Pork Barrel Tech Projects On The Rise

An anonymous reader writes "News.com has a large article up exploring the increase in 'pork barrel'-style technology projects floating through government spending bills. The water-free urinals discussed on Slashdot last year are one such project, as is a 'Virtual Reality Spray Paint Simulator'." From the article: "Earmarks for favored recipients--known colloquially as pork--have become easier than ever for politicians to secure because of the rapid growth in homeland security and military spending, especially if they can find some plausible technological veneer. Exact figures are difficult to obtain, mostly because spending bills tend to be intentionally obfuscated and specifics are usually absent from legislative text. Government watchdogs, however, say earmarks ostensibly related to technology are clearly on the rise."

Comments

Down with big government!

[Kelson]

Clearly, we need to get some Republicans into power so they can cut down on all this extraneous spending and balance the budget.

Oh, wait...

Re:Down with big government!

[Anonymous Coward]

You summed the whole thing up in one comment. And first post too!

Re:Down with big government!

[jimbolauski]

You do realize that both sides do this or did we forget to read the article in our haste to be 1st post.

Re:Down with big government!

[TommyBlack]

Bah. Big government is the new libertarianism. Having a big, stupid government that can't do anything right is far superior to having a sleek, functioning government that can oppress its people at a moment's notice.

Re:Down with big government!

[Tackhead]

> Clearly, we need to get some Republicans into power so they can cut down on all this extraneous spending and balance the budget.

While we're on the subject - there are lots of publicly-traded small defense contractors out there, so making money has been pretty easy in this environment, even if you're not politically-connected.

What publicly-traded companies/industries stand to make easy money when the Democrats get their turn at the pork barrel in late-06, and particularly if they have the House/Senate/Presidency in '08?

About the only thing that comes to mind is small-cap biotechs doing stem cell research, and there aren't too many of those. (Small-cap biotechs doing germ/chemical warfare detection have already gone up, as have health care stocks due to Medicare reform.)

Re:Down with big government!

[LordNimon]

Um, you do realize that Republicans are supposed to be for small government and reduced spending?

Re:Down with big government!

[Kelson]

You do realize that both sides do this

Of course. But the Republicans have spent decades portraying themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility and enemies of big government, compared to those "tax-and-spend" Democrats who will just make government big and expensive.

So is the Federal government appreciably smaller or cheaper than it was 6 years ago?

The fact of the matter is that neither party is really in favor of small government, but only the Republicans have claimed to be. And while a few of them (McCain, for instance, based on this article) seem to mean it, most just go along with business as usual.

Re:Down with big government!

[bombadillo]

You do realize that both sides do this or did we forget to read the article in our haste to be 1st post.

True... However, it is the Republican party which has planked on "smaller" government. We have seen big government grow much more than under democratic rule. The dirty little secret is that you can't have the worlds largest economy, strongest military and project dominating geo-graphic power unless the government is of substantial size.

Re:Down with big government!

[stupidfoo]

Well, conservatives are for limited government and reduced spending. Unfortunately Republicans, who typically claim to be conservative, have drifted away from this.

As I've stated before: McCain will become president in 2008 with a platform including reduced spending, paying down the national debt and government reform. He's not exciting for a lot of conservatives, but oh well, better than Hillary.

Re:Down with big government!

[jimbolauski]

My money would be on Giuliani, if the republicans were smart they would know he could take NY from Hillary or any other Democrat. McCain's touhest battle will be in the primary but as you said anyone but Hillary will do.

Re:Down with big government!

[drix]

Hahah... yes, how on Earth could somebody get confused about that. I am referring specifically to how f''(x) > 0 on the red portions of this graph and 0 for the blue.

Re:Down with big government!

[techno-vampire]

Interesting graph. Thank you. Would you care to explain how, then, it rose by almost 50% during Clinton's administration?

Re:Down with big government!

[demachina]

Humorous but the underlying sinister truth is that the Republican party of today isn't a conservative one or one favoring small government. There have always been Republican's who espouse and advocate those principals and settled in to the Republican party only because they only had two choices and the Democrats were an even worse choice than Republicans.

The truth is the only parties which advocate fiscal conservativism tends to be the ones which have no control of the purse strings.

In practice modern Republican's do still want to slash spending on Democratically backed Socialist programs like Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid or anything they perceive as transferring wealth from affluent tax payers to the poor. But at the same time they are just as eager to redirect extravegent sums in to Defense and espionage something which was true of both Bush and Reagan who are the two biggest creators of national debt in U.S. history. And also in to gigantic give aways to corprate benefactors which they've done in a huge way in Medicare D, corporate farm subsidies, their "energy" bill, and massive defense contracting and Iraqi reconstruction bonanzas.

