Slashdot Mirror
US Gov't Representatives - Who's Who?
melankolik asks: "With all the issues emerging these days related to DRM, 'piracy', anti-trust, civil rights, big business, et al, and with tech-illiterate politicians passing laws of dubious intent or results, it can be hard to tell who the Good Guys and the Bad Guys are in our government (more realistically, who supports the Good and Bad legislation). What information can any of you politically savvy Slashdot readers offer to someone taking an interest in the political machine regarding the past and present legislation, stances, and agendas of our friendly neighborhood Senators, Governors, and other representatives?" As complex as politics are, there may not be "good guys" and "bad guys", and instead those who support your politics on some issues, and not on others. Even so, it would be interesting to know how the representatives vote on specific issues, especially those that deal with computers and online rights. Has anyone been compiling this information?
I have two remarks here. They're basically unrelated.
The first is this: I admire the way you participated in the process in this case. You educated yourself, formed an opinion, and communicated that opinion to your representatives. Good for you.
The second is this: you know who's to blame for the failure of this bill? The pro-gun lobby. That's right: not Feinstein, not the gun-control advocates. The pro-gun lobby is to blame here.
Take a perfectly good bill. Attach an amendment to it that goes a little bit farther than you'd want to go in a perfect world. What happens? The bill dies, dead dead dead, because some people were unwilling to compromise.
Guess what, folks? Compromise is the highest of all political virtues. The correct course of action here was for the gun lobby to say, "You know, a 10-round limit on magazines is not totally unacceptable. Let's start negotiating until we reach a point of consensus."
Didn't happen. Instead, the cry went out across the land: vote NO!
Damn shame.
(Line-item veto is the WRONG answer. It effectively puts legislative power in the hands of the president. The right answer is to let our representatives know that we want them to reach reasoned compromises, not to throw babies out in pails full of bathwater.)
I write in my journal
Alas, I can only buy new magazines that hold 10 rounds.
Ain't that just a kick in the head?
See, my dear friend, the thing is that you are not a trained and uniformed member of a law enforcement organization. You are, therefore, not entitled to be as thoroughly armed as those fine citizens. Because we, the vox populi, do not trust you as much as we trust badge-carrying members of our local garrison.
It seems that you've had a run in with a criminal
Guess again.
Sorry, but if it's prudent for police officers to have more than 10 rounds on tap, it's prudent for me to also.
I'm gonna go right ahead and call bullshit on this once again. It's a specious argument, ridiculous on its face. You're not fooling anybody.
This is about one thing and one thing only: your personal desire to pop off a dozen rounds or more on the practice range without having to stop to reload. I, as I explained, do not give a shit about this. The benefits of limiting civilians to ten rounds per magazine outweigh any inconvenience on your part.
The implications of only being allowed to carry 11 rounds in your Glock instead of 14 on the size of your penis, your testosterone level, or your overall fitness as a male specimen are not my problem.
The Constitution calls for a well regulated militia. Welcome to the "well regulated" part of that particular edict.
I write in my journal
Clearly, you've been sleeping through George Buh's America, where as far as he and his pals are concerned, that's exactly how they want things to work. You're talking about the ideals of democratic America, and they were nice, but the Rubicon has been crossed and now we've got our dear little tinpot leader changing things as fast as possible. Are we a republic any more? These days, I'm not sure that the term applies.
Be that as it may, Twirlip is absolutely correct: compromise is the absolute core of a functioning democracy, and it absolutely cannot be sacrificed for something as petty as legislative expediency. So it takes years for Congress to get things done -- so what? Do you really want to live in a nation so unstable that the law making bodies are able to change the rules at a whim? That's not democracy, that's dictatorship, and shifting too much power in El Presidente's direction is too big of a step in the wrong direction. When congress moves fast, bad things happen: the Patriot Act is a shining example of the kind of disaster that can happen when compromise & consideration are sacrificed for political expediency, and we're not going to have to live with that mistake for years to come.
Elsewhere in this thread, Twirlip urged you (pi_rules) to look back at history, to see how compromise has molded this country. Did you bother taking his advice? Again, he was right: every nuance of our federal system was the result of compromise. Some wanted a strong, centralized federal system, while others wanted all power devolved to the states -- hence the delicate balance the Constitution strikes between federal & state control. Some wanted to consolidate power in northern cities, while others wanted more of a voice for the rural south -- hence the compromise of building Washington DC in the (at the time) rural south, but close to what was then the middle of the country. Some wanted slavery, some were against it -- hence the 3/5 compromise, which arguably delayed the civil war by decades. Et cetera.
A political system with no compromise is a disaster. North Korea, Iraq, <troll> Buh's America </troll>. No sane person would ever want to live in one of these places. But the line item veto is practically an invitation to give up on legislative compromise, and would undermine the structure of our carefully tuned political system in ways that would be vast, subtle, and ultimately disastrous.
No political issue is so important that achieving it is worth undermining the entire systeem that has served us so well for decades, is it? I sure don't think so...
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL