Speaker of the House Starts Blogging

Bjimba writes "Denny Hastert, the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, has just started his own blog on the official speaker.gov site. I don't know if he'll keep up with it, but from reading his initial post, it seems clear that he's not employing ghostbloggers."

Comments

Pshaw!

[Anonymous Coward]

Whining about oil refineries, hurricanes and why red-blooded, stalwart American companies like errr BP aren't being patriotic and building US refineries??? Booo---ring!

Harriet miers has been blogging for ages, and her blog is so much more fun to read! Check it out (-;

Re:Pshaw!

[njchick]

For ages? The oldest comment is dated October 19, 2005.

Moderators, you should re-read the troll definition.

His words seem genuine

[phaetonic]

While its simply an opinion, his blog seems like he says it like it is and is more genuine than any speech I'll see on T.V.

Re:His words seem genuine

[controlguy]

I believe they are his words as well, and I also believe he (and the republicans) believe its a channel by which they can reach young (tech savvy) Americans. It's a good idea. Thank goodness he doesn't have a "talkback" feature ;)

Re:His words seem genuine

[yog]

He sounds genuine but he doesn't say very much of substance, only that he doesn't plan to spend as much as $250 billion for hurricane damage.

The web could be used to powerful effect to outline one's policy stands and to encourage comments and feedback from his voters. This would be a true virtual town meeting.

Unfortunately, this will probably never come to pass because of the many who abuse the system and ruin it for everyone else. I have seen many forums degenerate from high quality postings by the original, idealistic people to rant sessions and flame wars by idiots who drive out the reasonable participants. It's hard to regulate this behavior.

Anyway, it's probably better that a blog exists at all, but I'd like to see a more meaningful exchange of ideas between the elected and the electorate.

Re:His words seem genuine

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

But do you really want Mr. Hastert to say it like it is?

It "doesn't make sense to me" to rebuild a city under sea level, says he. "It looks like a lot of that place could be bulldozed. You know, we build Los Angeles and San Francisco on top of earthquake fissures and they rebuild, too. Stubbornness."

I expect similar great insight from this man on his blog. Let NO, SF, and LA be destroyed by the next natural disaster - for a stronger America!

Re:His words seem genuine

[aussie_a]

I have seen many forums degenerate from high quality postings by the original, idealistic people to rant sessions and flame wars by idiots who drive out the reasonable participants.

As have I. Still, there are some idealistic people here at slashdot.

Re:His words seem genuine

[plover]

Thank goodness he doesn't have a "talkback" feature

I was going to disagree with you, but then I got an image of just how many penis birds and gnaa posts would be filling his server. *shudder*

Of course, if that simply diverted the trolls away from slashdot for a while, I guess that'd be all right with me...

Re:His words seem genuine

[ceejayoz]

That's what hoodwink.d is for.

Re:His words seem genuine

[Anonymous Coward]

|_Denny Hastert

Re:His words seem genuine

[deanj]

he doesn't say very much of substance

Well, to be fair, either do most bloggers. :-)

Re:His words seem genuine

[Clockwork Apple]

They are always happy to reach out with their message, but its a one-way street.

From the blog:
"This is the future. And it is a new way for us to get our message out."

We need some folks in office who listen to the folks they talk at.

C.

Re:His words seem genuine

[drinkypoo]

It "doesn't make sense to me" to rebuild a city under sea level, says he. "It looks like a lot of that place could be bulldozed. You know, we build Los Angeles and San Francisco on top of earthquake fissures and they rebuild, too. Stubbornness."

It's nice to see that he has his head screwed on right, though. I fully agree with these statements. Of course, it's possible to build buildings that will withstand some pretty gnarly earthquakes, but what are you going to do about floods? Put everything on stilts? That'd look nice on bourbon street.

Re:His words seem genuine

[Amiga Trombone]

He sounds genuine but he doesn't say very much of substance

Well, he's not exactly known for being the sharpest tool in the shed.

Re:His words seem genuine

[xs650]

The skeery part is that that turkey is 2nd in line for the Presidency. And it's not that far fetched. Cheney quits when he finally gets outed as the shitbag he is, then Bush quits because he's a quitter that never held a job to completion, that leaves Hasturd next in line.

Sleep comfortabley, mah fellow 'Merkins.

Re:His words seem genuine

[Anubis350]

but what are you going to do about floods? Put everything on stilts?

well, the dutch are creating floating houses...

Re:His words seem genuine

[rpdillon]

Well, to his credit, my first reaction to the floods in New Orleans (other than "Holy Crap!") was "What did they think was going to happen when they built a coastline city below sealevel??" It really was only a matter of time.

I understand the tragedy of it all, and I understand that you can't simply tear down a city because it *might* get flooded, but now that is *has* been flooded, it might be a good time to address the fundamental issues that caused the problem in the first place.

Re:His words seem genuine

[Master of Transhuman]

Sure they're genuine.

He got a $500,000 bribe from the Turks to make sure they're "genuine."

After all, as George Burns used to say, "Sincerity is the most important thing. If you can fake that, you've got it made."

Re:His words seem genuine

[dbrutus]

You can email him, like you can email most representatives.

Re:His words seem genuine

[sumdumass]

They listen but one problem maybe the lack of coherant messages. (like the way i put it?)

What i mean is that most people ask to enrich themselves not thinking of the others. Alot of people who i know think the government should do something about somethign then complain when it wasn't the thing they wanted orexactly how they would have done it. Somethign even more surprising is that when they say "the government should do somethign" they odn't have an answer rather they pick apart what doesn't work when somethign is eventualy done. I know your thinking of somethign more specific but you one in a million when you consider how many people that could be asking for something.

I would bet everyone in office "listens to the folks they talk at". I don't think they can do somethign that matches everyone's needs. Even the majority of peoples desires might not be best for the country at times. Being a politician probably isn't as easy as being a friend or loved one. Look at how they don't listen at times. It must be tough knowing you have to work for the betterment of the people you serve and weigh the differences between what helps verses what problems it creates. Sometimes there are no brainers and sometimes it might get tough. To make things even more dificult, there are laws and constitutions that might limit what can and cannot be done and who it could be done to.

I'm glad we have this blog. I wish there was an ask questions section were people could get some feed back about what they are concerned with. Some type of filter could be used to weed out the trolls. I would bet most all the questions would be about the same 10 or 20 topics that could get some pointer to were the country or party is headed while expressing were people want them to go.

Re:His words seem genuine

[dbrutus]

Actually you missed the really significant part because he rendered it in beltway speak. He talked about cutting mandatory spending. This is the elephant in the room, the one that nobody wants to touch. Mandatory spending is all spending that automatically increases except if there is a special bill pushed through the Congress to cut it. Very popular programs get put in the mandatory spending category and it's the biggest part of the budget out there, dwarfing defense, for example.

If there's anything that he needs help with it's setting up a glossary and having links for technical terms of art for legislation so that outsiders can understand the stuff.

Re:His words seem genuine

[Dan Up Baby]

Oh no, a non-libertarian that Reason doesn't like--perish the thought!--might become president if one of the most unlikely Operation Shutdowns of all time occurs in the next three years! I'll never sleep comfortabl[e]y again!

Vote this man up, friends! His condescending use of the word "'Merkin" means he has his eyes on that ever-important World Stage! And "Hasturd"? Delightful! Surely this man is Slashdot's Will Rogers, combining folksy turns-of-phase with a shining wit and deadly satire. And knowing the order of succession to two places? Truly +2 informative; my five-year-old cousin was under the foolish impression that the President Pro Tempore was next up, and I simply had no authoritative source with which to correct him--until now.

Re:His words seem genuine

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yea, they listen. The question is:
1.) Are they bought and sold?
2.) Are they in blissful ignorance?

Re:His words seem genuine

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell all the Slashdot readers one thing that GWB has quit on. It seems to me, whether one disagrees with him or not, he stays the course when he makes a decision.

Re:His words seem genuine

[Reality Master 101]

We need some folks in office who listen to the folks they talk at.

Hell NO. This is a popular notion for some reason, but I for one don't want politicians listening to the great unwashed masses. That's exactly how we get into trouble -- they pander to the masses in order to get votes. Or to put it another way, exactly who are they supposed to listen to? You can find anyone who believes anything.

What I want politicians to do is listen to a small, trusted set of smart people and do the "right thing", regardless of whether it's popular or not.

Re:His words seem genuine

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

It's nice to see that he has his head screwed on right

Yes, he's completely technically correct - except for that people live(d) in New Orleans and have invested their whole life in the sity. If you could go back to the founding of the city and tell them "hey, this is a bad spot," that would've been awesome. But that's not quite an option now. Even if 40% don't want to return to NO, that means that 60% do.

His head's screwed on but his heart's screwed up.

Put everything on stilts? That'd look nice on bourbon street.

Stilts are acceptable (have you seen many of the older nonplantation houses and buildings in South Louisiana?). I don't know if 6-foot stilts would work, though....

Or you could just build better levees and drainage systems. Or, now that the city's kinda emptyish, bulldoze the parts that are irrevocably ruined, raise the ground level, and rebuild. You don't have to bulldoze most of the city - just some parts.

Or if you've got money to burn you could do what Italy's doing to keep the Leaning Tower from falling - pump soil underground to raise the level of the land. That wouldn't require rebuilding.

Re:His words seem genuine

[Anonymous Coward]

"he stays the course when he makes a decision."

Where you been? He doesn't believe in nation building, until he starts to engage in nation building. He doesn't believe in government handouts to the poor, until the hurricane comes and he believes in government handouts to the poor. He says he will get Osama dead or alive, then redirects to go to Iraq instead. He said he would bring honor back to the White House, then presides over a mess of indictments (coming up!). He ran his oil business into the ground, then walked away. He toyed with being a baseball owner, then walked away. He joined the Texas Air National Guard, then walked away. Shall I continue?

Re:His words seem genuine

[dbrutus]

Try reading the 25th amendment. On a vacancy in the VP slot, the President appoints a new VP with the approval of both houses of Congress. Unless Hastert was selected and approved, he'd stay 3rd in line unless there was a simultaneous vacancy.

Re:His words seem genuine

[rjstanford]

What I want politicians to do is listen to a small, trusted set of smart people and do the "right thing", regardless of whether it's popular or not

This was the whole rationale behind the British House of Lords - and the original inspiration for the US Senate. Its purpose is also served somewhat by traditional monarchies operating under otherwise democratic systems. This is because you need someone (or some people, or both) who are taking the long view of what's good for the country. Without it, you get bread and circuses, followed by revolution. Happens every time (or, at least, it has so far).

Re:His words seem genuine

[WalksOnDirt]

If it weren't for the moderation system I don't think Slashdot would be viable, and somehow I doubt that even slashcode would keep Hastert's blog from chaos if random people could post comments.

Re:His words seem genuine

[Anonymous Coward]

And what do you ask or say to give you that opinion?

Re:His words seem genuine

[Duhavid]

I dunno, this post seems kinda stilted.

Re:His words seem genuine

[Waffle Iron]

What I want politicians to do is listen to a small, trusted set of smart people

The only problem with your plan: No such set exists.

Re:His words seem genuine

[russellh]

What I want politicians to do is listen to a small, trusted set of smart people and do the "right thing", regardless of whether it's popular or not.

You mean, like, a monarch who listens to his courtiers?

Oh. awesome.

Yes, it sounds good to say that you as a leader should not swayed by popular opinion and should follow your core set of principles. But.. what happens when those principles are unpopular? Well, guess what: you lie to the people. If you're confident enough, you'll tell yourself that It's For Their Own Good. Lots of people think they're doing the Right Thing.

But unless you want dictatorship, the masses have to be trusted. The great unwashed masses, as you call them, are actually reasonably smart and moral. They are not a mob. They are you. You are saying you do not trust yourself. You want a strongman to make the tough, unpopular decisions that you and your neighbors cannot. Well, Saddam is available.

Re:His words seem genuine

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just waiting for his spring break entries!! I bet he makes girls gone wild look like a disney movie! ;)

Re:His words seem genuine

[LordSnooty]

What I want politicians to do is listen to a small, trusted set of smart people and do the "right thing", regardless of whether it's popular or not.

i.e. you? Remember, what you (or the shadowy trusted set of smart people) consider to be "right" may not tally with what I view to be "right".

Re:His words seem genuine

[MooUK]

With the right person leading it, a BENEVOLENT dictatorship will be more effective than ANY democracy.

Re:His words seem genuine

[Anonymous Coward]

> They listen but one problem maybe the lack of coherant messages.

I find it ironic that you would complain about this when your own post has many errors in it (e.g., "I" is almost always capitalized; "a lot" is two words, etc.).

Re:His words seem genuine

[(trb001)]

What I want politicians to do is listen to a small, trusted set of smart people and do the "right thing", regardless of whether it's popular or not.

Then you're living under the wrong form of government (assuming you're from the US). Representative democracies are not about "doing the right thing." They're about a small group voting for representatives to go to a larger, more powerful body and vote based on their wishes. If the citizens of Pennsyltucky want mandatory prayer in school, their representative should absolutely push for it whether it is right or wrong. If he doesn't, he should (and most likely will) be voted out of office.

I'm going to take a stab and guess that you would expect a "trusted set of smart people" to think approximately like you do. Would you be willing to live under the same form of government with a set of "smart people" who think the polar opposite of what do you? I doubt it.

I for one don't want politicians listening to the great unwashed masses

BTW, remove your head from your ass. People who don't want the same thing as you still have the right to have their voices heard.

--trb

Re:His words seem genuine

[paitre]

And to be specific about what things are included in mandatory spending:

Think Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.
Both of which, combined and possibly even individually, are a larger portion of government spending than what we spend on the military.

INCLUDING the War spending (in fact, we could easy quadruple, maybe even quintuple, war spending, PER YEAR before military spending got into the same ballpark that these programs are in).

I'll bite my tongue on the Constituionality of the programs, and the War. Just stating facts here, not opinions ;)

Re:His words seem genuine

[Decker-Mage]

Actually I would disagree (or I wouldn't be posting this ;-). Such a set exists but frankly they have much better things to do with their time for the most part like real work in the real world that affects real people. Look at the grief that the Senate majority leader has taken from the ethics committee over the fact that he continues to deliver babies on his weekends or volunteer his services whenver he travels to foreign countries in, say, Africa. You see those same id10t rules being applied across the whole of government and those of us with the qualifications and the smarts literally run away. I've long thought about getting involved in the political process either on the advisory level or actually running for office. Then I look at reality. No thank you!

Re:His words seem genuine

[russellh]

With the right person leading it, a BENEVOLENT dictatorship will be more effective than ANY democracy.

well now, there's always a catch, isn't there? ;-)

besides... we've had a lot of experience with government in the last two thousand years. and we have the oldest, most effective large scale constitutional republic in the history of the world, and today it's righting itself yet again. That's something no dictatorship can ever do. they always go down in flames because so much power is concentrated in the leader.