Massive tax cuts coupled with massive defense spending is the Republican strategy for bankrupting the U.S. government and when it heads to bankruptcy because of their policies they will solve the problem by dismantling entitlements and blame it all on them (though Social Security surpluses for example have been helping fund rampant spending elsewhere).

Basically the two political choices Americans have today are:

A. A Democratic party which is Socialist leaning and which will squander big sums on social programs and pork if in power

B. A Republican party that is Fascist leaning and which will squander vast sums on military spending and filling the pockets of the big corporations and wealthy party members who back them and reap windfalls out of the pockets of taxpayers.

There simply is NO viable political option today which advocates slashing the size of the American government and its out of control spending. Its not clear you could stop rampant growth of the U.S. government at this point without economic upheaval. The American economy has become massively dependent on government spending and it keeps the economy afloat at a time when the U.S. economy manufactures or exports next to nothing. Health care spending, and defense spending, much of it paid for with money borrowed from foreigners keeps America's economy.

At this point your two options are to vote Democrat and Socialist or vote Republican and Fascist. There is no libertarian or fiscal conservative option.

Re:Down with big government!

[Anonymous Coward]

The PATRIOT act was passed.

I'm pretty sure that you could include genocide in an act of Congress if you called it "population control" and put a nice name on it, like the "Freedom Act."

Re:Down with big government!

[Anonymous Coward]

And while a few of them (McCain, for instance, based on this article) seem to mean it, most just go along with business as usual.

John McCain is awesome. Although I lean more towards the Democrat side, I really think he would make a great president.

Re:Down with big government!

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Well, there's drift, which we can say is like a raft on the ocean. Then there's motion that is represented by a speedboat with a couple JATOs strapped to the back -- lit and roaring. The latter metaphor is more apt for what's going on in the so-called "Conservative" Congress. It's not "drift". It's "rocketing".

McCain's Presidency will only be achieved by giving in to the militancy (hence spending-craziness) of the new American political picture. After all, Hillary is going to continue to play the "support the war" card, and that will ONLY force the Republican side to bid up on the same issue.

If we're lucky, America will have its Saigon '75 moment before then, sparing the candidates from talking up the losing battle and playing two-faced positions "against" each other. Instead, they can accuse each other about being soft on border security, yakity yak.

Re:Down with big government!

[Breakfast Pants]

Notice that Clinton consistently kept the same or lowered the rate of growth of the debt (That is what he was talking about with F', it's a calculus thing).

Re:Down with big government!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes we need fiscal responsibility; not those wacky ULTRA LIBERAL spending Republicans.

(Hopefully someone will take this as a joke)

Re:Down with big government!

[XxtraLarGe]

Whether it's viable or not, most people still do have the option of voting for the Libertarian Party. Even if you don't agree with them 100%, you can still vote that way. Also, they don't need to win, they only need 5-10% to make the other major parties take notice and start moving the debate from how quickly to grow the government to whether the government should grow or shrink.

Re:Down with big government!

[Aqua OS X]

^
|
|
|

Ya...what this guy said.

Re:Down with big government!

[Moofie]

What color is the sky on your planet?

That's what they SAY, which is different from what they DO.

Re:Down with big government!

[ArsonSmith]

Because if crap like this is why I came up eith my variation on thw 'line item veto'

Instead of giving that power to the president, let's keep it in cogress with 'line item voting'

Each line of a bill would have 3 options:

  (required) (accepted) (rejected)

Of these a congress person must select one for each line.

REQUIRED would meabn that this line is required in this bill or I am 100% against it.
ACCEPTED would mean that it is ok to have but isn't important to me and the bill would be ok with or without it.

REJECTED would mean exactly that. throw this line out of the bill.

each line needs a spot to initial as this would make sure that it was at least looked at if not read. It would also be able to show exactly what a politian is for/against. No more spinning a bill that feeds hungrey children and slaughters baby ducks into my apponent wants to slaughter ducks, or my apponent thinks children shold starve.

I am typing on my phone so I will end this for now. please discuss.

Re:Down with big government!

[east coast]

We need a president that doesn't lean towards either side.

Re:Down with big government!

[morgan_greywolf]

Bah. Big government is the new libertarianism. Having a big, stupid government that can't do anything right is far superior to having a sleek, functioning government that can oppress its people at a moment's notice.

Except when the big, stupid government is a front for the sleek, functioning oligarchy really runs the show from behind the scenes.

You know, kinda like here in the U.S.

Re:Down with big government!

[demachina]

Well the Libertarian's aren't even close to garnering enough votes to make difference so no they aren't a viable option.

A case could be made that their form of government would be as bad if not worse than what we have. The fatal flaw in Libertarianism is it would let loose the wolves of Capitalism and they would devour the nation and most of its people in a sea of unchecked greed. My image of Libertarianism in practice would the robber baron's of the late 1800's who manipulated markets, ran monopolies and who accumulated vast wealth unchecked except by feuds with each other. For example railroad tycoons who devastated farmers by charging just enough to ship their goods to market that the farmers made nothing or lost money for their hard work.

My guess is Libertarianism would lead to massive imbalances in wealth distribution, a small number of very wealthy people and a lot of people living in poverty. Of course the current Fascist leaning system under the Republican's is heading down the same road.

I think this creedo is probably the one that will hold sway in the U.S., U.K. and most of the world in the future:

"In the ..... State the individual is not suppressed, but rather multiplied, just as in a regiment a soldier is not weakened but multiplied by the number of his comrades. The ..... State organizes the nation, but it leaves sufficient scope to individuals; it has limited useless or harmful liberties and has preserved those that are essential. It cannot be the individual who decides in this matter, but only the State."

It really is starting to describe what is happening in the U.S. and the U.K. in particular. If you don't recognize it it is part of Mussolini's Fascist doctrine the word to fill in the blank "......" is the "Fascist" State.

Re:Down with big government!

[stupidfoo]

I still see Giuliani as McCain's VP. Giuliani is more moderate when it comes to issues like abortion (he's pro choice) which a lot of conservatives won't like, but he's also tough on crime (or, at least he's perceived to be) which conservatives would find appealing.
I agree with you that McCain's greatest challenge will be getting the nomination.

His greatest asset may just be that a lot of the charges being thrown at Bush won't stick to McCain (I mean, any mention of the word "torture" in a debate and McCain can say "I've been tortured" and that's the end of that).

Re:Down with big government!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what they SAY, which is different from what they DO.

I think that was the point.

Re:Down with big government!

[Anonymous Coward]

dammit, that should say f-double-prime and < 0. /. ate my calculus notation.

Re:Down with big government!

[MadUndergrad]

Someone mod this guy up.

Re:Down with big government!

[_Sharp'r_]

"railroad tycoons who devastated farmers by charging just enough to ship their goods to market that the farmers made nothing or lost money for their hard work."

I especially like how you complain about people who don't want the government to be able to control and regulate things like railroads, then use as your example a situation where special interests bought off the politicians because the government had the power to grant them severe railroad-right-of-ways monopolies and regulated pricing by the government, but controlled by the special interests.

Isn't that the exact opposite of what the libertarians and capitalists want the government to be able to do?

Re:Down with big government!

[Bryansix]

What you need are libertarians. I don't even know of the last time that part fielded a viable candidate for president though.

Re:Down with big government!

[LunaticTippy]

Hm, makes sense. That way our President won't capsize.

Re:Down with big government!

[demachina]

Well it was probably a bad example in specifics since Libertarianism hasn't really ever existed on any large scale so there is no precedent for it. The key point is you would have wealthy and powerful people who could use to their wealth to dominate their society. No they wouldn't have government interference, and politicians pandering to their special interests, but they also wouldn't have any regulating influence, and in that vacuum the people with the money, and no scruples, would aways have the edge and usually win.

So in a Libertarian system how would you do railroads differently or at all. Let two competing interests build two railroads to serve the same markets so there is competition but twice the capital required and twice as much land wasted on right of ways. Why stop at two, how about three or four. Or of course maybe you couldn't build a railroad at all because one or a handful of Libertarian land owners could refuse to grant a critical right of way.

I think what I am saying is we are gravitating to government and social systems at extremes.

We do need government and a state to engage in activities that are for the common good and to check those that seek to take advantage and abuse their fellow citizens. But at the same time the state needs to be ruthlessly held in check to keep it from growing beyond reason and intruding in to the lives of its citizens where it doesn't belong.

Todays Socialist Democrats and Fascist Republicans are building a state that is completely dominating our lives in partnership with their corprate benefactors. The Libertarians would put us in a world without sufficient government to keep a society of hundreds of millions of people functioning properly which is why no one takes them seriously.

Moderation is the key to good government and we have no moderate leaders. We need politicians who abhor passing laws and creating government programs and bureaucracies but who are willing to do just that when there is a real and legitimate need and it is in the public interest. Right now we have professional politicians who live to churn incomprehensible bills that are pandering to one special interest after another but when looked at holistically are giant piles of steaming crap, not sound policy. Today's politicians seem to live to churn out bad legislation that each year costs us more and more money and produce less and less for benefit for the public good.

