guess what? Twenty high resolution photos of Supervisor Snort, and not a single damn phone number!! To heck with that! So I just set up my own website with some of that information..."
Well, duh.... If you are not part of a "small group of connected individuals" and if you don't "know the rules," then you won't get anywhere, period. The solution is to form your own small group and learn the rules. If you're an opportunist, you then go about getting yourself and your buddies into office. If you're an altruistic reformer, you use your newly gained "power" (such as it is) to address whatever issues concern you. If you are a radical, then you offer seminars -- teach those rules to everyone! Supply hints on group formation! And at the same time, recruit for your own outfit. Now things are moving...
No!! That would take the fun out of everything! We want to use the deficiencies of their websites to promote our own organizations!
I basically agree with the sentiment here. What forms you need to file and where you get them and where you file them is pretty basic information. And as long as governmental units are deficient, activist sites have something to complain about and also a void that they can fill.
By the way, I live in Southwestern Oakland County, Michigan, and, the last I looked, the Huron Valley School system website had many problems -- PDF files where simple HTML would do, etc., etc. Any readers in this area who are interested in a bit of mild-mannered cybernetical activism can send me an e-mail, maybe we can work together and Try to Fix Things (TM).
----------
Manifesto for the Peoples of the Third Millennium
Most of the campaign finance reform bills, including the one backed by McCain and passed by Congress and signed by Bush recently, basically limit the ability of challengers to campaign, while leaving untouched the ability of incumbents to campaign.
This is just one example of it: the incumbents get government-subsidized campaign web sites, while the challengers do not.
Don't say that having the government pay for all campaigns is the answer, as that gets rid of democracy by having the government choose who will be in government (bye bye grass roots).
Term limits are the answer to the bribery problem that proponents of "campaign finance reform" claim to be fighting.
The proposes solutions just do not work. Public funding of elections (favored by "Darth" Nader, just a fancy way of saying government-controlled elections) turn all power over to government elites: so you have those in power bribing the campaigners. No thanks.
The recently signed campaign finance bill guts the First Amendment, and allows bribing in other ways to make up for ways closed off.
But look at term limits. Doesn't it take the wind out of the sails of the current corruption if for example, Haliburton gives a candidate a bazillion dollars, and the candidate wins, and can vote any way they want too since there will be no second campaign for Haliburton to decide whether or not to "donate" to?
The two big parties have enough funding to brainwash the masses into thinking that they are the only parties capable of winning, yet their policies differ very little.
Compared to the lunatic extremes, the parties are the same (commies think they are capitalists, Nazis think they are jew-lovers, etc), but they are in reality quite different.
The problem is that the alternative parties are just plain nuts. You get the Reform Party with Pat Buchanan and his racism and "no free trade". You get the Green Party with its brazen campaign of greatly increasing the power of those who rule over us. Then you get the Taxpayers, Libertarian (yeah, it looks good on paper), and a handful of Stalinist parties.
Not Wellstone. He deserved neither death nor re-election. He was very anti-worker (favoring forcing more workers into political organizations such as labor unions that go against their interest), in favor of violence against children (NARAL's poster boy).
In addition, he got so many of the facts wrong in his statements against retaliation against Saddam Hussein it appeared that he really had given no time to thoughts about foreign policy. That's OK for a state senator in the Minnesota legislature, but not one in the national Congress.
The Web does not need to be simply another channel for PR. With Clinton-Gore the idea was partly PR but also what Mark Boncheck called Disintermediation. What we wanted to do was to have a clear channel between the politicians and the people, clear of press 'interpretation'.
The point is not that people are going to trust the politicians more than the press, they will not. However it does prevent the press from some of its wilder distortions. During the '92 campaign the media made much of 'fact checks', doing a reality check on the statements made by both sides. What they never told the people is that they relied 100% on press releases put out by the parties, this was an innovation of James Carville that the GOP quickly followed.
The point of Whitehouse.gov was that the people should have access to the same information as the journalists. That is why we put every whitehouse press release on the web site and through an email server and onto USEnet from day 1 of the administration. This was originally done at MIT and the site later moved to the EOP itself.
The two people mainly responsible for putting the government online were Gore and Gingrich. Gore genuinely believed in the Web and Internet, that is why the GOP had to invent the lie of his claiming to have invented it - to deny him the ability to discuss a major achievement.
