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?
Just look at whose lips are moving.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
Sorry, but that's way too simple to actually work. You're assuming that laws are voted on one issue at a time.
That's just not the case. The recent S 1805 was a great example of this and one that I followed very very closely... as in getting updates on the issues every half an hour. My senators are now on speed dial.
Here's how it went.
One, the House passed a bill that would protect firearms manufacturers from frivelous lawsuits. Ie: If Beretta sells a gun to a federally licensed dealer, who sells it to a legally qualifed person, who's gun is then picked up by their child and accidentally shoots themselves Beretta cannot be held liable UNLESS the product was defective. Fairly simple law.
This goes to the Senate as S 659. The Senate didn't like the exact wording of 659 so 1805 was drafted and brought to the floor after it got the committee's stamp of approval. It was debated and the Republicans got a vote for "cloture" which limited debate to only 30 hours. Life was good -- it was in the bag we thought.
Nope. Apparently the Republicans let enough time laps for "riders" to be attached to the bill. They'd be debated one by one and if they had enough votes tacked onto the bill.
My memory is a bit fuzzy now, but first was tacked on a rider forcing all guns sold in the USA to be sold with a lock. That's already the case in some states, so nobody was really TOO irked about that one.
Somebody proposed a rider allowing all retired law enforcement officers to carry a concealed weapon through the entire nation. I'm not sure if it was attached or not.
Then Dianne Feinstein got her pet project attached. A renewal of the 1994 legislation that will sunset, God willing, on Sept 14 2004 prohibiting civilians for buying magazines (clips some call them) that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition (bullets) -- and a slew of other meaningless things. It was attached.
Right there, it hit the fan. Every pro-gun org. got off their butts and told their Senators to kill the whole friggen bill right then and there. A little more debate went on, and when it came to a final vote it was defeated: 90-8.
Enough CRAP was attached that it was a poisoned bill and nobody wanted to touch it.
So, taking a simple approach a pro-gun person would look up their Senator's vote and see that they shot it down... but unless you know the whole history of the bill and trace their votes through the whole process you won't really know their stance.
It's a horrid process, and the president doesn't have a line-item veto so there was no way anybody wanted this thing on his desk. He even asked for a CLEAN bill, a one issue bill, but it didn't happen.
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