Re:Down with big government!

[Anonymous Coward]

The fatal flaw in Libertarianism is it would let loose the wolves of Capitalism

True capitalism (which we don't have today in the US) is founded on the principle of voluntary association -- voluntary trade for mutual benefit. Any capitalist transaction MUST be 100% voluntary on behalf of all parties involved, or it isn't an example of capitalism. (If government is involved in any way beyond simply enforcing the principle of voluntary association, then it's not capitalism.) Say that government did nothing but enforce the principle of voluntary association: nobody has the right to employ coercion (force/fraud) to sell its product, including government.

If everything is voluntary, then what kind of wrong could you possibly come up with? Indeed, if you had a "problem" with somebody that you wanted to "fix", then YOU would be the one needing to employ coercion as your means (any argument of self-defense is void from the beginning).

Re:Down with big government!

[ConceptJunkie]

Also, they don't need to win, they only need 5-10% to make the other major parties take notice and start moving the debate from how quickly to grow the government to whether the government should grow or shrink.

As much as I'd like to believe you, 5-10% of the vote would cause the Demolicans and Republicrats to rig the system so it's even more hostile to third party candidates. Look what they did to Nader. I mean, I think Nader's a kook and only ran because he's an egomaniac, but I was still really ticked off at how they shut him out.

Bust up the Duopoly!

Re:Down with big government!

[SeeMyNuts!]

"I am typing on my phone so I will end this for now. please discuss."

Your post: 05:17 PM

Parent post: 03:57 PM

Such dedication to Slashdot must be worthy of a hall of fame entry, at least.

Re:Down with big government!

[kavau]

However, the absolutely worst thing is a big, stupid government that can oppress its people at a moment's notice.

Re:Down with big government!

[linguae]

Interesting; you share much of the same views that I do. Yet, I call myself a libertarian; even though I don't agree 100% with the philosphy; I'm about 80% or so. I identify myself more with the Chicago school of economics than I do with the Mises school of economics, even though I base much of my viewpoints on both schools.

My only beef with the Libertarian Party is that its views are a bit too far on the libertarian scale, almost borderlining on anarchocapitalism. Anarchocapitalism advocates the removal of all government (not only federal, but state and local as well). Even though it is the ultimate philosophy in both economic freedom and personal freedom, I don't think it is very effective in the long run, since there are some legitamite uses for a government. A good democratic/republican government (notice the lowercase letters) should be able to voice the needs of not only those who have money, but also those who don't. (That is one of my problems with anarchocapitalism; how would the poor hire arbitration forces when dealing with coercion and there is no police force, for example?) We need some government, but not the big government that Democrats and Republicans are pushing. (I'm not saying the the Libertarian Party supports this, but they are of a further libertarian bent than some of the classical liberal parties in Europe, which are much more moderate).

We need small, decentralized government that has a civil liberties + free market philosophy. The federal government still retains its courts, military/defense, some small regulations on businesses (anti-trust, environmental stuff [but modeled in a free-market style], national natural monopoly issues, etc.), interstate highway funding (but not without the strings attached, such as a nationally set drinking age; that should be a state's rights issue, as well as environmental/air pollution restrictions that actually hurt those cities more than it helps; don't get me started on highway funding....), and even national parks (goes in line with free-market environmentalism), but everything else must be transferred to state/local governments, privatized, or outright removed. States, depending on their voters, can implement a free-market-style safety net such as school vouchers, negative income taxes, and "health care vouchers" (for lack of knowledge of a proper term) for the poor/disabled. States can also handle infrastructure. Local governments can handle things that are best handled on a local level (police, fire, school districts, ordinances, etc.).

I feel that on a state/local level, a combination of free-market ideas plus a safety net and infrastructure will work decently, provided that they stay within the principles of the market, and that those programs don't become socialistic in the long run. The federal government's power should be limited greatly, except for a select few issues that I've already enumerated. All levels of government should adopt civil libertarian views on social and personal issues, IMO.

I am a self-proclaimed minarchist (supporter of small-government) who supports free markets and civil liberties. I'm not a "taxation is theft" anarchocapitalist, but I do not lean on the left with anything. I suppose these are the viewpoints that you have also, unless I am missing something.

Re:Down with big government!

[callingalloldhippies]

Vote for ideals not for the party. In my state Primary, our Registration choices are N.P (non-partisan)= any one who is running, Independent= (the state party's' candidate), or the National "Dumb and Dumber" party's.

Ya'all here, in the states need to remember that Democracy is NOT 'majority rule' but the result of an active, committed minority.

You are sooooo much more educated, talented and capable then those of us who said "NO MORE" in the 60's and 70's.