But wait. you said will be! Do you have a plan?

Re:His words seem genuine

[Atzanteol]

Sure, they have a right to go back and build below sea level. But why should the rest of the country fund their stupidity? This is the question. I don't mind spending to help those in need. But if it's so they can go right back and live in the same stupid location I start to get a bit annoyed (thinking of next year's possible hurricanes).

Re:His words seem genuine

[buhatkj]

i agree. I also read his remarks to open the 109th house; really well constructed and poignant speech. My initial impression is that I like this guy. He makes sense to me and seems to have a good handle on things.

Re:His words seem genuine

[cosinezero]

Sorry, but a true virtual town meeting wouldn't have "delete comment" features. ...likely his blog will also feature "edit comment" features, too... he -is- a republican...

Re:His words seem genuine

[drinkypoo]

Money to burn is the problem, though. We're already footing the bill for the rebuilding of properties on a flood plain, which is dumb.

Re:His words seem genuine

[Reality Master 101]

But unless you want dictatorship, the masses have to be trusted. The great unwashed masses, as you call them, are actually reasonably smart and moral. They are not a mob.

Guess what? The majority of people in the US support teaching creationism alongside evolution. Do you support that?

They are you. You are saying you do not trust yourself.

No, I trust *me*. I don't trust *you*.

The point is, exactly who is Politician X supposed to listen to? He can't listen to everyone, since for every idea held be someone, there is someone else who holds a diametrically opposed view. Should they simply rule by poll? I think you can think of the limitations of that strategy yourself.

You want a strongman to make the tough, unpopular decisions that you and your neighbors cannot.

No, I want a "representative" to spend the time and research the various issues in order to make an informed decision that the masses cannot, because the masses have other things on their plate (such as a job and family).

That's why we live in a representative democracy, rather than a pure democracy. A pure democracy can't possibly work, because most people don't have the time to be fully informed, and certainly don't have a staff to do research like a politician does.

(of course, I realize I'm speaking idealistically, and I realize politicians don't always do the research they should)

Re:His words seem genuine

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the way it was made fun of when i psoted? woosh-->

Re:His words seem genuine

[bergeron76]

You're such a shill. Around the Beltway, his nickname is "Dennis Bastard".

He as full of shit as all of the other "SuperWealthy-ProBusiness-Anti-Consumer" Republicans. Don't try to pull one over on us.

Re:His words seem genuine

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW, remove your head from your ass. People who don't want the same thing as you still have the right to have their voices heard.

They are not just being heard, they are imposing their will upon me.

No comments?

[Frodo Crockett]

Smart man.

Re:No comments?

[ackthpt]

Smart man.

And to think I believed he saved all his "no comments" for the press...

admit it, you thirst to moderate messages on his blog

Blogosphere... sounds like a planet the enemies of Popeye would come from.

Re:No comments?

[Rescate]

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) has a blog that allows comments. I found that out while reading this Washington Post article posted on Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) site. According to the article, Tancredo is the only federal lawmaker with his own blog that accepts comments.

Even though a lot of lawmakers don't have their own blogs with comments, many will post at other blogs and receive comments there. Obama posted a diary about the Roberts nomination over at Daily Kos, and got over 800 responses. His followup diary got over 400 more.

Re:No comments?

[double-oh three]

I don't know, the DNC's web site has publicly viewable comments and they don't seem to have many troubles with them.

However, no comments is better than the half-assed system the RNC has, where you are asked to give your real home address before you can post or view comments. Kind of defeats the point.

Re:No comments?

[slavemowgli]

Smart man, bad politician (in the sense of "morally bad", not "unsuccessful"). Politicians have a moral *obligation* to listen to the people.

Right it's him

[ackthpt]

No spelling errors, nearly typed. it's been scrubbed by a staffer.

Looks OK, Sir, I just editted out the part about letting all those filthy stinking liberals in New Orleans rot in their own stew.

Re:Right it's him

[Humorously_Inept]

Technically, it may be OK. The problem I have with his blog is the style it's written in. He writes like an elementary school student. Someone should teach him about varying sentence length and structure. Reading his blog is like reading an incoming telegraph. He's got a case of stop and go traffic going on there. Robots might appreciate it but humans probably would not. This has been a demonstration.

Re:Right it's him

[Capt'n Hector]

I suppose you hate Hemmingway then. (well, *ahem*, that's not the reason you should hate him...)

Re:Right it's him

[bryan8m]

Internet should be capitalized.

Re:Right it's him

[Anonymous Coward]

At least he's genuine. I'll bet any other day of the week, you complain that politicians are survey-driven spinmeisters who make sure every word is run through a marketing machine before it's made available to the people they represent.

Reading his blog, I have no doubt that I'm listening to the REAL Speaker of the House. That's pretty damn refreshing if you ask me.

Re:Right it's him

[wombert]

"Neatly typed" ... were you expecting him to blog in longhand?

Re:Right it's him

[geekoid]

not anymore, to generic. It wold be like typing The Freeways.

Re:Right it's him

[Anonymous Coward]

generic - meaning a work used to describe lots of different things?
Mr Bush, is that you?

Re:Right it's him

[Inthewire]

If "Part of that money to made sure that kids have a school to go to" didn't generate an error in your parser than I'm not sure you're qualified to judge.

(Only one t in edited, nearly typed, lowercase initial letter in a sentence not written by ee cummings...have I been trolled?).

Re:Right it's him

[rgoldste]

He writes like an elementary school student...Robots might appreciate it but humans probably would not

I disagree. He knows who his (intended) audience is--the or'nary American. As a journalist, I was taught to write at 6th grade level because that's the level that communicates most effectively with the majority of American readers. Maybe the New York Times or Wall Street Journal can write for a more sophisticated audience, but a politician from the 14th district of Illinois has to communicate with quite a different constituency.

Now, is it sad that the average American needs to be communicated to at an elementary school level? Yes.

Re:Right it's him

[Anonymous Coward]

So do 95% of the rest of the adults in the world who don't use the internet much.

They feel self-conscious and monotone, so they add in a little human flavor by writing like you would speak to the aunt you don't speak to on the phone. I think it has little to do with appealing to the common man, although it's a possibility.

The reason it happens is because the internet contains the formality of typed text with the informality of the internet. It leaves people baffled. This is a guy that lived for 20 years without a telephone.

Email your dad and wait for the response, you'll see.

Re:Right it's him

[FLEB]

Actually, you don't capitalize "freeway", but you do capitalize Interstate (the Interstate Highway System). It's a proper noun, in that it denotes a specific named subset of highways in the United States. Not every divided, limited-access freeway in the United States is an Interstate. Some are U.S. highways or (in rare cases) State highways. There are also a few portions of the Interstate System, I believe, that aren't divided/limited-access freeways, although that's even rarer (I think Hawaii has some, and I know there used to be old Temporary I-69 through Lansing, MI).

The Internet, similarily, denotes a specific IP-based network. Any other network is simply a "network", or perhaps an "intranet". I'm not sure if "internet" is ever used as a generic term for a non-Internet IP network between multiple organizations. I suppose they'd usually just have their own names.

Re:Right it's him

[Daengbo]

A million replies to you, and no one caught "Part of that money to made sure that kids have a school to go to." A typo for sure.

Now, I may be the only one commenting here who thinks this sounds exactly like it was written by a staffer trying to get "the blog feeling." Somebody probably spent weeks researching blogs to copy the style, then wrote this for The Speaker.

Re:Right it's him

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess it's perfect for the media and the American public then.

Re:Right it's him

[ackthpt]

Now, I may be the only one commenting here who thinks this sounds exactly like it was written by a staffer trying to get "the blog feeling." Somebody probably spent weeks researching blogs to copy the style, then wrote this for The Speaker.

It came across stilted and largely speech-like. One would be under the impression Republicans are the very salt of the earth and he's very concerned why the hugely profitalble oil companies aren't building new refineries (he can't be that stupid, can he? That with two oilmen in the whitehouse, it's almost something from Best Little Whorehouse in Texas.)

Re:Right it's him

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't know. Seems OK to me. What's your beef? Nothing wrong with short sentences. Even ones that aren't really sentences. He's speaker of the house. Doesn't have time for grammar.

Re:Right it's him

[The Bod]

He is trying to write in a style such that even democrats can understand him.

Re:Right it's him

[nmx]

I'm not sure if "internet" is ever used as a generic term for a non-Internet IP network between multiple organizations.

I've never actually heard "internet" used in practice, but according to all the networking texts I've read, an internet is a network of networks, and the Internet is a specific case of an internet.

Re:Right it's him

[FLEB]

Noted in my "Things I now know" file. Thanks!

Re:Right it's him

[bar-agent]

George! Long time no see.

Uh oh...

[47Ronin]

Better hope he's not Catholic cause his Sunday school teacher might object to him blogging!

Re:Uh oh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you mean flogging?

Oh wait, Catholic... /ducks

Re:Uh oh...

[slashdotmsiriv]

I have seen much less funny and intelligent posts being assigned 5 very funny. Who ever assigned score 2 for this truly funny post must completely lack any sense of humor or his sense of humor is restricted on techie Linux/Bill gates/Star trek jokes...

Re:Uh oh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Catholics don't go to "Sunday school." Back to class with yer...

Re:Uh oh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh... you do realize how moderation works, right? It takes at least four moderators to take a post from 1 to 5.

Re:Uh oh...

[Anonymous Coward]

To be honest, I have no idea why this post is modded Funny. I've been reading it over and over trying to determine where the humor's located. Is it the insinuation that all Republicans are Christian? Is it the insinuation that, somehow, all Christians disapprove of expression on the Internet? How is this remotely humorous?

And, to be honest, the above poster has neither humor nor sense. Think about it for a moment...Christians would encourage each other to post their thoughts on the Internet as a sort of outreach. They'd encourage self-expression, for it furthers their views in a place that's indifferent or even hostile to what they believe.

Let's mod parent down, Ok? It's an offense to those with a good sense of humor and a halfway-functioning brain.

Re:Uh oh...

[endoplasmicMessenger]

Better hope he's not Catholic cause his Sunday school teacher might object to him blogging!

Catholic's don't have Sunday school. Repeat after me: Catholics are not Protestants. Sheesh!

Re:Uh oh...

[endoplasmicMessenger]

This is a (supposedly witty) reference to a recent news item of a Catholic (high?) school principle that stated that he doesn't want his students to blog.

Doesn't sound like a particularly good idea to me, but Catholics have done far worse.

(More evidence that God runs the Catholic Church -- because if He didn't, it would have collapsed long, long ago.)

Re:Uh oh...

[nmx]

Catholic's don't have Sunday school. Repeat after me: Catholics are not Protestants. Sheesh!

Plural nouns don't have apostrophes. Repeat after me: Apostrophe-S is used to show possession! Sheesh!

Re:Uh oh...

[47Ronin]

Totally breaks the mood when a comedian has to explain his punchline. Anyways...

For those who need to be informed and don't understand the humor, please see widely circulated story "Forgive me, Father, for I have blogged":
http://news.com.com/2061-11199_3-5918217.html

Excerpt from article: "Several Catholic high schools have banned their students from posting personal information about themselves or their schools, according to a report by the Associated Press. The ban, which one school's principal says has been in effect for five years but is only now being strictly enforced, requires students to cease participating in social networking sites like MySpace.com, where many young people post personal information, photos and blog entries--and it even applies to information students post from their home computers. School officials say the policy was instituted to protect students from online predators."

Notice no comment section

[Safe Sex Goddess]

I think blogs without user comments are destined to failure.

I know I'd sure like to comment on Hastert's mention of fiscal responsbility. It's refreshing to know that cutting money to find deadbeat dads is top on the Republican's fiscal responsibility list.

Flame Warning Heaven forbid we cut corporate welfare to the most profitable corporations in the country. I wonder how many of them are actually headquartered in the country? Returning to anti-flame levels

Re:Notice no comment section

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect three little people named Glenn Reynolds, Cory Doctorow, and Joshua Micah Marshall may disagree with you on the "blogs without comments are doomed to failure" bit.

Re:Notice no comment section

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Yep. And in this context, without comments it's not much of a blog at all; it's just another vehicle for delivering political addresses.

Re:Notice no comment section

[bypedd]

Very true, but it's better than nothing. In theory, what he says here doesn't have to go through party colleagues and PR agents. Perhaps we'd all be better off with politicians and authorities blogging, as you could know how the person thinks on a day to day basis, not just the month before an election. I know I'd be interested if a mayor campaignin on affordable housing has 1% of his meeting time devoted to the issue or 15%.

Re:Notice no comment section

[Daniel Dvorkin]

If it offers insight into the day-to-day thinking of someone who makes decisions which can initimately affect the lives of millions of people, I'm all for it. I'm just deeply skeptical that that's what it is; it feels like another type of campaigning to me. Offering some visible means of feedback would go a long way toward alleviating that skepticism.

Re:Notice no comment section

[bwalling]

It's refreshing to know that cutting money to find deadbeat dads is top on the Republican's fiscal responsibility list.

So, you had sex with a loser, got knocked up, and now that he ran out on you (surprise!), it's the government's job to find him for you?

Re:Notice no comment section

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you haven't heard about these popular blogs:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/
http://www.michellemalkin.com/
http://instapundit.com/

Re:Notice no comment section

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I suspect three little people named Glenn Reynolds, Cory Doctorow, and Joshua Micah Marshall may disagree with you on the "blogs without comments are doomed to failure" bit.

Who are they and why should we pay any attention at all to their opinion?

Re:Notice no comment section

[k_187]

true, but do you really think it wouldn't devolve into a bunch of assholes ranting about how much they haet BUhs!!1!!1eleven. I'm all for constructive discussion, but I'd imagine that the signal to noise ratio of something like this would be astronomical.

Re:Notice no comment section

[Xarius]

I think blogs without user comments are destined to failure.

I don't know, Dooce and Maddox get a hefty helping of readers without any kind of comments system above emailing the author.

Re:Notice no comment section

[sunwolf]

What about the GoogleBlog?

Although, admittedly, I would not count a blog a success without viewer feedback, to know that people are reading and what they think.

Re:Notice no comment section

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you had sex with a loser, got knocked up, and now that he ran out on you (surprise!), it's the government's job to find him for you?

Yes, in as far as it's their job to enforce the law. And the law is that you have to pay your child support. It helps that enforcing this same law also helps prevent ongoing poverty, crime, and increases the standard of living of the country. Kind of a no-brainer.

And before you say it, Child Support is different from other "contracts". The government doesn't have to help the phone company get you to pay, but I understand that child support is a wholly different thing.

-Zipwow

Re:Notice no comment section

[Anonymous Coward]

I think blogs without user comments are destined to failure.

If by "destined" to failure you mean "read faithfully by thousands" you would be right.

For starters forget that its called a 'blog'.

And look at it for what it is: the seemingly unfiltered direct musings of the Speaker of the House. Provided he continues to put out meaningful posts ...people will be genuinely interested in reading them, and the page will get a lot of hits.

He has no competition. His page isn't substitutable. If I wanted I could run a nerdy news portal to compete with /., with a better moderation system, fewer dupes, valid css, and do it all on a beowulf cluster running on toasters and idling gpus... and gradually win over the /. crowd until this place was a barren wasteland. ;)

But I can't do that to the "Speaker of the House blog"; no matter what I do I'm not the speaker of the house, even if my "This is what I'd be saying if I was speaker of the house blog" became a big success in its own right it wouldn't detract from the real one, ever.

cheers,

Re:Notice no comment section

[slashdotnickname]

Heaven forbid we cut corporate welfare to the most profitable corporations in the country.

Translation, successful people should be taxed more than the rest of us lazy slobs.

Re:Notice no comment section

[Dachannien]

I have a feeling I'm feeding a troll here, but

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Reynolds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Doctorow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Micah_Marshall

Re:Notice no comment section

[Lehk228]

blogs without user comments are the only kind someone as high profile as the speaker of the house could have. imagine....

"Tonight on Fox News: Speaker of the house forced to shut down website due to vandalism by an internet gang known as the GNAA"

Re:Notice no comment section

[demonlapin]

You don't have to pay attention to their opinions, but a lot of people do. Google them. All have blogs, none allows comments.

Re:Notice no comment section

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, in as far as it's their job to enforce the law. And the law is that you have to pay your child support. It helps that enforcing this same law also helps prevent ongoing poverty, crime, and increases the standard of living of the country. Kind of a no-brainer.

What's next, is the government going to exact laws to help my cell phone company track me down and force me to pay the balance of my contract because I quit for shitty service? Is the government going to force me to pay my overdue mortgage payment after I lose my job? There are already civil penalties for failing to make your fiscal responsibilities, there's no point in criminalizing them.

Re:Notice no comment section

[Anonymous Coward]

How about you explain why it's different rather than just declaring it so.

Re:Notice no comment section

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Perhaps they could use a moderation system. That would be sure to help. ;)

Re:Notice no comment section

[Boronx]

You'd have an excellent point if we're talking about alimony shirkers, but we're not, we're talking about child support shirkers.

Re:Notice no comment section

[Your Pal Dave]

The government has a large interest in finding deadbeat dads because a lot of their kids end up on welfare and food stamps.

Re:Notice no comment section

[drewxhawaii]

i think it's a good idea not to allow comments on a "political blog" because no matter what is said, the opposite party will have a hard time agreeing with it.

Re:Notice no comment section

[mikrorechner]

I think blogs without user comments are destined to failure.

I don't know... this one doesn't have comments, and is pretty successfull.

Re:Notice no comment section

[saltydogdesign]

Some of my favorite blogs lack comments -- Talking Points Memo, for example. Fact is, if somebody has something to say, he or she will be heard. If not, all the comments in the world won't help.

Re:Notice no comment section

[jcuervo]

Perhaps they could use a moderation system. That would be sure to help. ;)

Oh, man, I just had this flash of brilliance... imagine bitch-slapping the speaker of the house, Slashdot-style.

Logged in as mrspeaker
Karma: terrible

I think I just pissed myself laughing.

Re:Notice no comment section

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Thanks for proving my point- that these three examples are largely unknown blowhards that you have to rely on wikipedia articles to identify. By definition, their blogs aren't very compeling- and I hold with the great-grandparent's idea that it's because they are single-opinion blogs.

Re:Notice no comment section

[Marxist Hacker 42]

People who pay attention to blogs that don't allow comments end up having no thoughts of their own- they only repeat the blogs.

I still agree with the grandparent that the death knoll of blogging is not accepting comments- there's no difference between a blog that doesn't accept comments and TV or other mass media. The power of the blog is in the conversation, not the initial lecture.

Re:Notice no comment section

[elemental23]

First, no matter what other might have you believe, "corporations" != "people".

Second, please note that we're talking about handouts to corporations, which has nothing to do with taxes, except that is your taxes and mine that contribute to paying said handouts.

Re:Notice no comment section

[hamburger lady]

actually, it's 'successful people shouldn't be taxed less than the rest of us lazy slobs'. handouts and loopholes allow corporations to hella cut down their percentage of taxes.

Re:Notice no comment section

[hamburger lady]

uh, TPM is a *very* well known political blog.

Re:Notice no comment section

[Marxist Hacker 42]

So is the ABC nightly news- and it offers about the same level of communication (as in completely unidirectional). Technology that doesn't offer an advantage over previous technology is bound to fade away and die a natural death.

Re:Notice no comment section

[Dachannien]

I didn't have to rely on Wikipedia, but I was considering that you might actually have been honest in a desire to find out who they are. But since you're only interested in the popularity contest, here's what Google has to say:

Glenn Reynolds: Results 1 - 20 of about 2,570,000 for "glenn reynolds".
Cory Doctorow: Results 1 - 20 of about 1,740,000 for "cory doctorow".
Joshua Micah Marshall: Results 1 - 20 of about 593,000 for "joshua micah marshall".

How many results do you get when you put your name in?

Re:Notice no comment section

[Marxist Hacker 42]

My point is that it isn't a "popularity contest" at all- it's a matter of superior technology.

One way communications is 20th century; not 21st.

Re:Notice no comment section

[demonlapin]

The problem is that you rapidly end up with a S/N ratio somewhere in the microscopic range. The power is in conversation, but if it's not worth you making your own blog post - it's probably not something too important for me to read. That varies a lot by site - some of the more niche blogs don't ever attract a bunch of idiots. But trying to scroll through a DU-vs-Freeper war is just not my idea of edification.

Re:Notice no comment section

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Granted, but it's pretty easy for somebody who has a relatively good scan rate and understands speed reading to eliminate the noise- always has been for me.

Re:Notice no comment section

[LeonGeeste]

Corporations don't pay taxes. Any tax they pay is passed on as a tax on employees, customers, or investors. You know, people. Cutting "hella" down on their taxes means employees, customers, or investors pay less tax. The corporate tax is one of the least efficient and most corrupt taxes. If your neighbor cheats on his taxes and you don't, you still earn an income. If one corporation cheats on its taxes and other does not, the non-cheating one is driven out of business. Not because of the other's acument in satisfying consumer needs, but because it can work the system better.

Pretty good, but the Republican Playbook is bogus

[Marxist Hacker 42]

If they think they can rebuid NOLA and the other towns hit hard by hurricanes in the gulf for only $62.5 billion, AND still keep taxes down, then I'd say we need to be doing pee tests on the House Leadership. Still, Mega Points for actually attempting to blog, but he's missed the feedback section in his implementation, I think on purpose. Can't have any nasty liberals leaving him messages, can we?

His favorite sites

[scallions]

Seems Denny's partial to amateur wrestling and Johnny Cash. Don't call him Sue.

Re:His favorite sites

[ackthpt]

Seems Denny's partial to amateur wrestling and Johnny Cash. Don't call him Sue.

His server is holding up under teh attempted slashdotting. Your tax bux at work, eh?

No Rebuttal

[geomon]

I've noticed that many blogs now require registration before you can submit a comment. I'm sure that is in response to the flood of spam and crap that gets posted in response to the blog content. The unfortunate thing about this particular trend is that it is turning blogs into monologs. I'm not sure if that is what they were intended to be, but that is how they are going to end up without rebuttal and commentary.

Speaker Hastert isn't any different in his blog approach than the issue ads pushed by the RNC on their site - or the issue ads on the Democratic Party site. In fact, I haven't found many political blogs that still allow unfiltered comments on their sites.

It is so much easier to defend your position when you don't have to deal with opposing viewpoints.

Re:No Rebuttal

[ifwm]

"It is so much easier to defend your position when you don't have to deal with opposing viewpoints"

Why does it have to be about defending his positions? Why isn't it enough to have access to the thoughts of the speaker of the house?

Or, to put it plainly, why does everything have to be adversarial? Why can't you just accept that this is a blog to get information from and nothing more?

New Political Reality

[Thunderstruck]

Creating weblog entries on a regular basis often requires one to post thoughts, ideas, and opinions that have not been thoroughly thought out. They're like email, too easy to write, and impossible to recall. How many of us have sent an angry email and later wished we had not.

If we expect our policiticans to start web-logging their daily thoughts, we're going to have to be a lot less hard on them about what they say. Our politicians, like the rest of the human race, are going to have ideas that, when fully thought out, are really bad. In maintaining weblogs some of these bad ideas are going to see international publication.

Will we allow our politicians to recant later, and say "well, yes, I guess that article I wrote was racist/imperialistic/unconstitutional, now that I look at it again, please don't hold it against me?" More importantly, will the news media be willing to let things like that die or pass unnoticed?

(Yes, I used the preview button once, No, I didn't give this post a lot of thought.)

Re:New Political Reality

[Daniel Dvorkin]

I will gladly give politicians a break for saying dumb things in their blogs if they later admit that they said dumb things, but that's a big if. I have the nasty feeling that their campaign advisers will tell them never to back down, because it will be seen as a sign of weakness. The sad thing is, those advisers are probably right. It seems like consistency to the point of insanity ("doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results") is valued by a large portion, perhaps a majority, of the electorate over reasoned views that may evolve over time in response to new information or a changing situation.

Re:New Political Reality

[Logic Bomb]

What's "regular"? I make blog entries maybe 3 times a week. They're usually 500 words or a little less, and I probably spend an hour doing the actual writing. Having a blog doesn't mean you're spewing the lame chronicles of your daily existence.

Re:New Political Reality

[Anonymous Coward]

Possible future entries:

10/28 I'm so glad Fitzgerald didn't indict me. Rove called. I hung up on him, HAH!

10/30 Had to deny any Presidential aspirations on MTP. Did I look sweaty?

10/31 Met with Cheney. He needed to borrow some staffers.

11/01 Consulted with lawyers. Being President sounds like a lot of work!

11/02 Being President is a lot of work! The lobbiests are even friendlier now. Greenspan keeps calling. My returning staffers were too busy staking out turf to tell me, until after lunch, must call him tomorrow.

11/03 The inflation is not my fault! Neither is the market crash!

11/04 I have decided to resign, effective immediately. The lawyers said I had to choose, because of conflict of interest. I would rather speak my mind, and rake in those blog advertising dollars, than continue to wear the albatross that is this Office.

11/06 Had to deny any connection to the porn industry on MTP. Did I look sweaty?

Re:New Political Reality

[laughingcoyote]

If I -ever- heard a politician later -genuinely- admit that they were wrong, BEFORE a massive scandal erupted, I'd be so shocked I'd likely not say a word. Currently, all we get are flashy ads, that manage to distort everything in 30 seconds or less, and any speeches are written, not by the politician, but by his/her speechwriter, with all meaning carefully removed, and worded so that in all cases possible it sounds like the nice guy is actually on -both- sides!

I'd gladly trade that in for some real speech. I don't want to hear what their speechwriter thinks, I don't want to hear what the party thinks, I want to hear what my own damn Congressmen and Senators think. I want to hear it in their words and without all the careful obfuscation quite deliberately constructed to avoid taking a stand on anything.

And if that meant cutting them some slack in later recanting what they said, I'd be happy to do it. Anyone that expects -anyone- else never to make a mistake or say something that upon further reflection wasn't quite right is an idiot.

However, that is also the EXACT reason that comments are necessary. While it certainly might bring out some morons, it would also allow two-way communication between the people reading the blog and the official, and if something was out of line or not thought through, it'll give them feedback before it ever gets to the media.

Re:New Political Reality

[justins]

If we expect our policiticans to start web-logging their daily thoughts, we're going to have to be a lot less hard on them about what they say. Our politicians, like the rest of the human race, are going to have ideas that, when fully thought out, are really bad. In maintaining weblogs some of these bad ideas are going to see international publication.

Three points. First, if someone has a truly abominable idea, call them on it. You don't owe them your "understanding". If they are in a position of authority you'd fucking well better set them straight.

Second, this isn't a particularly new challenge for a politician. You've got a lot more opportunity to edit yourself in a blog than you do on the Sunday talk shows, and with the comments turned off, you don't have anyone interacting with you. The only reason Hastert, for example, might be more stupidly off-the-cuff in his blog than on television would be that his handlers aren't coaching him for hours ahead of time. Poor guy.

Third, what a sad state we're in when we elect people so fucking dumb we feel like we have to go easy on them when they say something stupid. I guess that's not exactly a new phenomenon either, the press goes terribly easy on Bush, to the point of tweaking his quotes to make them sound less illiterate. But now the public is expected to do it too? Count me out.

Re:New Political Reality

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding me?? I've got clips on my PVR of a half-dozen politicians saying things they now claim they never said...and the news media couldn't care less. Give them a break? How about we actually start holding them accountable?

Re:New Political Reality

[fbg111]

Interesting. One of the main reasons politicians are very guarded about what they say publicly is that they are often quoted out of context and soundbited by the MSM, and recalls and clarification are nearly impossible b/c those soundbited too.

However, by posting their full and complete thoughts to a blog, even if modified over time, politicians may finally have a way to clearly express themselves directly to the public. Blogs may actually allow politicians to open up and express themselves without having to worry about their message being skewed by idiot journalists with agendas.

Re:New Political Reality

[zCyl]

It seems like consistency to the point of insanity ("doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results") is valued by a large portion, perhaps a majority, of the electorate over reasoned views that may evolve over time in response to new information or a changing situation.

In a hostile environment in which any idea will be attacked by someone, and no good ideas are rewarded, the politicians which say the least and think the least will rise to the top.

If you want to fix that, you have to start rewarding politicians for promoting good ideas (when was the last time you saw coverage of such a thing?). That means there has to be substantial positive news coverage of good and meaningful decisions, and this coverage must be as much as, or greater than, the coverage of politicians that have done something stupid but with little impact.

Re:New Political Reality

[ifwm]

"Third, what a sad state we're in when we elect people so fucking dumb we feel like we have to go easy on them when they say something stupid."

That wasn't the point.

It has nothing to do with someone's intelligence, it has to do with 24 hours news shows repeatedly airing stories of a nanny who didn't have the right immigration papers, or an office indiscretion 20 years ago.

The point was, people sometimes make mistakes. It has nothing to do with being dumb. It has to do with being allowed to mess up without the fear of having your every move dissected for weeks at a time by pundits, whose only motive is to use those mistakes and embarrass you.

Now an observation. You've made mistakes that I'm sure you would prefer to have the opportunity to rectify. Does that make you dumb?

Re:New Political Reality

[justins]

It has to do with being allowed to mess up without the fear of having your every move dissected for weeks at a time by pundits, whose only motive is to use those mistakes and embarrass you.

If I say something "racist/imperialistic/unconstitutional" as the OP mentioned I should be embarassed. Especially if I'm dumb enough to say it in front of a camera.