Gingrich had a much harder challenge. The congress is divided in many ways, although the speaker controlls the house floor the committee chairs control their individual committees. Gingrich wanted the whole process of government to be transparent so the people could see what was going on. The committee chairs and the lobyists did not, any such democratising move would threaten their power. It would no longer be possible for last minute changes to be made to a bill in secret before it was rushed through committee. This is how many major legislative abuses take place. During the DMCA the lobyists for the RIAA inserted a clause to steal the returned rights of the artists. This was done behind closed doors without the knowledge of many committee members, let alone the people.
In comparison the UK hansard web site is genuinely open. The site was set up to eventually replace the printing and distribution of 'the vote' which is the collection of papers sent to MPs every day. As such the site has every bill and critically every proposed ammendment at the same time the members get it.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
"Further evidenced by the fact that he is a poor speaker"
Come on now, this has nothing to do with anything. Many great leaders have been poor speakers. Many horrible leaders have been great speakers (Jesse Jackson, Adolph Hitler. No, I am not equating the two, other than that they speak well and are bad leaders).
"Civil rights and the current administration are at odds with each other"
"Mr. Cheney's desire to conceal the connections between Enron and the current administration are very disheartening"
That is because it does not matter. Who cares.
"While this speaks well of him, it completely obscures many well known facts regarding his knowledge (quite lacking),
Quite lacking? He's quite smart and knowledgeable. Certainly much more than his predecessor. This helps explain his much more sensible domestic and foreign policies.
"While Mr. Bush professes to being a good christian. He hasn't always been that way"
What is your point? Again, you lack any knowledge of history. For other examples, go back to St Augustine, or the Apostle Paul. "Was not always a good Christian". Big deal. As if anyone other than a religious bigot would care anyway.
"Civil rights and the current administration are at odds with each other"
I've not lost one civil right. Have you? In fact, my civil rights are in a little better shape than under Clinton. Bush is less likely to favor policies to punish me for being of the wrong race (Clinton's beloved affirmative action), and my 2nd amendment rights are in better shape now than before.
Disclaimer: I'm a member of the Cape Town Greens, a constitutional association of the Green Party of South Africa.
*cough* Plotkin mug shot at the bottom of the article. *cough* :)
1. Enact term limits, to ensure a citizen-legislature.
2. Repeal _all_ campaign finance and reporting regulations, so minor party candidates and independents can challenge the Republicrats.
3. Repeal _all_ ballot access laws that prevent challengers from getting on the ballot.
Excellent ideas, all of them! How about also getting rid of all the money wasted by the government to subsidize the big 2 parties? This includes the millions given for their conventions. Then, let the parties run their own primaries (don't have the government waste resources on party internal matters). Saves a lot of money, too.
Wow, this is really big news considering in many states the demopublicans and replubicrats have setup ballot access laws designed to prevent third parties from making ever even making it onto the ballet.
Then there's old Federal Matching funds. I love that one. We need to PAY to help re-elect these shitheads.
The worst part is, nobody cares. Who's playing on Monday night football??
Listening to thse guys at the candidate debates, it seems like the Libertarian Party is a mere from for the Medellin Cartel, as they feel rather strongly about increasing drug abuse. Well, they don't call it dope for nothing.
I'd feel a little more favorably toward them if increasing the abuse of brain-damaging addictive substances was not so important to the party.
"I smoke crack, and I vote Libertarian."
I think this time it's the McAuliffe Lyin's vs the Crawford Cowboys.
And she complained bitterly about partisan use on both sides.
I recall her complaining bitterly about a trip to Thailand for the Secretary of State. She said 'SEC State', but with the distance between the decks of our homes across which we spoke, I thought she said 'Sex Aid'. I recall thinking that very decadent (having been to Phattaya Beach a few times in the Nav', myself). Took a few repeats to straighten that one out...
OTOH, pilots are required to log a certain amount of hours to retain proficiency. So they wind up logging them in support of activities that are easily objectionable. Andrews AFB is functionally an international airport in service of the gubmint.
However, I don't consider any of this a bad thing, in general. You really want your leadership to have freedom of mobility. You also don't want them showing up looking like they flew economy everywhere they go. Do you really want your representatives vicitimized by luggage handlers?
Yes, these travel facilities are subject to abuse like web sites. How about some useful feedback? Why don't we celebrate good leadership, good use of technology to articulate issues and garner feedback? Whores that politicians are (speaking as an IT whore myself), they are going to respond in the desired fashion to votes in the ballot box that reward desired behavior. So, who are some good examples?
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Is www.number10.gov.uk I will say no more. The most blatant bit of political cheerleading I've ever seen.
http://www.bangornews.com/editorialnews/article.cf m?ID=81458&CFID=5557730&CFTOKEN=2161477
... senators running for re-election can't update their Web sites for the last 60 days before Election Day."
"Under Senate rules
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
vote-smart is another good source of information about politicians, among the others that people have already mentioned in this thread.
Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
GDict says:
Shouldn't the headline read:
as the incumbents are the people already in power?All data is speech. All speech is Free.
Obviously, the above sexcapade story was from the resume section of the Senator Ted Kennedy web site. Please, next time, provide the source. Otherwise, you never know when someone might call it Off Topic!
3 or 4 years? ROTFLMAO!
To give one relatively recent example, in the late sixties all construction projects receiving Federal money sprouted signs announcing that fact. The largest letters on those signs spelled out "PRESIDENT LYNDON B. JOHNSON".
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
From the article:
"If an elected official tried, for example, to drape a banner with his or her picture on it over the state Capitol building, the police would yank it down and cite the offender."
Not in Boston. When my friends come to town, we go to the middle of the city and I give them five minutes to figure out the name of the mayor without speaking. They all do.
How? His name (Thomas Menino) is on every park bench. Every construction sign. The entrance plaque of every building public funds played a role in erecting. Associated with anything where the people and the tangible actions of the city government meet.
It's blatent, and it is an extra use of public funds, occuring in meatspace. This is a blatent contradiction of the ideas in the quote above.
But then, Boston and Chi-Town pols have been aquiring votes by unethical means for hundreds of years now...
Support a few technologists in Washington.
Michael's an idiot:
...
Government Web Sites Are Not for the Incumbents
Hal Plotkin has a column pointing out a severe deficiency in how the U.S. government handles web sites - they are often designed more to promote current office-holders than to conduct governmental affairs
41,944 is the median household income, according to the page you linked. Most households have more than person with income.
It's not what a median job pays, for example.
The question of how the typical American is doing financially can't be answered in a simple way. Any single number you look at can and should be subject to interpretation. The median income for full time males is 37K. What about men who can't get full time work? Or men who have to work more than one full time job?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I MET a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which still survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
-Percy Bysse Shelley
Political leaders putting their names on public works is no new thing. If anything is novel about the web aspect of this, it's that the edifice they're affixing their name to is so much more transitory than masonry.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
There is a fairly simple solution to this - don't let incumbants run for re-election.
More specifically, do not allow a person who holds a government office (either elected, appointed or simply cashing a goverment paycheck) to run for office for any government position until they have been out of government office for at least one full term of the position they are running for.
Let me give an example to make that clear: Maynard is currently a Senator. He wishes to run for Senate again. Under my rules, if he serves out his current term (let's say he was elected in 2000), then he's out in 2006, and one full term of the Senate would be six more years, so he cannot run until 2012. If he decides to settle for Representative, then that would be 2008. If he resigns TODAY, he can run for Representative in 2004, president in 2008.
Mary is currently Attorney General, an appointed position. Mary wants to run for President. Mary cannot run 2004. The best she can do is hold office until 2004, resign, then run in 2008.
Now, this is different than term limits - you can be Senator however many times you can get elected, just not consecutive terms. AND since you cannot hold ANY goverment position, you cannot be Senator for 6 years, hold appointed office for 6 years, be Senator for 6 years, etc. - you HAVE to get out into the private sector (at least as far as being a lobbyist) (but note well the extant restrictions on lobbying after holding office!).
As a result, an incumbant cannot use their position for their own relection. They won't spend the last two years of office campaining. You won't have the dynastic legacies of a Ted Kennedy or Bob Dole.
www.eFax.com are spammers
Let's see. . .what CAN'T they fly Coach: the rest of us do. And as for baggage handlers, why not subject them to the joys of our new Federalized (and supposedly "Professionalized". . .) Baggage Handlers and screeners. Thay're SUPPOSEDLY there to represent us, as opposed to being the Senator from Disney or whereever.