You have already changed the whole world, as we knew it in the early 70's. I was there! BB's/ Usenet/ Irc/, and the sifting of multiple real time information and communication is the source of such power...not only here but also world wide!

It's YOUR turn! Greedy Fat Cats should be afraid...be Very Afraid!

Re:Down with big government!

[Anonymous Coward]

Giuliani is unlikely to run even tho well liked even by Dems in NY. There really aren't any strong Repub candidates currently in NY. Recent poll indicated that even tho NY likes Hil only about 30% would actually vote for her for Pres so all the Repubs quivering in their beds really need to get over it.

Re:Down with big government!

[RexRhino]

What you are saying is really dead on, until I got to the end:

U.S. economy manufactures or exports next to nothing

Not true. The U.S. is both the worlds largest manufacturer, and the worlds largest exporter. However, manufacturing is taking less and less of the labor force (similiar to agriculture... at the turn of the century nearly half of people were working in agriculture, now about 2% are working in agriculture... but we produce more agricultural goods than ever before). We also export more goods than anyone else... our problem is that we import much much more than we export.

It is a small detail, but the rest of your post was so dead-on-accurate that I felt the need to make the correction.

Re:Down with big government!

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course. But the Republicans have spent decades portraying themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility and enemies of big government, compared to those "tax-and-spend" Democrats who will just make government big and expensive.

Your jealousy is so transparent. Don't you realize that the Republicans have perfected spending without taxation? It's true! Stop taxing the rich, our economy grows! Stop all those unnecessary "social" programs those filthy liberals keep harping on about, we suddenly have more money for pork-n-war! Who needs 12 billion for education when there's a perfectly good army to go to right after high school? With careful planning far, far, FAR into the future, the Republicans will steer us toward the fiscal responsibility that Democrats can't manage with tricks like balancing the budget. This current boom to the haves and have-mores will be paid for by the lucky descendents of your great-grandchildren.

Re:Down with big government!

[R3d M3rcury]

President Poseidon?

Re:Down with big government!

[adpowers]

That's assuming Libertarians take complete control of the government. I'd just like to see some Libertarians in Congress to represent small government and provide balance to the huge, inflating government that Republicans and Democrats favor. They would be able to do things like stop hundred-billion dollar highway bills. I don't want to see Libertarians in complete control any more than I want Democrats or Republicans in complete control.

Also, if we get a Libertarian president, we'd still have lots of Republicans and Democrats in Congress preventing them from dismantling the federal reserve (although, alas, they'd also probably prevent them from dismantling Social Security).

Andrew
(Regulated Free-Market, Environmental Business Hippy)

Re:Down with big government!

[Anonymous Coward]

We need a president that's a true bonafide bastard. They should destroy anyone who gets in the way of their legislation, attack anyone that makes hypocritical statement and/or actions, vetos bills based upon merit, and can piss everyone off.

In other words: vote Satan 2008!

Re:Down with big government!

[XxtraLarGe]

I especially like how you complain about people who don't want the government to be able to control and regulate things like railroads, then use as your example a situation where special interests bought off the politicians because the government had the power to grant them severe railroad-right-of-ways monopolies and regulated pricing by the government, but controlled by the special interests.

Don't you know, straw men are easier to knock down!

Re:Down with big government!

[mOdQuArK!]

If everything is voluntary, then what kind of wrong could you possibly come up with?

Hey, you and your family don't really _need_ to eat, so it's totally up to you whether you take this job that I'm offering you. Too bad for you that I own every business in your county, or you might be able to work for someone else - who might not even be a friend of mine. Oh, and the rent check will be due every other week - remember, you signed the contract "voluntarily", in return for me not using the lawn as a storage depot.

Re:Down with big government!

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe in libertarianism because I believe in voluntary association (otherwise known as freedom). I believe that all human beings have a natural right (god-given if you prefer) to freedom which not only precedes government but trumps government in every possible way. I believe that any initiation of force (including government) is immoral and unjust by definition, and that any possible benefit from employing that coercion comes only at the expense of free will.

In a nutshell, I respect other human beings and recognize them as the unique, thinking individuals that they are, and I reject the idea of society thinking as one collective borg, calling for one-size-fits-all solutions that come only at the expense of freedom. That is why I believe in libertarianism.

Re:Down with big government!

[pete-classic]

Well the Libertarian's aren't even close to garnering enough votes to make difference so no they aren't a viable option.