Why's that unusual?

[ThePyro]

I should certainly hope that a member of congress could submit a single page of text without spelling errors. I'm sure that many slashdot readers have written longer error-free posts to their own blogs. Why should the lack of errors indicate that it's been "scrubbed" by a staffer?

Re:Why's that unusual?

[gr84b8]

Why should the lack of errors indicate that it's been "scrubbed" by a staffer?

Sure, he *could* write a blog without spelling mistakes. But you've got to be kidding me if you think this is for real. There is absolutely no way a main stream politician like this would rif in true blog format - it is far too risky. Just like no company does anything publicly without the marketing folks scripting, no politician can afford to shoot from the hip. This just a lame attempt to 'connect with mainstream america'.

Denny just started his own blog, eh?

[Joey Patterson]

Looks like George and Dick beat him to it. :)

RSS feed missing.

[thenetbox]

It would be nice for all our government officials to start public blogs. Keeping in touch with the people and getting feedback is highly important in our sort of society.

I have noticed that his blog does not have any sort of RSS/Atom/XML feed and that makes it difficult to keep up with his latest posts.

Another thing is that there are no places to post public comments. I wouldn't mind if the comments ended up being moderated but I believe there should be atleast some way to post comments on his blog. He could spend a few minutes of his day responding to the people or he could get a staff member to pick out a few good ones each week and he could reply. That would send a very good message to the people.

Re:RSS feed missing.

[ballantrae]

Now that is a good idea.

-ron

Re:RSS feed missing.

[Azi Dahaka]

I just wrote to him about 15 minutes ago recommending an RSS feed. I hope one does get added because this could be a decent journal to keep up on.

About the comments, I definitely agree. It would be great to have some sort of moderated comment system where he could respond publicly to individuals.

Re:RSS feed missing.

[tmortn]

I also wrote suggesting much the same. I imagine by the time this is done he will know all about the slashdot effect :-) Or at least his staff will.

On the down side I got am automated response that said current franking rules don't allow personal responses to non-district people. Might put a serious cramp on a comments section if he can't legally respond at all except to those voiced from people living in his district. I would have to say that is a rather poorly thought out rule considering his position as he now has responsibilities with a nation wide scope... the same applies to reps with certain committee responsibilities that engender decision making responsibilities that impact far more than just a rep's constituency.

Better Late Than Never

[Sundroid]

Right off the bat, this Republican Senator did something his Repblican colleagues probably won't like -- he criticized oil companies. From his blog:

"Today, energy companies started reporting their 3rd quarter earnings, and while Americans paying were record prices at the pump, energy companies were making record profits. This is America. And Republicans don't believe in punishing success. But what are these oil companies doing to bring down the cost of oil and natural gas?"

Welcome to blogosphere, Senator.

Re:Better Late Than Never

[Anonymous Coward]

He is the Speaker of the House, not a Senator. :)

Re:Better Late Than Never

[dinaui]

Um, Hastert is Speaker of the House. He's a Representative (albeit the most powerful Representative), not a Senator.

Re:Better Late Than Never

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should read the story title again. Politics: Speaker of the House Starts Blogging. The house and the senate are two different things...

Re:Better Late Than Never

[given_to_fly]

Just to nit pick
He's not a senator. He's the speaker of the HOUSE. Which means he's a member of the house of representatives.

Re:Better Late Than Never

[whereizben]

He is a congressman, specifically Speaker of the House. Thank god he is not in the Senate! :)

Re:Better Late Than Never

[Sundroid]

True that. I gave him the wrong title. But he's the Speaker of the House, so he's third in the line of presidential succession, after the Vice President, so he's pretty high up there.

Re:Better Late Than Never

[Joe the Lesser]

Republicans don't believe in punishing success.

Unless of course, success gets you a intern under your desk.

Re:Better Late Than Never

[Anonymous Coward]

He is not critical of the oil companies. According to the Speaker's blog, the only way for the oil companies to bring down the cost of gas is to build more refineries. Is that the only way to bring down the price of gas? How about just lowering the price? The profit margin won't be as high but seeing as this is a record profit quarter for the oil corporations, it shouldn't really matter. If the Speaker wanted to be critical of the oil companies, he would have asked why the oil companies are price gouging his constituents.

Re:Better Late Than Never

[Anonymous Coward]

They punish sex, not success.

Re:Better Late Than Never

[superpulpsicle]

The only time gas and oil prices will drop significantly is during the next election. As Republicans are going to need all the ammo they can get to have people forget about Bush.

Re:Better Late Than Never

[Anonymous Coward]

You say that because profits are high, that it just wouldn't matter if oil companies lowered their prices. Newsflash: it's not his place to suggest that a private oil company (or any private entity) just lower their prices to "take one for the team." Businesses don't exist for that purpose, and it's time you liberals realised this.

The reason he didn't suggest that the oil companies are gouging is because he isn't a moron, and because they aren't gouging. Your post shows that you have no idea how capitalism and free markets work. If the market will bear a price of X, a seller has the right (the obligation IMHO) to charge that price. Charging anything less will just create a shortage.

The only thing Hastert has the power to do is to publicly ask (rhetorically) what they're doing in order to create awareness. It doesn't seem like much, but that's exactly how it should be in this country. I really don't want my government even *trying* to fix all the problems that it tries to fix. The less government interference, the better, IMHO.

For once a republican leader does something right, at least give him credit for that much. I'm just glad to see this sort of thing from the repub leadership. Let's hope the trend continues.

Re:Better Late Than Never

[Anonymous Coward]

But what are these oil companies doing to bring down the cost of oil and natural gas?

The job of an oil company is not to act as a charity to provide free gasoline. The job of an oil company is to maximize value for shareholders. This is most efficiently accomplished by charging the highest possible price a customer could possibly bear to pay before running off to a competitor.

Welcome to the world of free markets and capitalism. If you don't like it, Marx and Engels have some publications that may interest you.

Re:Better Late Than Never

[DigiShaman]

Unless of course, success gets you a intern under your desk.

Ummm..you do know that Bill Clinton is a Democrat, right?

Re:Better Late Than Never

[N3WBI3]

Except in the case of collusion which is of course price fixing and illegal... Wellcome to the regulated free market..

Re:Better Late Than Never

[drsquare]

Today, energy companies started reporting their 3rd quarter earnings, and while Americans paying were record prices at the pump, energy companies were making record profits.

Makes sense to me: prices go up, therefore profit margin goes up, and so profits go up. Unless of course the profit margin has stayed the same and the amount sold has gone up. Which is it?

Maybe they should put the prices up further, Americans are still driving SUVs 50 yards to the shop. Petrol's still only half the price it is in Europe.

If anything, oil companies should be criticised for not increasing prices ENOUGH.

Re:Better Late Than Never

[robw810]

Are you sure that he *really* criticized the oil companies?
He lamented the fact that no new refineries have been built in the United States since the 1970's, but what he didn't add is that this is hardly the fault of the oil companies (and I'm certain that he's aware of this). Plan on a followup post/announcement detailing the need to curtail the influence of radical environmentalists so that we can build some new refineries.
With that said, it's hard to argue against the need for more refineries - demand for refined petroleum products has far exceeded the supplies of the 1970. As a matter of fact, we managed to do that in the late 70's and early 80's...
RW

Re:Better Late Than Never

[Gherald]

Hence why they, you know, tried to impeach him. That little thing.

Re:Better Late Than Never

[fbg00]

I think the passage that you point out takes it too easy on the oil industry. What about punishing entities that take advantage of disaster and suffering to turn a higher profit? Is that really anathema in the 'Republican' view? Perhaps it shouldn't be.
Sure, there would have to be a CNN tax if such a policy were in place, but perhaps this is a good thing. Come to think of it, lots of American enterprise is probably guilty of this: tobacco, alcohol, gambling all in a certain way (each arguably has other aspects, but at least some of the time profits from illness of the customer).

Re:Better Late Than Never

[Whafro]

He's Speaker of the House of Representatives, second in the order of succession to the Presidency (after the Vice President), and the single most powerful legislator in the United States government.

If he were a Senator, he might be angering his colleagues. But since he's Speaker of the House, it's a message that nothing supporting oil company profits will be making its way through the House on his watch. And since the Speaker controls the rules committee and just about everything else in the House, he can ensure that his words are noted.

Your demotion doesn't reflect the fact that what he thinks, as Speaker, almost certainly becomes the party line for the House Republicans.

Re:Better Late Than Never

[Guuge]

Don't forget Joseph C Wilson, who was far too successful at rational thought, as were numerous former government employees. All those "intellectual elites" are apparently just too successful for their own good and need a nice nanny state to shut them up if they ever think too much.

But I rant.

Re:Better Late Than Never

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately for your rant, Joe Wilson has been thoroughly discredited as a hack and a liar.

Re:Better Late Than Never

[Pike]

First of all, an intern under your desk will get you immediately fired in almost any business.

Second, the intern was not the president's biggest problem. The biggest problem was perjury in the sexual harrassment trial of a sitting president.

Getting in on the trend

[u2pa]

Blogs are a huge thing in the capital, with sites like the drudge report having huge impact.

Anonymous political blogs often serves as whistleblower outlets. For Mr. Hastert to make an official blog, and actually post relevant political opinions must take some guts.

Should have named it speaker.HOUSE.gov

[billstewart]

Or really speaker.house.gov.us, but the DNS system does have too much leftover US-centricness and that's unlikely to change.

There are *way* too many government people who don't understand DNS and abuse it because they don't bother paying attention. For a while there were standards for naming within .gov and .us, but they're widely ignored. If you're going to have DNS structures for geographical and governmental organizations, you should use them.

And too many (mostly US) government organizations are giving themselves .com DNS names because they think it looks cool. For instance

• Marines.com - obviously the Marines are now admitting they're mercenaries...
• Louisiana's Attorney General used to have a website www.la-ag.com - what kind of commercial business was he in? Taking bribes?
• US Postal Service can't decide if it's a .gov or a .com, though it is somewhat of a hybrid organization. Some of its subdomains or web servers bounce you from one side to the other - mainly redirecting *.usps.gov requests to *.usps.com, but sometimes the other way around.

Re:Should have named it speaker.HOUSE.gov

[geekoid]

You know .Com stands for Computer and not commercial, right?
It was not created for 'profit' only.

Re:Should have named it speaker.HOUSE.gov

[windows]

I'm not so sure it's such a bad thing.

While someone here surely knows the difference between a .gov and .com, most people don't. Many people just assume everything ends in .com.

Awhile back, whitehouse.com actually was a porn site. I don't think an unsuspecting person hoping to view the White House's website would be amused by being instead directed to a porn site. Instead of forcefully taking domains, some government agencies choose to buy the .com, .net, and .org names as well as their .gov.

I think this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

Re:Should have named it speaker.HOUSE.gov

[TheSpoom]

Where on Earth did you hear that? The .com domain has always stood for commercial, just as .net has been for network-oriented services such as ISPs and .org has been for non-profit organizations. Do some research before making claims.

Re:Should have named it speaker.HOUSE.gov

[zerofret]

Back when the World Wide Web was taking off, someone at the Post Office was smart enough to register lots of usps.* domains. The idea was to ensure you didn't have con-men, disgruntled employees, the postal unions, or other parties using a usps branded site for their own purposes.

I was kind of surprised that someone at Postal HQ was smart enough to realize they needed to register all those names to keep the brand safe. You usually didn't see too many intelligent decisions come out of L'Enfant Plaza.

I've been saying.....

[imboboage0]

I've been saying for years that we should be trying to /. US governement sites other than NASA!!! That, or Microsoft depending on what you dislike more.

Comments

[scarolan]

Too bad there's no comments section on the blog, but I can see why they would never allow something like that. It would be an instant flamefest.

Refineries

[The Bungi]

I thought it was interesting that he commented on the record profits the oil companies have been pulling in and how they had done nothing to alleviate the costs at the pump for the rest of us. True, he says 'republicans don't punish success' or something like that, but for the life of me I cannot fathom why he would bring up the refineries issue. I heard on NPR the other day about how the price of heating oil was going to go up *more* this winter because many of the oil companies were shipping refined product from the US to other countries instead of feeding the surplus back into the national market and taking a small hit on the bottom line.

The democrats won't let them build new refineries because that might kill some migratory bird, and the republicans allow them to ship the stuff out to make a few cents more on the barrel because they refuse to legislate more stringent regulations into the system...

It's a free market and all, but sometimes you have to wonder if they're not a little bit more evil than they should be.

Re:Refineries

[Anonymous Coward]

"He knows damn well why there hasn't been a refinery built."

yeah he does. and Hastert, regardless of your views on him, is an incredibily smart smart man. so it should be rather obvious to you what he is actually trying to insinuate with his above statement.

Re:Refineries

[Forbman]

* NIMBY environmentalists on the local level.

Unless you've spent much time on the outskirts of an oil refinery, there's nothing "environmentalist" about not wanting one nearby. Would you put up with the city putting a garbage collection depot or sewage treatment plant in your neighborhood? Probably not.

Of course, the absurdities are when the oil companies do buy thousands of acres of land to put the refinery in the middle of that land, relatively isolated from all the NIMBYs, and yet people from hundreds of miles away come out of the woodwork to protest something that will have negligible tangible effects on their lifestyles.

* Federal enviro regulators who have no idea how jobs or how exactly the money that gets direct deposited into their accounts every month is generated

Some of these "enviro-regulators" have probably been named in lawsuits, etc. Can't blame them. Again, it all comes down to politics. If 1000 people bitch about an oil refinery, and there will be tangible net losses in the community for a large number of people because of it (remember, the new jobs coming in will take awhile to be felt politically and economically), there will be opposition to it. It usually is more than just about "jobs, jobs, jobs".

        * Unions for treating investors like the enemy rather than their best friend

Why treat your enemy like your best friend when you know that all they see the employees as is a large item on the expense side of the balance sheet, instead of a value-adding asset?

        * High taxes and workplace regulations.

Hmm... You can bet that if the oil companies essentially put out to bid a few locations where they're considering putting new refineries, there will be some areas that are opposed to them, and the others will come in with their eyes closed, their mouths open and their nether regions already lubed.

Workplace regulations... Hmm... A company making millions of dollars in profits cannot be bothered to spend a few bucks per employee for what seems to be common sense safety items? there are lots of good reasons for some of the regulations. You've obviously never been on the end of the stick that's stuck into the septic tank to measure it...

Now, you may disagree with me on all of these as policies. I understand that. /. is somewhere to the left of Mao. But what you can't disagree with is that these reasons are among the reasons that refineries have not been built here since the 1970s. And my point is that for Hastert to try to portray this as the oil industries FAULT is assinine. He knows better. Give any company a chance to make a profit by making someone happy and they will - that's the beauty of capitalism.

There is also the economic reality that most of the refineries are *OLD*. That means that most of the capital equipment on them is either in an advanced state of depreciation or already is depreciated off the books, even though it is still fully functional. In other words, they're paid for. That means they've become relatively profitable, year after year. Especially when it comes to grandfather clauses in many of those regulations you collectively bemoan above. A new refinery will take some time to truly become profitable, and that makes shareholders and dividend-receivers mad.

I would argue that this fact alone is the most important reason why new refineries have not been built. All the other stuff is just nice excuse-making. If there was a relatively short-term payoff to build new refineries, and make ooodles of money off of it in that short term, inspite of all the negative shit that will come up trying to get them built, they'd be getting built.

It makes no business sense for a refiner to have excess capacity not being used, as there is no reward for keeping it around. The current investment market seems to revolve more around high short-term profits, vs sustained long-term overall gain. Old refineries are essentially money generators that guarantee consistent profits (as demand increases and production cannot), which also fits in with Wall Street's current mindset as well.

Re:Refineries

[Anonymous Coward]

But what you can't disagree with is that these reasons are among the reasons that refineries have not been built here since the 1970s.

Yet that bastion of leftist thought The Cato Institute can, disagree with you.

Re:Refineries

[Anonymous Coward]

democrats won't let them build new refineries

Um, actually, no. The democratic party is not in power. In either the house or senate. So, when you say, "...won't let them build new refineries" you mean the Republican party representatives will not pass laws to build new refineries. In other words, stop lying and being a Republican party apologist.

Re:Refineries

[Chris Snook]

I'm pretty sure the Speaker of the House is not going to go into a deep analysis of the world energy market on his blog, so I can't blame him for asking the rhetorical question. I think he's trying to get more people interested in what the government is doing, so they'll be paying attention when they're discussing these things in the near future, which is a cause I applaud, left of Mao though I am at times.

On a completely unrelated note, I have some criticisms (positive and negative) of your answers to the question. This is a politics article, so it can't be but so off-topic.

NIMBY environmentalists on the local level.

I tend not to refer to these people as environmentalists at all. I like to think of myself as a mild environmentalist. I've built trails in the wilderness, and the first thing they tell you is that you're going to completely annihilate a 3-foot wide by X mile long patch of wilderness, so that people don't wreak havoc on several square miles. Rational environmentalists understand this principle, and are careful to distinguish between times when concentrated impact is a benefit and when it is not. If environmental opposition merely moves the problem and increases inconvenience and overhead, it's ultimately worse for the environment. If the refinery is going to be built somewhere, you might as well build it where the least amount of fuel and other resources will need to be spent to move it to where it is going to be consumed. As recent evidence shows, petroleum has fairly resilient demand in light of rising prices, so the added cost of refining overseas doesn't really change the amount consumed.

Federal enviro regulators who have no idea how jobs or how exactly the money that gets direct deposited into their accounts every month is generated

Actually, the EPA generally takes a very strict economic view about such things. If you're wondering, your life is worth $3.7 million to them. This is higher than the number the FAA uses, but when you die in a plane crash you don't have years of cancer treatments to pay for before or mysterious degenerative nerve diseases that disrupt your entire family, so this isn't really unreasonable.

Where it starts getting messy is with Endangered Species protections. The problem with endangered species protections is that the penalties are often suffered by people who had little to do with creating the problem in the first place. I don't think it's unjust, as it generally does accomplish what it sets out to do, and what it sets out to do (protect biodiversity) is a decent proxy for overall environmental health (think of each species as a canary tuned to a different potential threat), but it's unfair in that it kicks in only for the latecomers.

Basically, the law generally says you can do whatever you want until you hit certain triggers, and then suddenly everything changes. Supposedly this is a simpler system than attempting to account for every molecule of mercury, but in practice large companies treat the fines as a cost of doing business while the overhead of compliance swallows up smaller companies. I first learned of the idea to auction pollution rights from a Republican economics professor that I vehemently disagree with on many social issues, but I think it's wonderful. The popularly elected government can decide how much environmental damage we're willing to tolerate, the (hopefully objective) scientists can interpret that into quantities of various pollutants and other destructive activity, and then the market equilibrates, favoring constant innovation in environmentally-friendly industry, as opposed to merely taking advantage of innovations that are handed to them, or going and doing research only when expensive new legislation or regulation looms on the horizon.

Unions for treating investors like the enemy rather than their best friend

Investors have been screwing labor since the dawn of time, to the long-term detriment of us all. Unions are a sorely-needed countervailing

Re:Refineries

[Mike Keester]

I was reading a blog the other day and a poster described the current parties as such:

Democrats: They rob you but make sure that to leave a meal on the table so you won't starve.

Republicans: They rob you and leave some crumbs and leftovers.

Neo-Cons: They rob you, take all the food from the pantry, take the fridge, table and kick your dog on the way out.

And I added this one:

Christian-Right Conservatives: They're the homeowners that wake up to find out they're being robbed so they help by loading the plasma TV into the van and wave as the thieves drive off.

Re:Refineries

[MBraynard]

Your post was way to long for me to read in entirety. But I will respond to one point

Why treat your enemy like your best friend when you know that all they see the employees as is a large item on the expense side of the balance sheet, instead of a value-adding asset?

That is a very retarded statement. If they firm didn't consider them as a value adding asset, they would fire them. Management/ownership is inherently smarter than the workers - lest they would be in reverse positions.

Further, just how do you think the employees view management/ownership? They typically see a pay check, nothing more. And those that do see more... well, they wind up in management.

Re:Refineries

[MBraynard]

Whomever the authors of the article are, they did a poor job explaining themselves. They let this question-begging sentance go unanswered

Accordingly, European refineries make more gasoline than they can use and it's cheaper for us to import that gasoline than to produce it here at home.

WHY is it cheaper to ship gasoline clear across the Atlantic? They do not answer that question.

They do address causes as to why there are less refineries now in a ceteris parabus sort of way which probably contributed to the net effect, but do you really think that the issues I list don't contribute at all to the refinery construction? With growing demand and rising prices, at some point you have to build a new refinery - why build them in Europe / Asia / S. America rather than over here?

Re:Refineries

[MBraynard]

That's a really nice, long cureous post and I read much of it. It sounds like you initially point out a flaw in my reasoning - but then point out how I was using more general terms for real problems (EPA -> Endangered species act). Clamath Bason / Spotted Owl sort of stuff. Plus many state EPA-type agencies go way beyond what federales require.

Regarding the OSHA stuff, the problem is that unions/employees/employer all have an interest in workplace safety and that should be left to them and maybe some kind of charter organization like the Better Business Bureau. Also, OSHA does a lot of design-driven regulations rather than performance-driven regulations. They tell you HOW to do something rather than WHAT to accomplish. My professor on the subject is currently the director of consumer product safety - I can't remember all the details, but that is the jist of it.

Re:Refineries

[The Bungi]

Ah, another retard who thinks the US was founded six years ago. Thanks for playing.

Yes, let's hope you support him

[Southpaw018]

As he expressed much lament over Katrina, unless you lived in New Orleans, where the votes didn't go his way. He said NO shouldn't be rebuilt, and that most people there were better off now. I can only imagine what he'll say on this blog, where ostensibly he doesn't have a direct audience.

Re:Yes, let's hope you support him

[lpangelrob]

Dennis Hastert is a representative of north central Illinois, namely DeKalb. The votes couldn't have "not gone his way", because New Orleans is in Louisiana. The people in his district were the ones who elected him.

As for Katrina, he said rebuilding seven feet under sea level didn't make any sense. Frankly, it still doesn't if you approach it with common sense, but emotional and cutural importance seem to have rendered this argument silent.

Re:Yes, let's hope you support him

[DigitalReverend]

First off, if they want to rebuild New Orleans where it sat before then the people who lived there need to do it out of their own pockets. No FEMA money, No Insurance money, if you want to rebuild, fine, but don't do it on the backs of the rest of the country.

FEMA has regulations, that if you live in an area prone to flooding, or other natural disasters and you are wiped out and they pay you money, you CANNOT rebuild there. There are thousands of acres along the Mississipi where people are not allowed to build on after the floods back in the 90's.

In a little town called Falmouth Kentucky, there was flooding, FEMA forbid the rebuilding of any structures, and now what is there is a big open field in the middle of town.

It seems to me that if they want to rebuild NOLA, that the laws would need to be changed, and if they change the laws for NOLA then they should be retroactive for people who still own land and can no longer build on it.

The government needs to put it's foot down and just move New Orleans to higher ground. New Orleans should not be rebuilt where it was.

Re:Yes, let's hope you support him

[StupidHelpDeskGuy]

The issue with his comment's was his timing. People were still stranded, and I recall his comments being a bit distasteful when I first heard them. The time for that debate was later, after folks had been rescued.

Re:Yes, let's hope you support him

[spoonyfork]

As for Katrina, he said rebuilding seven feet under sea level didn't make any sense. Frankly, it still doesn't if you approach it with common sense, but emotional and cutural importance seem to have rendered this argument silent.

Outer space is pretty dangerous. We shouldn't be out there either. While we're at it, everyone living within 100 miles of anything remotely dangerous should move to... where, exactly?

Re:Yes, let's hope you support him

[lpangelrob]

That's for individuals to decide, but above sea level is a great start in a region prone to 20+ foot storm surge periodically. Periodically may be every 100 years, but it doesn't have to take Katrina to remind us that it does happen.

Educated rebuilding is the smart thing to do, but it's far too costly and angers too many people, so that's precisely why it won't happen.

Theoretically, a tornado can happen at any point on the earth, but we can at least mitigate that sort of localized damage. Only hurricanes (periodic on the coast), earthquakes (periodic in certain areas), and tsunamis (rare) can cause the widespread damage the U.S. clearly can't cope with.

Re:Yes, let's hope you support him

[hey!]

Keep in mind, there are no natural disasters. There are only disasterous human miscalculations with respect to the stability of our natural environment. I think it should not be outside the pale for a politician to question whether putting things back the way they were with a few band aids slapped on is a good thing or not.

Y'know, there is Truth, but it has many facets. If you walked up to a young child at his father's wake and said, "Y'know, your father was too fat. He'd probably still be alive if he didn't eat so much," you're telling the child the unquestionable Truth, and by some ideologies, the we should Always Tell Children the Truth. But it's only one facet of the Truth. You could focus on how much the father loved the child, and how as a result the child will always be taken care of because his family loves him soo much too. Those are also undoubtedly facets of the Truth too.

The facet of the Truth you fasten on to in a particular time and place reveals a lot about you, your values, and your priorities. In particular it reveals whether the humanity and suffering of other people is a reality for you, or whether they're just props in your narcisssitic self-narrative.

There will come a time when we ought to make painful decisions about the future of New Orleans, and it will be soon. But it is wise to be circumspect in this matter. Much of the fate of the city will be determined by the collective effect of the decisions of its refugees. A wise policy is to see to the immediate needs of the victims, see how things develop, and react in a practical, efficient yet humane way. By rashly betraying a premature position on this, Hastert has not only solidified a "rebuild everything at any cost movement", he'll probably have to jump on board in order to show that he is not unfeeling. The best interests of the victims will in any case be lost in the shuffle.

Re:Yes, let's hope you support him

[ifwm]

"The time for that debate was later, after folks had been rescued."

No.

This couldn't be more wrong.

The time for debate on an issue of rebuilding people's HOMES is immediately after those homes were destroyed. Partially because it will prevent unnecessary waste of resources, but mostly because people shouldn't have to wait to have their homes rebuilt.

Unless that's what you're suggesting. Making these families wait until you're happy to debate the issue. Somehow, I think being homeless is more of a concern to them at the moment.

Re:Yes, let's hope you support him

[StupidHelpDeskGuy]

We may have a misunderstanding. Given the total failure on the part of the authorities, it was innapropriate for him to make those comments. Until those folks have water and food, it's classless to discuss whether they should be living there in the first place. I believe he made the comments on or around the same time that Mr. Brown was "finding out" about the people in the convention center.

Re:Yes, let's hope you support him

[Southpaw018]

That doesn't even make any sense. History is fantastically important to us and our society, and New Orleans is part of our history and our culture, past and present. Not rebuilding it to where it once was would be a drastic and fatal error of judgement, forever silencing a city whose history is storied as any.

Ahh, about the only time you'll hear from Dennis

[lpangelrob]

This... could be interesting, I suppose. At least I'll get to know what he's up to.

Anyone who's followed House politics over the last decades understands how in-the-background Dennis Hastert actually has been. Compare to, oh, say, Newt Gingrich. He's more of the quiet leader type. Not controversial, not loud. Just does his job.

About the only other thing I've heard about him is that he's trying to make our state (Illinois) a receiver state when it comes to federal funding of transportation, as opposed to a donor state. Currently we receive $0.80 of every dollar that Illinois taxpayers put towards highways. With Dennis Hastert, representatives Ray LaHood and Henry Hyde, along with Democrat senators Barack Obama and Dick Durbin, most of their energy has gone towards helping the state with their combined influence.

FEC

[DisasterDoctor]

I wonder if the FEC will silence his blog 60days before and election like all of the others.

Needs reader comments

[Slashdoot]

Just so Rush Limbaugh can be right there shouting, "FIRST!!!11"

Re:Needs reader comments

[kalel666]

It would certainly be confusing when someone wrote "Frist Post".

Re:Pretty good, but the Republican Playbook is bog

[goldspider]

Right, because the anonymity of the Internet brings out only the best in people, especially when they have an opinion!

The future

[DrRobert]

Funny how people stumble on something from the past (blogging) and call it the future. Some people are so detached that they cannot even manage the present.

Re:The future

[jcuervo]

Funny how people stumble on something from the past (blogging) and call it the future. Some people are so detached that they cannot even manage the present.

Yeah, he should get with the times. All the cool kids hang out on myspace. :P

Re:Pretty good, but the Republican Playbook is bog

[Marxist Hacker 42]

More Information is always useful, regardless of where it comes from. Especially if that information makes you reexamine old prejudices and pre-concieved notions.

This should get good

[stinerman]

A future Hastert blog:

OMG!!!! What a day! :-(

Georgie said that he didn't think that I was doing enough to kill the McCain amendment in conference committee. Then I got a call from Dick, and he said that I needed to get the troops in line for the upcoming appropriations bill. They both are so mean sometimes! WTF!!! I just want to do fun speaker stuff like bang my gavel and shout "THERE WILL BE ORDER IN THE HOUSE!" at freshman congressmen, but these guys make me feel really underappreciated. I told Tom about it, and he said that I should just chill out and not worry about them. :-( [sigh]

I was feeling really depressed until I got a call from Condi, who said that she wanted someone to go shopping with her. I had an excellent time with her. We went to The Mall and bought a few odds and ends. She really cheered me up when she did an impression of John Kerry. She spoke in a monotone voice and pulled the sides of her eyes down to look like a basset hound and she said "GLOBAL TEST! GLOBAL TEST!" and "I VOTED FOR IT BEFORE I VOTED AGAINST IT!" ROFLMAO!!!! After we were done laughing, some lady next to us was shopping for flip-flops! Can you believe it! LOLLERSKATES!!!!

Re:This should get good

[Sailor Coruscant]

If that were actually funny it would remind me of John Howard's blog (he's the prime minister of australia).

Re:This should get good

[stinerman]

The McCain amendment describes an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill (S. AMDT 1977 to HR 2863) that codifies the army field manual as law. It was widely known in the news as the reason why Bush is threatening to veto the bill. The amendment would amount to a ban on using torture as an interrogation method against all people in the custody of the US.

The bill is currently in conference committee, where it has a chance of being shot down since Bush and Cheney are adamant that it be removed from the final version of the bill.

So, who was the ignorant one again?

Re:This should get good

[milimetric]

brilliant. Now all we need to do is random s/$name/$newname/ all over the place and we've figured out how to generate blog entries without ever typing anything

Re:Pretty good, but the Republican Playbook is bog

[Wyatt Earp]

Because you as a poster on /. know how much it's going to cost to "rebuild" places damaged by the Hurricanes. Hint, you could throw a trillion dollars at them and they'd never be rebuilt.

As for the not leaving it open for feedback, he is simply saving himself tons and tons of hate and spam from not just "nasty liberals", but jackasses of all stripes.

Re:Pretty good, but the Republican Playbook is bog

[goldspider]

" More Information is always useful, regardless of where it comes from."

You mean like GNAA posts and Goatse re-directs? If you want reasons to filter "information", you need only to read Slashdot at -1.

Re:Pretty good, but the Republican Playbook is bog

[Marxist Hacker 42]

It's easy to ignore the garbage to find the good....or ignore the irrelevant for the relevant. Posts like that mean something too when it comes to governing: it means that there are always a certain number of retards that we should not be ignoring.

blog? bah.

[jpmatth]

hastert's colleague in the senate, barack obama, has been doing an excellent podcast for several months now.

Which grade, now?

[ScentCone]

Technically, it may be OK. The problem I have with his blog is the style it's written in. He writes like an elementary school student.

Well, at least at my elementary school they taught us not to end a senence with a preposition.

"...the style it's written in."

should be

"...the style in which it's written."

But I'll forgive all because you know how to correctly use an apostrophe.

Re:Which grade, now?

[droptone]

Yes, because ending a sentence with a preposition is against a rule of grammar.

Please do not appeal to the "rules" of language elementary school teachers have been feverly trying to enforce for generations. It won't work.

Re:Which grade, now?

[Anonymous Coward]

But I'll forgive all because you know how to correctly use an apostrophe.

Well, at my elementary school, they taught us not to split infinitives.

"...how to correctly use an apostrophe"

should be

"...how to use an apostrophe correctly."

But I'll also forgive all because you know how to use an apostrophe correctly.

Re:Which grade, now?

[guido_ccf]

I like what Winston Churchill had to say about ending a sentence with a preposition: "This is the sort of English up with which I cannot put."

On Marines.com

[Anonymous Coward]

Marines.com is the recruiting side of the USMC web network. The actual marines site is a .gov. My USMC email address is a .gov. The reason the Recruiting command decided on a .com for the recruiting web presence was because it is much easier to get someone interested in the marines to remember marines.com rather than marines.gov. I bet if you took the average kid and asked him what the marines website might be, they'd say marines.com.

So... that's why.

Re:On Marines.com

[Anonymous Coward]

The official site for the USMC is usmc.mil , not *.gov. As for email addresses, the syntax i've seen is something like this:

doej @ unitname.usmc.mil

As for the rest of your post, it seems plausible, considering the years i've been around the Corps.

Re:On Marines.com

[iamcadaver]

*snap*
I had mod points just yesterday.

Good to read a jarhead-with-clue.

Re:On Marines.com

[adavies42]

Um, why isn't it a .mil? When I was a contractor for the Army at Ft. Knox, my address was a .mil.

But how long until it'd be 99.999% spam?

[Anonymous Coward]

> It's refreshing to know that cutting money to find deadbeat dads is top on the Republican's fiscal responsibility list.

Where, exactly, does it say that? I read the fine blog and I see nothing of the sort mentioned in there. I did see something about cutting "wasteful" spending, but no indication that he thought that program wasteful.

If you're going to criticize, please at least quote the part you have a problem with or give us some kind of source here. I mean, it'd be like me complaining that you and your website "encourage pedophilia" (you don't--at least, I hope you don't) without bothering to mention what might have led me to that belief.

I understand you hate corporate welfare, but...

[LeonGeeste]

which corporation gets more in subsidies than it pays in taxes? Please count ONLY things that are unambiguously subsidies, i.e., direct payments or direct provision of goods on unequal terms to the rest of America.

And what actual-welfare recipient pay more in taxes than he/she gets in benefits and uncompensated damage (murder, theft) he/she causes?

I don't deny that there's some cronyism, but you need to keep things in perspective. If you want to rape "corporations" because some of them get favors or do bad things... why not rape poor people too? (rape in the metaphorical sense of course)

Oh, and before I forget... ever wonder why a corporation would want to put its offices offshore? Couldn't be because of a punitive tax strucutre that makes even western Europe look good...

Who are you going to call?

[hobotron]

Well the ghostbloggers of course.

Fireside Chat?

[thedarkone64]

This is a rather interesting parallel. It is very similar Roosevelt's Fireside Chats. A political official using a (relativly) new medium to have a one-on-one chat with the nations population. I expect (and hope) that we see some more down-to-earth political blogs soon.

Re:His words are lies

[ThreeE]

Please tell me where the bible speaks of condoms. I'm sure it speaks of pre-marital sex, but that's certainly not the same thing.

Of course, you're probably speaking in hyperbole -- in both sentences.

You want a rebuttal?

[nwbvt]

Start your own blog. Its free, easy, and you can say virtually anything you want. And if you want to respond in a way in which he will be forced to listen, we have a way to do that as well. Its just not as popular with younger generations.

Re:You want a rebuttal?

[geomon]

Start your own blog. Its free, easy, and you can say virtually anything you want. And if you want to respond in a way in which he will be forced to listen, we have a way to do that as well. Its just not as popular with younger generations.

First of all, I was commenting on a general trend in political blogging. Secondly, I don't write a blog because it would be just another libertarian who has yet another blog. As for "forcing" him to listen, I doubt that any letter will "force" anyone to do anything other than roundfile another piece of paper.

I produce rebuttals in the most effective way possible: I attend political gatherings where precinct captians are elected. Real arguments lead to real results at the grassroots level.

Re:You want a rebuttal?

[nwbvt]

And if he had a comment section which you frequented, you would most likely be just another libertarian who posts comments to someone else's blog. Would that be any better? As it is, you are perfectly free to post your objections to whatever he has to say, even if no one else decides to read it. The Internet makes it easier for people to voice their ideas as virtually anyone can say what they want to say, yet at the same time it makes it more difficult as you have to compete with the rest of the world.

And I believe you misread the link I gave, as it has nothing to do with writing letters, unless you are out of your district come the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. And considering your second paragraph, you probably wouldn't object to this method all that much.

Re:You want a rebuttal?

[geomon]

And if he had a comment section which you frequented, you would most likely be just another libertarian who posts comments to someone else's blog. Would that be any better?

Better or worse, I would leave that judgement to people who rate blogs.

My point was that Hastert providing a comments section would give people the impression that Republicans aren't afraid of criticism. The latest news hasn't been too good for the GOP and their members are showing that they are a bit thin skinned.

As it is, you are perfectly free to post your objections to whatever he has to say, even if no one else decides to read it.

And if I were Speaker of the House, I would expect that someone might actually read it. Whether you believe it or not, there are different standards for the elected and the electorate.

The Internet makes it easier for people to voice their ideas as virtually anyone can say what they want to say, yet at the same time it makes it more difficult as you have to compete with the rest of the world.

That is an uneven fight, don't you think? Compare the power of the Speaker of the House to a mother who has been evacuated from New Orleans and has nothing left because the hurricanes have taken it. Are you seriously comparing powerful Congressional members and their interests with individuals?

And I believe you misread the link I gave,

Actually it was 404 when I tried it the first time.

as it has nothing to do with writing letters, unless you are out of your district come the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. And considering your second paragraph, you probably wouldn't object to this method all that much.

After finally getting through to the site, I think you are probably right. ;)

Re:You want a rebuttal?

[nwbvt]

" My point was that Hastert providing a comments section would give people the impression that Republicans aren't afraid of criticism. The latest news hasn't been too good for the GOP and their members are showing that they are a bit thin skinned."

I doubt those will go anywhere unless a significant number of Democratic congressmen created blogs that allowed comments. And I believe if they tried, they would quickly find out why the speaker didn't allow comments on his. I mean if you think /. trolls are bad...

" That is an uneven fight, don't you think? Compare the power of the Speaker of the House to a mother who has been evacuated from New Orleans and has nothing left because the hurricanes have taken it. Are you seriously comparing powerful Congressional members and their interests with individuals?"

It is certainly possible that individuals could create blogs that become well read. There was that guy in Iraq who became huge in the months leading to the Iraq war, and the bloggers who brought up questions regarding the Bush national guard memos were tiny compared to ABC. And it is much easier for someone to become big through blogs than through the old method, handing out newsletters and shouting at people at street corners.

Futhermore, do we necessarily want everyone's blogs to be seen at an equal level? Regardless of whether or not you agree with Hastert's positions, he is an important man in our nation's politics, while I personally have no interest in reading the positions of the various trolls running around here.

" Actually it was 404 when I tried it the first time."

Wow, enough people were interested in voting that the wikipedia couldn't handle the traffic. That is impressive. :)
Unless they were really just looking up information about the people of Votia.

Re:You want a rebuttal?

[MartinB]

" My point was that Hastert providing a comments section would give people the impression that Republicans aren't afraid of criticism. The latest news hasn't been too good for the GOP and their members are showing that they are a bit thin skinned."

I doubt those will go anywhere unless a significant number of Democratic congressmen created blogs that allowed comments. And I believe if they tried, they would quickly find out why the speaker didn't allow comments on his. I mean if you think /. trolls are bad...

Yeah, completely. Just look at those nutcases who post on lemon-lyman.com...

Re:You want a rebuttal?

[nwbvt]

"Network Solutions
This site is under construction and coming soon"?

Yeah, you would have to be a nutcase to post somewhere that doesn't exist.

Re:You want a rebuttal?

[MartinB]

*sigh* you think you're up to posting on this thread and miss a screaming West Wing reference?

Season 3, Episode 16 ("US Poet Laureate"). Here's the Episode Transcript.

My apologies though - it's LemonLyman.com (I was going by the DVD subtitles as you never see the URL onscreen).

Re:You want a rebuttal?

[nwbvt]

In case you missed it, in this thread we were talking about real life, not life in a television show. But thats going on my new "You might be a nerd if..." list:

You might be a nerd if... you get visibly upset if someone you are talking to hasn't seen a particular episode of a television show.

And your revised URL isn't doing much better.

Ah, I remember when...

[Enamon]

Ah, I remember when "blogs" were called "webpages" and were hosted on Geocities and Tripod instead of Blogger and Livejournal. Blogs are nothing new. Same thing - new name.

Re:Ah, I remember when...

[planetoid]

I think it's more accurate to say that .plan files were a more analogous precursor to weblogs, depending on how some people used them. Especially software developers and sysadmins.

Great.

[jpellino]

We're just that much closer to the complete works of shakespeare being spit out any time now...

What a great thing to do!

[246o1]

I want my state (disclusure: I don't live in America at the moment) to become a receiver state, instead of a donor state! It would be great if every state became a receiver state! On a more serious note, that's the kind of short-sighted thinking on the part of our representatives that leads to enormous amounts of pork. Game theory has a lot to say about this, but suffice to say that the favor-trading of pork projects leads to tremendous waste, as there is insufficient disincentive on the people who write these bills.

Re:What a great thing to do!

[lpangelrob]

Okay. Tell that to the Illinois taxpayers.

What would be fair? If everyone received $1.00 for every $1.00 they put into the system. Is that going to happen?

Oh, except for Alaska. Apparently, since they came in the union merely 50 years ago, they deserve $2.00 of every $1.00, even though they rank 48th or 49th in population. Oh, and Pennsylvania, which for no apparent reason also receives more than their dollar. Maybe because the head of the transportation committee (or whatever it's called) is from Pennsylvania? Because that makes sense. Look up Interstate 99 sometime. I guess that's fair.

Politics is enforcing fairness through unfair means. That's just the way it works right now. "Fair" is never fair.

Mister Hastert

[jafac]

Could you please answer a few questions for me?

I've heard that you have taken campaign contributions from individuals who, upon investigation, turned out to be Turkish nationals, and upon further investigation, it turns out that they had ties to terrorism. What is your involvement with these individuals, and why haven't you returned the money? Are you a supporter of international terrorism? Given the sharp increase in terrorist attacks since our 2003 invasion of Iraq, do you see the current set of republican policies as favoring or harming international terrorism. Do you see any issues with the republican party, and corruption in general? And finally, do you hope you'll be sharing a cell-block in Leavenworth with Karl Rove (perjury and espionage), Dick Cheney (treason), Jack Abramoff (racketeering and conspiracy to commit murder), Bill Frist (insider trading, and medical malpractice in the Schiavo case), Tom Delay (conspiracy to commit money laundering, and election fraud), and Tom Noe (money laundering, fraud, embezzlement, and election fraud)?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Please open your blog for comments so the people you represent can convey their opinions to you!

Re:Mister Hastert

[Anonymous Coward]

And here you see why comments should never be opened on his blog...

Re:Mister Hastert

[/dev/trash]

Republicans don't support terrist.

Good on 'im

[Dachannien]

I hope more of our Congresspeople start up weblogs. It'll give the voters a better chance to really see what each individual person is all about during their term, so that we can decide whether to keep them or chuck them when their term is up. It'll also remove media spin altogether. Yeah, I know, the political spin will be there, but it'll be spin straight from the horse's mouth, without the NY Times or Fox News or whoever fudging what our representatives say to make for a better-selling story.

Hopefully, it'll also give us a better look at the inside strategies of Congress. For example, Rick Boucher could give us better info on the state of the DMCRA and consumer rights in the IP age in general, as things happen. It can also let Congresspeople gather grassroots support for nationally-relevant policies, to help move along bills that get stuck in the "we can only do so much in a term" pipeline but that are also desired by the public.

In Hastert's case, it'll probably end up being a lot of party line nonsense - after all, he was chosen to lead House Republicans. His criticisms of the oil companies are interesting, though, and I wonder how the party in general will react.