Then again, if **I** was running things, I'd have Congresscritters and Senators living in general-issue family housing on any of the local military bases in the DC area. After all, if it's good enough for our boys and girls in uniform, it oughta be good enough for a Congressman or Senator....
...than the old practice of the newly elected official spending a ton of taxpayer money to change all the stationery, signs on the doors (and windows) of the office space, billboards, signs above the expressways, etc. Is there some section in all the charters of our city, state, and federal govts. that says that our elected politicians must spend our taxes to remind us of who they are?
Now it's the web sites. Is anyone really surprised by this?
...for chiming in. Clinton/Gore should count the WH site a critical step towards openness in gov't as one of their greater achievements. I think they were pioneers not just for gov't, but for substantive use of the Web. The C-G years were otherwise marked by so much political negativism -- X trying to stop Y from doing Z, etc. -- that too little was accomplished. (And some of what was, needs undoing.)
... if they even know.
... thank you for your work!
The problem, as the original post indicates, is to ensure ongoing integrity, regardless of who is in office. I think many politicians are incapable of reasonable objectivity. Posting raw materials is a good thing, but as someone who has spent time researching the Congressional Record, much of that stuff is indigestible for most folks. It would be nice to have a nonpartisan digest of the political activity, kind of like the OMB is supposed to be to financial analysis.
What a wonderful thing the Web is for accountability. Now if someone would teach the press and pundits to use it. For one, I am sooooo tired of the "invented the Internet" thing. I can imagine folks like Leno going, "So what if it's not true, it's funny"
Anyway
... until that dark day when they shut down the open relay. I had a lot of fun telnetting into it and using it to create nearly perfect forged e-mail from "bill@whitehouse.gov". Because I used the actual whitehouse.gov server as the relay, even the path of Received headers looked good.
Of course, most people don't even know how to find the headers much less know what they mean, so forging e-mails to your more gullible friends can still be a riot.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I consulted on a "transition team" for the state of NJ's current governor (J. McGreevey) - after I had help build the previous governor's (C. Whitman) version of the state web site.
The web site has over 1,000,000 documents. Each head honcho wants the site branded to them specifically.
This is an actual line of process:
Find:
img src="/assets/images/logo_top_gov_whitman.jpg"
Replace with:
img src="/assets/images/logo_top_gov_mcgreevey.jpg"
Do that about 1,000 times for each variation. Then use the site's spider engine to index all of the pages where the old name appears and go through manually.
That was soo much fun! Almost as fun as doing my COBOL Y2K contract!
..is that it doesn't clearly identify who it belongs go ("Office of the House Majority Leader" is really vague to some occasional voter from Podunk, Iowa) so the average visitor is misled into thinking this is some official gov't site with offical gov't statements (being a .gov and all). Especially since the presentation is very much "news site", not "personal site".
Then it has statements like "Free the Daschle Fifty" -- which the average voter is going to interpret quite out of context.
IMO this site borders on actively deceptive.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Hi there, I'm DesScorp, and I'd like to welcome you to the real world. You're argument is flawed, mainly because you're assuming that all people seeking power are doing it for personal gain or for abuse. People like that DO exist. But you're assuming ambition is a bad thing here. Most people seeking power also do it thinking that "I can do a better job than that other guy". I WANT that kind of confidence in someone holding a position of power. I don't want some fool chosen by lottery, because you can't make someone want responsibility in a position of power. It has to be desired, then earned. Someone has to step up to the plate at election time and run for the office. Wouldn't you rather have someone that actually WANTS the job? I don't know of any other way to do it in a democracy, do you?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Yes, I do.
The matching funds program that you reference is funded by the voluntary "Presidential Election Campaign" checkoff on the 1040 form (and its variants).
I've have often thought that once everyone, or nearly everyone is wired we should only allow communication about canidates and their positions to be posted on a government sponsored website. This way it could have the benefit of making a level playing ground and will keep campaign costs down. Each candidate would get a certain amount of webspace and that's it. If you can't get your position across with 200 Meg of space then something is wrong.
Granted this would take a constitutional amendment to pass but that does not make it impossible. Think about it, people were actually able to ratify a constitutional amendment banning alcohol, why not campaign reform? The beauty of it is that once people start really moving on such a scheme the big corporations will start a media blitz to try and convince people to not support it. Their efforts will only drive home the point that they need to be taken out of the equation.