This train of thought is perpetuated by the media and is self-defeating. Penn Jillette addressed this brilliantly in his novel "Sock". From the POV of a sock monkey he said:

Maybe you can't see this. Maybe you have to be a crazy monkey to see this, but it's insane. There's some election. Let's say it's for president. And the third-party candidate gets enough percentage points in some poll so that the meat puppets have to deal with her. This is hypothetical, so let's make it a woman. It doesn't do any harm to be progressive and fair in fiction. So they say, "Nancy Lord has to convince the electorate that she's a viable candidate. She has to show them that she can really win." Who are they talking to? Who is "they"? Who is "the electorate"? That's us, right? (By "us," I mean "y'all." They're not counting sock monkeys.) So, it's saying, "She has to convince you that she has a chance to win with you." Well, if we want her, we vote for her and she wins. Her "chances" don't matter. The media don't want you to "waste your vote" by voting for a loser. But you can't waste your vote voting for a loser you want. You can waste your vote only by voting for someone you don't want. You don't want the winner. Don't waste your vote on someone who's going to win. He doesn't need your vote; he's going to win. Keep voting for the lesser of two evils and things will just keep getting more evil. That's game theory that even this monkey understands. Who are they talking to? Meet the new boss same as the old boss.

Re:Down with big government!

[demachina]

" I respect other human beings and recognize them as the unique, thinking individuals that they are"

The only problem is a lot of your fellow human beings are ruthless, greedy sons of bitches who would just as soon stick a knife in your back, take your billfold and spit on you.

You are being a little Utopian if you think you could let everyone be totally free, because some random people would instantly impose their will on and strip you of your freedom, unless you have the guts, power or weapons to stop them which most people don't.

We do need a social mechanism to both protect our freedoms and at the same time compell that government to refrain from stripping them from us in the process.

Our founding fathers did a pretty good job of designing such a system, the only problem is that in practice politicians and judges, and assorted others drunk on power and polluted by corruption, are routinely seeking to destroy that system and we the people are unwilling to fight to defend and preserve it.

Re:Down with big government!

[demachina]

"If everything is voluntary, then what kind of wrong could you possibly come up with?"

The obvious one already cited, you wouldn't be able to build roads, railroads or pipelines because land owners would inevitably refuse the right of ways or charge so much for them they would make the projects impractical.

Now there might be some real merits in not having these things, since we would have smaller, simpler less dehumanized societies that are back to earth. But you would give up most of the conveniences you take for granted today and cities would be goners. Everyone would be back to subsistence farming since that is probably the only way you could reliably survive without a functioning transportation system. Unfortunately I doubt you could go back to subsistence farming at this point without cataclysm since our population is so great now, and most people would have neither the land or the ability to feed themselves if they had to.

Re:Down with big government!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're barking up the wrong tree. Freedom ends where the initiation of force begins. It is the precise difference between voluntary association and coercion (the 2 modes of human interaction) which defines freedom and gives it a meaning which is unambiguous. Otherwise, as you demonstrated, certain individuals may be temped to believe that freedom includes the "freedom" to initiate force (theft, fraud, physical force). In that scenario, the term "freedom" is meaningless, because it would be used to justify any human interaction, voluntary or coercive.

Do you really believe that freedom includes the ability to employ coercion, or are you just grasping for straws? The zero-aggression principle isn't rocket science. Coercion is always immoral and unjust, except in the distinct case of self-defense -- just as human nature says.

Libertarianism, or freedom, is the social philosophy which is consistent with human nature. If you don't understand this, then you don't understand the fundamental principle of libertarianism, and that's probably why you have such trouble accepting it.

Re:Down with big government!

[Darby]

I'm not a "taxation is theft" anarchocapitalist, but I do not lean on the left with anything.

I think you make some very good points all in all. Obviously, it's not for me to tell you what you think, but I'm suspecting you're not entirely clear on what the left is if you don't think you lean that way on anything.
Heck, here's a pretty simple example that shows that most people have some left leanings:

Do you think it was a good idea to outlaw slavery? If so, you're on the left on that issue.

I'm for the most part a classical Liberal with moderate left-leanings. I have moderate left leanings largely for the exact reasons that you gave for having issues with the Libertarian Party and the anarcho-capitalists. I feel that there is some need in some circumstances for the government to keep the field level. That's left by definition. Being on the right means that you think the government should be used to slant the field farther against the weakest.
Being in the middle, i.e. a pure classical Liberal with no leanings whatsoever to either side is close to what the anarcho-capitalists/Libertarians are.

I suspect you're far more toward the left than you think although nowhere near being an extremist on that side in any way. Every argument you made against the LP And the ACs (heh) was an argument purely from the left.

Re:Down with big government!