Re:Good on 'im

[Forbman]

Having an interest in the I-80/I-88 "connector" that is being developed thru Hastert's district, it would be interesting to see him blogging a bit about that, because if he wasn't Speaker of the House, it probably wouldn't be happening (yes, I think Spokane, WA, voters are some of the stupidest voters in the country for voting OUT the speaker of the House...cutting off your face to spite your nose, eh?). The drive down Ill-47, one of the proposed corridors, is pretty nice, because at least 4 years ago it was still a very rural drive between McHenry and Morris, IL. Having family in the Morris, IL, area adds interest, too. I hope they build the connector east of Morris, because west of Morris (Ottawa, Seneca, etc) is still pretty rural, but of course msot of it won't be once it's built (Morris is becoming a bedroom community for SW Chicagoland employees...).

Yes, the area needs it from a pure traffic sense, but somehow I wonder if federal $$$ wouldn't be better spent helping North (Lake County) and Northwest Chicagoland improve their traffic. All the main highways (except I-80 and the I-290/355 beltway) go to downtown Chicago, but I was among thousands who did not commute this way, and a 15-mile commute took close to an hour, because it was mainly all on 2-3 lane county roads. Others I worked with who lived near I-94 had about a 15-minute commute for the same distance...

RTFB

[ErikTheRed]

"If they think they can rebuid NOLA and the other towns hit hard by hurricanes in the gulf for only $62.5 billion...

Bzzzt. Wrong. He said that they've approved US$62.5B for the Gulf States for right now, to get things started. They don't know how much it's going to cost. People have been throwing the US$250B for NOLA number around but he says they're not getting that much (I've seen some critical analysis of that and it's actually funny - the number, not the situation). He doesn't want to raise taxes because he thinks it's bad for the economy.

Sounds like valid opinion to me - it's perfectly fine to disagree with it, but it's not so far out as to be insane or require a pee test. I'd imagine that the reason he doesn't have feedback is because a bunch of people would misread (either accidentally or deliberately) what he wrote and post a bunch of nonsense like what you started your post with. It'd be a shame if the "nasty liberals" you mention go around trolling sites misrepresenting him and discourage this sort of thing.

Re:RTFB

[cybrthng]

You missed the point.. his point wasn't it would cost more that 62.5 billion its the fact we can't pay for 62.5 billion or the 200+ billion it will cost for all gulf states to come back to normalcy without raising taxes..

All the republicans are doing is making my daughter or your son and your daughter pay for the messes he is creating..

Sure.. prez can't control the weahter, but could do a hell of a lot better job in managing the infrastructure and support that has made our country what it is. Obviously he doesn't care.

Re:RTFB

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Bzzzt. Wrong. He said that they've approved US$62.5B for the Gulf States for right now, to get things started. They don't know how much it's going to cost. People have been throwing the US$250B for NOLA number around but he says they're not getting that much (I've seen some critical analysis of that and it's actually funny - the number, not the situation). He doesn't want to raise taxes because he thinks it's bad for the economy.

Ok, so I worded mine wrong. Idiots who think raising taxes is bad for the economy need to look at this country in the 1950s- when the top tax bracket paid over 90% income taxes, and we had the largest expansion of the middle class in human history, of any country (the middle class has been shrinking ever since).

Sounds like valid opinion to me - it's perfectly fine to disagree with it, but it's not so far out as to be insane or require a pee test. I'd imagine that the reason he doesn't have feedback is because a bunch of people would misread (either accidentally or deliberately) what he wrote and post a bunch of nonsense like what you started your post with. It'd be a shame if the "nasty liberals" you mention go around trolling sites misrepresenting him and discourage this sort of thing.

The value of the blog is in the conversation...if you're unwilling to have the conversation because you believe something unsupported by history (large tax cuts have *alwasy* been followed by unemployment and recessions, for instance), then you deserve whatever you get.

al Dennyboy

[Doc Ruby]

Dennis Hastert works for the Turkish Qaeda drug financiers.

Re:al Dennyboy

[ifwm]

Doc Ruby relies on ad hominems

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Re:al Dennyboy

[Doc Ruby]

ifwm is covering for Qaeda terrorists, drug gangsters and his Republican fetish.

Linking to stories of the Speaker of the House's abyssmal crimes isn't "ad hominem". It's patriotic, pointing out TREASON.

Traitor.

Re:Pretty good, but the Republican Playbook is bog

[pclminion]

Still, Mega Points for actually attempting to blog, but he's missed the feedback section in his implementation, I think on purpose. Can't have any nasty liberals leaving him messages, can we?

Think about it. His blog is hosted on www.speaker.gov -- a US government website. As such, anything that even remotely looks like suppression of free speech would be taboo. The blog would immediately be "crap flooded", essentially DDoS'd by a rain of shit, and he'd be legally unable to remove any of the messages. Crap-flooding contains no useful information, but it is still "speech" and because the web site is a formal entity of the United States Government there would be nothing he could do to stop it.

Not everything boils down to Liberals vs. Conservatives, you know.

Not necesarily his words...

[Myko]

...it seems clear that he's not employing ghostbloggers Really? How sure are you? Do you work in his office? _EVERY_ Congressman employs people specifically to write ALL of their public corespondence. They write all the email replies, they write all the letter replies. My old roommate when I lived in DC had just such a job as a staffer on the Hill. I would be very surprised if this was not takne in the same vein.

This looks like a good start.

[l3prador]

This looks like a good start...

Hopefully the number of times he uses the word blogosphere in an entry will go down over time.

Speaker's Strategy:

[DanTheLewis]

Gain exposure for the leaders of the majority party who are not being indicted. [/cheap shot]

Call of Cthulu anyone?

[flibbertygibbet]

Hastert always makes me think of Hastur The Unspeakable. Ironic since he's the speaker of the house.

Re:Pretty good, but the Republican Playbook is bog

[Draveed]

If you really feel the need to comment on something in his blog, you're still free to email or write him a letter. He just wants to keep the 'H@st3rT 1s t3h $uCk' comments away. I suggest starting your letter with, "I read in your blog that..."

MySpace?

[ImaNihilist]

So it's just a matter of time until we see congressmen on myspace! Yaay! The world is ending!

".. my office is teaching the old guy new tricks."

[Pleb'a.nz]

I guess the new guy should learn the tricks before teaching them to the old guy and learn how to use "background-repeat: no-repeat" in their CSS.

*spys the ass-end of the Speaker's Journal image on the right*

Refineries

[MBraynard]

But what are these oil companies doing to bring down the cost of oil and natural gas? They haven't built a refinery here in America since the 1970's.

How can he literally ask such a stupid, stupid question. He knows damn well why there hasn't been a refinery built. Let us review some of them:

• NIMBY environmentalists on the local level.
• Federal enviro regulators who have no idea how jobs or how exactly the money that gets direct deposited into their accounts every month is generated
• Unions for treating investors like the enemy rather than their best friend
• High taxes and workplace regulations.

  Now, you may disagree with me on all of these as policies. I understand that. /. is somewhere to the left of Mao. But what you can't disagree with is that these reasons are among the reasons that refineries have not been built here since the 1970s. And my point is that for Hastert to try to portray this as the oil industries FAULT is assinine. He knows better. Give any company a chance to make a profit by making someone happy and they will - that's the beauty of capitalism.

those that have the power also have the blame

[Anonymous Coward]

Democrats aren't against building refineries because of 'migratory birds', if that ridiculous buck-passing canard was ever true. After the latest large oil bill was passed, the misnamed Louisiana Katrina Reconstruction Act, oil companies admitted they would not be building any refineries in the USA at this time, because it didn't suit them. Heating oil prices will also stay the same. In other words, nothing changed, and Republicans are to blame - not because they're evil, but because Republicans control both houses of Congress and the Presidency and enjoy popular support for lower gas prices. If they can't pass laws that enable more refining capacity, they have no one to blame but themselves. Whatever happened to the buck stops here?

Re:Funny??!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like you didn't get the memo, Dwenius!

What would it look like if he had a xanga?

[hobotron]

Probably something like this (Yes I just did this too)
http://www.rockshouse.com/pure/hastertxanga.png

On Katrina and Energy

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Apparently ole' Denny is in a mood to distance himself from Bush. In particular, he's trying to sound like a fiscal conservative by downplaying the cost of Katrina, and he flat-out rejects Bush's pricetag and approach. On another issue, he's not necessarily out of line with Bush, but he's still misleading (IMHO): Energy. Apparently it has finally sunk in even for Republicans that the current energy plan (i.e. laissez-faire) isn't gonna cut it. But his recommendations for "fixing" it center on increasing domestic oil production and/or refining. Not that these might not be good ideas, but notice that he doesn't mention alternative energy sources or even improved fuel-efficiency. Like a true Republican, he wants to protect our sacred right to guns and SUVs. Still, it's good to see Republicans start to acknowledge the risks of foreign oil dependency, even if their recommended solutions aren't what I'd consider optimal. And it's REALLY nice to see such a short-and-sweet policy statement coming straight from the horse's mouth, without a half page of self-serving op-ed or twenty minutes of screaming "pundits" to gussy it up. Even if I don't like what he's saying, Hastert is at least saying SOMETHING.

Obama takes a different tack on his blog

[Rescate]

Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is the junior senator from the same state as Hastert. He doesn't seem to feel the need to write at a 6th grade level. This post, "Tone, Truth, and the Democratic Party," was written for the crowd over at Daily Kos, and cross-posted on his own blog. The folks over at Daily Kos seemed to be up to the "challenge" of reading it; Obama's post generated over 800 comments.

I'm not saying that this is because the Kossacks are a "sophisticated" audience, like the New York Times or WSJ audience that you mention. It's just that they didn't seem to have any problem with it. Also, I'm not sure which style is ultimately better at getting one's message across to the people; Hastert's simple, direct style, or Obama's more sophisticated one. President Bush seems to have been very successful with a simple, direct style. Maybe, as you say, that is ultimately the best way to communicate with the "or'nary American".

I guess if people really don't want to read at more than a 6th grade level, Obama's got 'em covered with his podcast. If what you say is true, maybe political podcasts will become more and more common, since even a poor reader can just listen instead. Talk radio would be the example here...

Re:Ahh, about the only time you'll hear from Denni

[DigitalReverend]

I am an IT professional, but I spent a year driving truck until I could find a decent job. If your state really wants to be a reciever of federal funds,I'd say that you all need to get off your butts and put some on your governor to stop vetoing the bills that would get rid of the split speed limit. The Federal government holds back federal funds from stated that have the split speed limit. (That is let's say 65mph for cars and 55mph for trucks) .

Split speed limits cause more accidents and traffic fatalities, also statistically trucks have fewer accidents per mile than cars do, so the split speed limit makes no sense at all.

Oh and it you want to get the reality check, getting hit by a truck going at 55 is going to do just as much damage as if that truck was going 65.

They should add comments but restrict them to

[defile]

other Congressman only. Of course they need to register for accounts/blogs too.

It'd be glorius.

Re:They should add comments but restrict them to

[planetoid]

Where the public can look in and see Congressmen hoot and holler amongst each other? It would resemble a zoo. A big, smelly, unkempt zoo with monkey feces flying left and right, in more ways than one.

Re:They should add comments but restrict them to

[defile]

Where the public can look in and see Congressmen hoot and holler amongst each other? It would resemble a zoo. A big, smelly, unkempt zoo with monkey feces flying left and right, in more ways than one.

I reiterate.

It'd be glorius.

No no no, that's "snogging"

[(Score 5, Flamebait)]

You're thinking of "snogging".

Though I guess some conservationists might mistakenly attack him for "logging", or old video game fans might confusedly cheer him for being a "frogger", or his political opponents might see the article and agree that he is indeed a hogger of pork-barrel cash, bogging things down or slogging on day after day, dogging them relentlessly.

But let's not get carried away here!

NOOOOO!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

From the blog: In the House, we're working on a plan that will ... eliminate wasteful and inefficient government programs...

Let me get this right -- the Republicans are eliminating the Department of Defense?! It may be wasteful and inefficient but it's still the best welfare program we've got.

Resources, more likely

[Kadin2048]

There's another thing at work, too. I'm not sure where speaker.gov is hosted out of, but if it's like any other government IT projects I've seen, the hardware is probably not set up to deal with a big crapflood or DDoS. It would probably just roll over and die, or some overprotective network admin would take it offline to stop the source of the attack / bandwidth waste. Plus, I've no doubt that a high percentage of the posts would probably be offensive and/or blatantly obscene, and it would take a practically-full-time staffer just to filter them out or mod them down.

In general, it would be a whole lot of resources for very little (perceived) gain for him.

A silver spooned rich white man blogging.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exciting as the lies and propaganda he is hoping to sell the ignorant masses in his little propaganablog.

I'll take Bullshit for a 1000 Alex.

Re:Pretty good, but the Republican Playbook is bog

[DigiShaman]

Exactly! I think Penny Arcade summed it up rather well. http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php?date=2004-03- 19

What do you expect?

[StikyPad]

I don't know if he'll keep up with it, but from reading his initial post, it seems clear that he's not employing ghostbloggers.

"Ok, now what I need you fellas to do is to create an interweb diary sight that makes me look like I give a rats ass about the common voter. Make it all touchy-feely so it seems like I'm havin' a one on one dialog with the readers. Go ahead and sign my name, and state some crap like 'I'm new to this technology thing, but I'll try to keep this updated.' Come back in six months and lemme know how it's going. Now get outta here!"

a sad reflection of society

[routerguy666]

It is telling of the age in which we live that the speaker of the house of Representatives, chief of those who vote the will of the people, does not allow comments on his blog.

If he truly had a respect for the idea sharing that the Internet enables, his blog would be open to comments. If he truly pursued the responsibilties of his office as a servant of the people he would set aside political concerns, appoint a small group of moderators to filter spam, endure a completely UNCENSORED dialog as his schedule permits and actually listen to the voices of the nation.

Tax dollars have been spent on far more ludicrous ventures than a group of spam-removal-only forum moderators. Such an expense would be a sign that the government of the US pays more than lip service to the idea that the Internet is beneficial in important, non-economic ways.

This blog in particular is pure political maneuver. With Exxon alone posting billions of dollars in profit this last Quater, at least one reason for high energy prices is blatantly obvious - yet this guy will do nothing about it.

Re:a sad reflection of society

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

Enabling comments is a no-win. If he deletes spam, people will cry that they were censored. If he leaves the spam up, he's not minding the store. I wouldn't enable comments either, if I were he. An no, I'm neither a Republican nor a neocon.

Re:a sad reflection of society

[thatshortkid]

because it's against the law, genius. scroll up, somebody already commented on this. unless you're from his district, he can't listen to praise nor flamebait. i'm from illinois, but not his district (btw, GO WHITE SOX!), so my opinion is off-limits as well. even when you call a sen/rep by phone, you're supposed to give info so that they can make sure you live in the area the sen/rep is supposed to give a rat's ass about.