Government is supposed to be for the people, not for the corporations.
The problem is, the original poster doesn't know much. It's full of falsehoods about Bush.
The White House has numerous transcripts of various fundraising speeches the Chimp-in-Chief has delivered of late. Various partisan and disparaging comments contained therein. Follow the marionette strings from the twitching mannequin back to Karl Rove.
You have a good point, but that can be fixed. Place limits on the jobs of the former representatives, and watch them closely.
Millions of dollars are spent on campaigning, cocktail parties, leaflet printing, etc... and come election time, you would already paid a considerable wager betting against your opposition that you will gain more support than him/her.
And when you win, is helping promote, no let's just say introduce, your next opponent, from the opposing party you worked very hard to beat, and in the process spent millions!
I'd do everything in my power to ensure that the loser gets beaten again come election time! Why the heck should I help him... he would have done exactly the same thing if he won.
This cycle is fated, it's the way things go. So I don't get it why this is an issue. It's not just happening in the US, it's happening around the world! At least in the US opposition can always bash the ruling party on TV or some other media. In some countries the ruling party controls the media itself. So Americans, consider yourself lucky!
Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers
"We have term limits, they're called elections. If you want the guy out, don't vote for him. Of course, I have always thought that the primary role of Congress was to keep Ted Kennedy off the highways."
Doesn't work that way, as incumbents use their vast power to influence the elections. They even vote to give themselves more money to run their campaigns (while the challengers get nothing). Also, the contrive to rig things to keep opponents off the ballots as well. If elections really worked as term limits, Ted Kennedy would have lost the election after he murdered that woman, instead of still being in office, numerous crimes and replacement livers later.
You actually expect me to spend a few hours educating myself on the issues and the candidates? You actually expect me to take five minutes to register to vote, and another half an hour to vote on election day?
Pah! You jackass! How dare you? I'd much rather whine and complain from the critics gallery without even bothering to participate. After all, it's a lot easier to blame everything on "stupid voters" when you're not one of them. ;-)
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
As I see it, the problem is that the internet and the web represent a problem to politics and government - it isn't something they can control, though they try harder every year to do so. Here is a system that they cannot master, cannot bend to serve them how they need to be served, namely to be able to control the populace and tell them how to think. The internet isn't TV, no matter how hard they try. I fear if they are successful, somehow, and manage to put the net under thier thumb, they will likely see a backlash so huge that it will make the day the internet went black look like a party.
What would be my vision for a good political/governmental web site? It would mainly allow the participation of the people - I can easilty envision a slash/scoop web site where users could log in, and DISCUSS issues related to government - a central area where one could see all the legislation passed, all that is on the table or "coming up", all the text of everything, so that it can be seen by the people and discussed - and they (the govt/politicians/congressmen/etc) would take the peoples reaction into account and allow the process to refine the bill properly. I know you can't please all of the people - it would have to be compromise. But by doing so, it is better than the secrecy and hidden gotchas/riders we have now. Furthermore, it would keep people informed as to what is going on in their government, and would possible help keep corruption down by being an open forum. Constituents could communicate better with their representatives, and know that what they are saying is being heard.
One thing I wish was out there was a list of "who voted for what" - ie, wouldn't it be great to know what congresspersons/senators vote for what bills, on a per state basis - so you can see at a glance, based on a search, what your reps for your state voted for what legislation, so you can more easily make a decision to support them or not come next election? Especially things that limit our freedom, etc (think PATRIOT act, DMCA, UCITA, CCDBTA) - then be able to discuss this with other people in your area, in a moderated, threaded discussion forum? It would be true government by the people - true representation.
Instead, we have at best a "mismash" of segregated and separated forums and sites - there are some govt sites that allow you to find out the information (on some things, but not all), then discussion sites like /. and k5 that allow for the political discussion - but nothing that relates to each community/state - so no way to organise with fellow constituents.
You will never see this though, they will likely openly oppose such ability, if anyone tried to set such a thing up. If anyone know of such a thing (I can't be the only one who has thought about this), please let me know. I would love to know who to vote out (as it is, I am thinking about simply voting a straight ticket for one of the alternate parties - but I don't like the idea of doing that as it isn't a good informed decision).