[Anonymous Coward]

If there is a voluntary demand for roads, railways, or pipelines, then a voluntary solution is possible. You just can't imagine it happening because government is all you've ever known. No offense intended -- you're certainly not the only one. A caged animal that knows nothing about life in the wild does not have an immediate understanding of how to succeed at life in the wild. Like it or not, we are all caged animals, and government (big government, in fact) is all we've ever known.

Do I fancy myself as some sort of special enlightened individual who has the natural ability to see things others cannot? No, I do not. It took me about 15 years of research and personal experience to complete my evolution from socialist, to libertarian, to anarchist. The only thing I needed was an interest in the subject, and a motivation to learn.

Logically, there is nothing that can be accomplished through coercion (besides evil) which cannot be accomplished through voluntary assocation. Human nature tells us so -- you just have to believe. In fact, there are many different theories on how things like roads and pipelines would happen in a libertarian (minimal government) or anarchist (no government) society. Try to read a little about it -- you may be surprised what you find.

Re:Down with big government!

[demachina]

You are operating in a complete utopia. Your pitch SOUNDS great, it just simply can't happen in the real world unless maybe you are living in a wilderness some place with no contact with other people, or limited contact only with very nice people.

Unfortunately the will to power is the most fundamental aspect of human nature. Whenever people interact some are going to attempt to exert control of others. You are under the delusion that if you got rid of government coercion we would all be suddenly free. The simple fact is someone else would just step in to the void and they would most probably be worse than the government we have.

A realistic approach is you have a limited government that acts as a check to prevent people from taking advantage of each other, and at the same time you have a system in place to insure that government doesn't abuse its power either.

Re:Down with big government!

[bobcote]

You want to get rid of pork barrel spending. Give the president line-item veto authority. That way when a pork project gets cut the local pol can say "The president did it"

Reagan asked for the line-item veto. Congress gave it to, I believe, Clinton. However the special interest groups that would benefit from pork barrel spending sued and the Supreme Court declared it unconstiutional.

There aren't a lot of Congressmen on either side of the aisle willing to fight for it.

Re:Down with big government!

[demachina]

Sorry pal but you just have no grip on reality. If you've ever dealt with the concept of right of ways in the real world you would realize that you would have no chance of building a railroad or a pipeline more than a few miles before someone would say hell no. Sure people that need the railroad or the gas out of the pipeline would accept it. But some people along the route and getting no benefit from it are going to demand huge sums for the right of way because they can or others wont allow it at all because they don't want their pastoral country life destroyed by the rumble of trains going by once an hour.

You probably could build some country roads because everyone generally wants roads to get to around the neighborhood but they would be twisted, tortured things because every land owner would impose different demands on where they could and couldn't be.

Again maybe the world would be a better place without transportation systems, instead getting by with meandering dirt roads or maybe paths. But you probably should actually think about the real consequences of what you propose. But wait you are a Utopian, you can just throw out high sounding rhetoric and never face the reality they would bring because your ideal system will never achieve reality so you are completely safe blowing hot air and say "If only...".

Re:Down with big government!

[Anonymous Coward]

History shows that limited government is impossible over the long run. All governments expand in power over their lifetimes, because expansion of power benefits the power elite. As you know, the US experiment in limited government has failed spectacularly -- every single limit on government power has been overcome by the power elite. Recent power grabs like the patriot act are only the tip of the iceberg, and the current regime is only the latest in a long line of corrupt politicians. The US government is the most powerful, destructive example of organized coercion that the world has ever seen! This is precisely the opposite of what was supposed to happen, and proves that democracy is hardly the magic bullet it was supposed to be.

I'm not going to argue that my philosophy isn't "utopian". That's kind of the whole point. I recognize that anarchy will never happen in my lifetime -- if a peaceful, productive anarchy were to emerge, it would be immediately destroyed by the current world superpower! (No government in its right mind would just sit back and watch as a voluntary society discredits everything government stands for.) So yes, in that respect, it's only a fantasy. But it's the most logical fantasy there could ever be, and I will never stop believing in it.

In the meantime, however, I do applaud any attempt to revoke the existing powers of government, and I do participate in constructive discussion about the subject.

Wait a minute!

[Anonymous Coward]

None of this money seems to be actually towards technology for pork barrels!

One mans pork

[kevin_conaway]

Is another mans steak

Re:One mans pork

[Amouth]

all in all it still comes from a pig.. and personaly i would rather have killer scavenger eagles run the place than hungy dirty pigs..

i for once would like to be able to get an itemized listing of every cent i pay in taxes and where it goes.

Re:One mans pork

[LunaticTippy]

Let's start a PR campaign for "Other White Meat Barrel Projects"

Re:One mans pork

[Anonymous Coward]

all in all it still comes from a pig..