Re:a sad reflection of society

[routerguy666]

Back to the short bus kid. Clearly if he can get on TV and respond to comments from audience members and callers he can dialog with anyone he pleases. There is no law that says he can not listen to anyone who would like to talk to him. As for pursuing specific agendas, yes he is there to represent the will of the people in his district, but for those so gifted as to be able to look at this narrow example and apply it to the plarger olitical landscape (beyond you apparently) then the comment on our 'leaders' not being open to discourse with the public at large is certainly accurate.

Re:a sad reflection of society

[ifwm]

"It is telling of the age in which we live that the speaker of the house of Representatives, chief of those who vote the will of the people, does not allow comments on his blog."

Yes, it tells us that he understands his audience.

I don't care what benefits having comments might create, but I do know I'd rather not have to wade through miles of left-wing crybabies who have nothing better to do than screech out their disagreement to the other side's policy at every turn.

I mean, if the discourse could be kept civil, then that's one thing. But this is the INTERNET man, you and I both know civility, the internet, and political commentary are not going to come together any time soon.

Re:a sad reflection of society

[ifwm]

People like you are why he doesn't have comments.

That is, people who run their idiot mouths and have no f-ing idea what they're talking about.

It is ILLEGAL. So this

"Clearly if he can get on TV and respond to comments from audience members and callers he can dialog with anyone he pleases."

is wrong. It doesn't matter though, because even though you don't know the law, and even though you didn't know it was illegal, you rushed to come up with a stupid, incoherent, and irrelevant example.

Why can't people like you just say

"Hmm, I didn't know it might be illegal, instead of insisting I'm right on Slashdot, maybe I'll do some research and find out for myself."

Oh, right, because you think you're always right, and that you know everything. When are you running for office?

Re:a sad reflection of society

[routerguy666]

Post a link to the law if you have it. More likely you react based on the limited "knowledge" you gain from other slashdot comments. Franking laws, which I am assuming you are referring to, also prevent Reps from contacting the public at large via taxpayer money. While generally considered a reference to mass mailings, it would seem a blog would also fall under this category - yet here his blog is. So apparently one way communication is ok, dialog is not. You are an apologist for people who could care less about you. Grats, go hug a politician.

About time!

[Dirtside]

I've been wondering for years what Cthulu and the other Old Ones have been up to.

Wait... Hastert the Speaker? Not Hastur the Unspeakable? Oh.

Re:His words are lies

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

How the heck is the fundamentalist right related to anything? I was talking about New Orleans and the ability of Hastert to make sensible statements in public - not who's slanting his statements.

"We have met the enemy and it is us." Well, I have met the enemy, and it is you....

Yes, I'm -1, Flamebait

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry. We can always spend less money by getting them killed protecting your sorry ass. Hell, DoD folks are just glorified welfare recipients, so it's no big deal.

Re:His words are lies

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

He didn't say the Bible actually said anything about condoms (or even about anything). He said that the so-called religous right will claim that it does - and what's worrisome is that'll be enough for most people.

Martin Luther published one translation of the Bible into German and everyone read it, because the peasants then knew that once they read the Bible for themselves, they would know if the clergy were lying to them. Today we have a bazillion translations of the Bible, many even available online, and we trust the religious right to tell us what it says - to tell us what He says. Is that wise for us, to hand our religion to a political group?

You say "I'm sure it speaks of pre-marital sex." Are you sure because you know for a fact it does, or are you saying "I'm sure" because society has implied that it does, so you think it does? (I know it does because I've seen a few of the passages, but I've heard reasonable arguments that question the translation, and even the passages themselves don't condemn it that strongly IIRC.)

Believe me, the religous right has read the Bible cover to cover, and that's how they know how to wield it. A religious left can as easily read it and use it to their ends too. The Bible doesn't have much to say as far being on the right or on the left (except perhaps Joshua 1:7).

Outsourcing

[Anonymous Coward]

Denny, DUDE! What is wrong with you? If outsourcing is great for IT companies, why not refineries? I'm certain that building 20 refineries and staffing them up with low wage technicians in Mexico would be much cheaper than paying American-god-fearing-unionized employees to refine gas here. Additionally, they suffer the environmental consequences and downright NIMBY unsightliness!

What is wrong with you, man? What sort of corporatist Republican are you? We all know Lou Dobbs, along with the American citizenry, are pissing in the wind of the lobbyists o' the burning Bush.
Get a grip on your delay self. What what.

Woo Woo!!! First Post!!!

[cdtoad]

Yes!!! Woo Woo!!! First Post!!! - The H45t3R4T0R

Why not allow comments?

[DesScorp]

Because pathetic assholes from Slashdot, DailyKOS, and DemocraticUnderground will crapflood the site with "first post!" and "No Blood For Oil!". People really interested in genuine communication will be drowned out.

Capitalism?

[bigtrike]

Where do the tens of billions of taxpayer dollars given to these energy companies come into play in capitalism?

Wonkette's Take

[Anonymous Coward]

wonkette

There is, we admit, something hypnotic about Hastert's deadpan delivery of allegedly important dispatches from his cranium; somehow the one-two punch of "I'm excited. This is the future" has us unfortunately contemplating the kind of terse randy talk that must accompany the Speaker's foreplay, e.g. "Baby, yes. I would like to sex you up."

What's next?

[jakefloyd]

What's next? News from the White House on Myspace!

I set this up for my local rep before blogging

[Mustang Matt]

Or at least before blogging was called blogging.

So out with democracy then?

[DoctorLard]

How exactly do you propose to qualify "small, trusted set of smart people"? Will these people be elected or appointed, and if so by whom? To whom are they accountable? Your argument goes round and round in circles, and nicely sums up one of the eternal dilemmae of human civilisation. All this without even starting to examine what exactly the "right thing" is.

Bad blogger

[rupert0]

This page is not Valid (no Doctype found)! http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww .speaker.gov%2Fjournal%2Findex.shtml http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=h ttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.speaker.gov%2Fjournal%2Findex.shtm l&usermedium=all Old man shoud know better

Guess how many times you'll see "LOL"...

[Anonymous Coward]

in GW Bush's future blog.

Am I missing something?

[955301]

Looks like this old guy can still learn a thing or two. Until next time . .

Looks like he didn't learn anything at all. The whole point of something like this is to have FEEDBACK. He doesn't support commenting on his entries.

My single largest complaint which people in positions of authority like this is that they are typically in their own worlds - either by personal design or by being surrounded by yes-men. I want to see a politician opening the back-channel and actually reading the feedback now and then. They might find their jobs a little easier in the long run.

Re:Am I missing something?

[bmetzler]

The whole point of something like this is to have FEEDBACK. He doesn't support commenting on his entries.

Oh yeah, I can just imagine the crap that would be posted if he allowed comments. I mean, just look who posts here. I don't think that adds to the value of his blog.

Now, it's not as if he's actually prohibiting feedback. If you have something you want to say, pick up your phone and give his office a call. Or else write a letter or send a fax. Those are 2 very valid forms of feedback.

-Brent

Re:Am I missing something?

[955301]

But those forms already exist. The blog does nothing to augment them, and I can always google the guy to see what he's said.

Since senators and reps have a support staff, I was thinking more along the lines of having a person downgrade the crap in the comments, like on Slashdot taking from your comparison. But now and then, someone says something profoundly insightful or enough people say something to drive a point home.

The existence of the obnoxious trolls doesn't warrant turning off the backchannel. In my opinion anyway. Not when the point of a rep is to represent - hard to do if you don't know what people want.

Re:Am I missing something?

[bmetzler]

Not when the point of a rep is to represent - hard to do if you don't know what people want.

But that's the whole point! He does know what the people want, because they can call, write, or fax him. I doubt comments on a web log will be that representative of what people really want anyways.

-Brent

Re:Am I missing something?

[ifwm]

"The whole point of something like this is to have FEEDBACK"

That's funny, I thought the point was to share some of his personal thoughts and ideas.

What makes you right and me wrong?

Re:Am I missing something?

[955301]

What's the point of putting your ideas out if noone can tell you when you've missed something? A little pompous don't you think?

Re:Am I missing something?

[ifwm]

"What's the point of putting your ideas out if noone can tell you when you've missed something?"

Who says you can't tell him? You just can't tell him on the blog. Learn the difference.

More importantly, you have access to the THOUGHTS OF THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE. You have access to information about him that didn't exist before. THAT ALONE is a good thing.

"A little pompous don't you think?"

You're being too hard on yourself, you just a blowhard know-itall with a mad-on for Republicans. I wouldn't call you pompous though.

Re:Am I missing something?

[955301]

I disagree. I don't have access to the thoughts of the speaker of the house. I have another channel to receive his agenda. And while slightly more communication is a good thing, it's not good enough to affect the disconnect between Americans and their representatives.

And try to keep away from inflammatory garbage will you? I'm serious. We already have enough channels, we need efficient backchannels.

SEAN PENN IS THE TRUE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE

[PresidentAGore]

President Al Gore's Exiled Speaker of the House -- Sean Penn! Sean Penn's Blog Al Gore's Blog

HOUSE SPEAKER SEAN PENN'S BLOG

[PresidentAGore]

Sean Penn, President Al Gore's Exiled Speaker of the House Allows Comments!

Sean Penn's Blog
Al Gore's Blog

Re:His words are lies

[CagedBear]

Today we have a bazillion translations of the Bible, many even available online

http://www.biblegateway.com/
Click the drop down next to the search box and you'll see all the languages.

Re:Pretty good, but the Republican Playbook is bog

[(trb001)]

Can't have any nasty liberals leaving him messages, can we?

I'm sure you think you're joking, but sites with even limited visibility on *both* sides of the political spectrum are beacons for assholes wanting to interject their (poorly spelled and punctuated) thoughts. I post occasionally on Newshounds, a far left wing board, and there are plenty of trolls of both flavors. Free Republic gets the exact same thing.

Unless Hastert uses a moderation system or is allowed some editorial control (which I seriously doubt he has time for, and I'd hate to speculate on the ramifications of being labeled a censor), he's going to wind up with a ridiculously low signal-to-noise ratio.

--trb

Hastert Hastert Hastert!

[adavies42]

Aaaaaah!

Fat, Bloated, and Out Of Control

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that what the Repugnicans said about Tip O'Neill? Pot, meet kettle.

Re:Pretty good, but the Republican Playbook is bog

[4of12]

Right, because the anonymity of the Internet brings out only the best in people, especially when they have an opinion!

In the face of ruthless power anonymity is often the only means for bringing out criticism of that power, never mind whether the criticism is soundly based or an irrational rant.

You have to put up with some noise to get the signal.

Re:His words are lies

[utexaspunk]

While having liberals pick up their Bibles to shut up the wacky people on the right may be an effective strategy, I'll be saddened if it ever comes to that. Religion already gets way too much clout in people's decision-making processes. I'd much prefer logic and reason taking over. How about a discussion on whether the Bible, or anyone citing the Bible, or any other religious book, have any basis in reality or should have any bearing on how our country is governed? We need an awakening in this country of scientific, rational thought grounded in empiricism, not more knee-jerk religious zealoutry.

No comment sections make sense...

[Shivetya]

Honestly would you expect anything constructive in a comment section? Look at some forums from across the net. What a comment section would attract is a load of hate filled messages for no other reason than simply because they could post them. Most would post only for self glorification and not to further an intelligent discussion. Even moderated systems like the Slashdot has are heavily slanted.

If you want to send feedback then you have many known avenues to get that opinion or comment to a Representative. If he is your local Representative then try to meet him at any local event he plans to attend. Posting comments to a message board is the cheap way out and it gets you exactly what you invested - nothing.

Did he type it?

[joshsnow]

It reads as if he dictated it, someone else typed and edited it - hence the short sentences.

Re:Pretty good, but the Republican Playbook is bog

[Marxist Hacker 42]

As for the not leaving it open for feedback, he is simply saving himself tons and tons of hate and spam from not just "nasty liberals", but jackasses of all stripes.

Yep- like other politicians and so-called "representatives" that only represent themselves.

I'm doing something.

[bluGill]

I'm doing something about high gas prices: ethanol and biodiesel.

My car won't run right (as if the piece of junk runs right anyway) on pure ethanol, but a 50/50 mix of E85 and gas works just fine, and puts money into the pockets of those who have a chance of solving the high price problem. Competition would be great if there was some.

Some claim that ethanol is energy positive, but they have to use absurd numbers to come to that conclusion. Eitherway, biodiesel is energy positive.

I don't own a diesel car, but I'm looking for a good biodiesel and ethanol producers to invest in. Maybe someone with new enzymes. I haven't found anything yet, but I'm sure it is a matter of more investigation. I'm in no hurry.

Re:His words are lies

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Yeah, that's what I use. There's a couple of other useful sites (e.g., the NET Bible, a new volunteer translation).

BibleGateway doesn't list all the languages by the search box: the Latin Vulgate (the version written in 405, corrected in the 1500s, and used in Roman Catholicism until the 1960s), for example, is only accessible by going to "Available Versions" on the left. That page also lists some obscure PDF versions (one of which is technically my mother tongue).

Another interesting translation is the "Luther Bibel 1545".

Re:His words are lies

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

not more knee-jerk religious zealoutry.

Isn't dismissing religion as "knee-jerk zealotry" itself a knee-jerk reaction? I'm all for a fair public discussion, but shutting out the beliefs of the religious seems as short-sighted as shutting out the beliefs of the non-religious.

Not everything about religion is bad, you know.

Re:His words are lies

[ThreeE]

He said something about a druggist claiming the bible says something about condoms. But for a moment, let's take your response -- give me one example of the "religious right" saying something, anything about condoms in the bible.

You rail against people who believe in something you don't. You sir, are the zealot.

Re:His words are lies

[utexaspunk]

As far as I can tell, at least with regard to Christianity, nobody bases any of their claims on any independently verifiable evidence. While one is welcome to provide me with some sort of proof, I would think that if such a thing existed it would be pretty well known. So if demanding real evidence to believe something makes me a zealot, then I'm guilty as charged.

You Fucking Moron

[Winkhorst]

I remember when you couldn't buy a condom in the State of Connecticut. How many goddamned rightwing Italian Catholics on the Supreme Court do you think it will take before we're right back there again?! Wake up you imbeciles. This isn't hypothetical. This is staring at you from the frontpage of the newspaper. You can call me a troll all you want. I don't give a shit anymore. If you don't have the intelligence to see your own impending doom, then you can take your silly little chatroom and shove it. I am done with you morons. You can burn in Hell as far as I care. Adios, nitwits. Have fun living under the Baptist Taliban. You deserve it.

Re:You Fucking Moron

[ThreeE]

Better than having drive-through abortions.

Second post is posted by Ron Bonjean @ 3:40pm

[william.gunn]

I guess he's going to have guest, not ghost, bloggers. I sure do hope he feels OK with fleshing out thoughts, but trackbacks, if not commentary, is necessary for that.