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
compulsive quest for sexual gratification
... didn't you work for President Clinton? (I voted for him, twice.)
But
Are you in the DC area still? (I live in Arl.)
MI - state representative Paul DeWeese (running for state senate) spammed a list of state email addresses, with a message about how he stands with state employees, shares their outrage at the overuse of contractors, etc. and how he'll continue to work to have more of them, and less of contractors. A blatent political ad.
What he didn't realize it that many contractors have state email addresses. At my workplace, many, many contractors got this email. I don't think it had the effect he was hoping for! ;)
Actually it was Al Gore being interviewed by WOLF BLITZER on the March 9, 1999 CNN "Late Edition/PrimeTime"
"'I took the initiative in creating the Internet,' Al Gore ... claimed at one point without challenge or follow-up from Blitzer. This exchange is run [here] in full to show the claim is not taken out of context and that it didn't faze Blitzer."
Data Talks, Bull$417 Walks ... See & hear for yourself ... The video clip is here
I believe Juanita
Call me silly, but are not the people *in* office considered the incumbents? Check websters : incumbent. So is the title of this new story saying that the websites should not be for the incumbents only, or are they misusing the word incumbent.
Or to sell missile hardware to the Chinese?
How many cruise missiles does he fire at innocent pharmaceutical plants to divert national attention from his perjuring himself when accused of sexual harrassment?
And one wonders if Bush is going to ever sign such useful international treaties as the ones stopping North Korea from getting nukes and the ones resulting in peace in the Middle East.
And is he going to ignore a misogynist and avowed enemy of the entire Western world years and years of unmolested time to grow his organization, and even turn down an offer from the Sudan to turn over that enemy before he could launch a war of terror across the globe? (Don't think Slick turhed down such an offer? Read Hillarreah's rant when asked a few months ago, and search for her denial. You'll search in vain - it's not there....)
Tell me, how could Bill Clinton have been a worse President? Maybe companies like Enron could have started cooking the books while he was in charge?
What if I want to hear about what people did with a dog last week as well as what michael does with 5 pounds of ice and a shovel? Where is one to go?
My girlfriend is a political type (who's worked in DC for a Congressman, among other things, so she's pretty farmiliar with these sorts of things) and she assumes me that everything on a US House website must be approved by the bipartisan Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards or the "Franking Commission". (Commission on Congressional Mailing) I know this doesn't cover all viewpoints, but at least the two major parties have a say in the approval process.
Personally, I've been making use of the above web site in order to figure out who my candidates are and whether they're worth my vote or not. This sort of web site is very helpful.
...which allows the incumbents to add all of those obscure amendments to bills that have nothing to do with the bills themselves. That's how pork-barrel spending is done.
"On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog!" - a dog
Which, for people that are into semantics, is still a lie as the Internet was already underway before Gore was in office.
Yet you brag of your web design work for 'President Stanton' and his sycophant?
Please 'square the circle' ;-);-);-) regarding your comment
"I don't care what a politician screws so long as they are consenting " with respect to Juanita who was _NOT_ consenting as in like violently-raped non-consenting
I await your acrobatics and hand-waving. Cheers
I believe Juanita
Which is why he started 'when I was in the Congress'. Gore got us the money to turn ARPANET into the Internet. Al also got us the money for ARPANET.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
CONCLUSION: Gore _DID_ _NOT_ get us the money for ARPANET!!!
In 1990, Gore introduced a bill that would allow the federal government to enter the business of crafting software for teachers to use. Another Gore plan would create a new federal research center for educational computing to support an "information systems highway." (Wired Mar. 11, 1999)
CONCLUSION: Gore _DID_ _NOT_ get us the money to turn ARPANET into the Internet. However, he may have voted for/against various bills that DID further develop the ARPANET (that we know predates Gore's political career)
OVERALL CONCLUSION: Gore is/was a "serial exaggerater"
I believe Juanita
It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more
doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage, than the creation of
a new system. For the initiator has the emnity of all who would profit
by the preservation of the old institutions and merely lukewarm defenders
in those who would gain by the new ones.
-- Niccolo Machiavelli, 1513
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...
The hieroglyphics are all unreadable except for a notation on the back,
which reads "Genuine authentic Egyptian papyrus. Guaranteed to be at
least 5000 years old."
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...