Pig steak? Please tell me you haven't had your coffee yet..

Re:One mans pork

[cpeterso]

Pork comes from pigs. Steak comes from cows.

Re:One mans pork

[Anonymous Coward]

What, never heard of Ham steak or Tuna steak?

Re:One mans pork

[Reverend528]

Pig steak?

I believe the proper term is "Ham Steak".

Re:One mans pork

[QuantumRiff]

There was an interesting piece in this months "Maxim" magazine.. Not an article, but a little sidebar. Showed that if your taxable income was $32k this year, you paid X amount for the war in Iraq. I forget the number, but it was around $125, and was something like 2/3 of a box of Ammo for an M16. (a couple of clips) Was kinda scary to read.

Re:One mans pork

[LaCosaNostradamus]

So, when I get swordfish steak, can I assume that man's ability to perform genetic engineering has now grown so great that bovine gill structures exist?

Re:One mans pork

[Anonymous Coward]

And the second gains (+1), but only at the expense of the first (-1). A zero-sum transaction at best, and society as a whole is no better off than before.

Re:One mans pork

[SeeMyNuts!]

Is another mans steak

When I worked in contracting, I learned they don't care if it is even meat. Entrails and hooves are fine.

Re:One mans pork

[Anonymous Coward]

society as a whole is no better off than before

The change in entropy is always positive.

Re:One mans pork

[Anonymous Coward]

But the thing is, we already have a waterless urinal.
We call it "Texas".

Re:One mans pork

[Darby]

So, when I get swordfish steak, can I assume that man's ability to perform genetic engineering has now grown so great that bovine gill structures exist?

Well either that, or bullfighting is about to get way more interesting ;-)

Hear!

[NaeRey]

Democracy... = Corruption!!
Go with Despotism, I tell ya!! Despotism!
Or wait..
I mean, Communism!

Re:Hear!

[bombadillo]

Democracy... = Corruption!! Go with Despotism, I tell ya!! Despotism! Or wait.. I mean, Communism!

Communism's antithesis is Capitalism as they are both economic systems.

There is such a thing as a democratic communism.

Anyway's not sure if you were trying to make a joke or what...

Re:Hear!

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried sticking with depotosm but those fucking incas signed a right of passage agreement with the indians and came down hard on me with their mighty mighty musketmen. My archers didn't stand a chance.

Bad image.

[Anonymous Coward]

Something bothers me when I hear about urinals and spraypaint simulations in 1 sentence.

This is surprising how?

[WindBourne]

Combine this admin's deficit spending like a drunk sailor and the current level of corruption of the congress, and yes, you are going to get loads of pork. Until new laws are made to restrict lobbyists influence, we will see more even when the democrats win the congress back. Sadly, I note that neither party was really wanting to curtail the lobbyiest "influence". Congressman Hefley from Colorado was booted off the ehtics committeee because other republicans was pissed that he was going after some of the worst, esp. Tom Delay. He has pushed for several good laws to stop this "influence".

BTW, in other nations, we would call this type of influence bribery and corruption. Here we now call it business as usual.

Re:This is surprising how?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm really getting a kick out of most of these replies. Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about.

But trust me.... You don't.

I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you dont know what you are talking about - this is how bad info gets passed around.

If you dont know about the topic, dont make yourself sound like you do, because some Slashdotters belive anything they hear!

Re:This is surprising how?

[Kelson]

But trust me.... You don't.

Would you care to educate the rest of us? Or would you rather just watch people spread misinformation?

Re:This is surprising how?

[Nimey]

I've got news for you, chum: pork was just as bad when Democrats were in power. Same shit, different pile.

Re:This is surprising how?

[GreyWolf3000]

That post gets copied and pasted all over the place; especially controversial issues. I've seen it a lot in articles with a lot of MS bashing in the comments.

Re:This is surprising how?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a cliche from fark.com. It's regularly used there. My brain filters it out at this point.

Re:This is surprising how?

[Anonymous Coward]

so, it's ok with you, then?

Let me guess, you make fun of the 'part of the problem' people, too.

Re:This is surprising how?

[WindBourne]

In what way did I say or imply that the dems did not have pork? In fact, if you think about it, it takes both party to NOT pass laws that stop the corruption.

Also, you may wish to google Hefley, a congresman who is proposing good laws for limiting corruption, and find out what party he belongs to.

Now, if you are trying to tie dems to the republicans just because the bulk of the sleeze is tied to them for the minute, well, that is a redherring. Since the republicans are in control and appears to be the most corrupt, they need to take their lumps.

Re:This is surprising how?

[maxume]

New laws restricting 'lobby influence' on congress will lead to clever new ways of influencing congress that are still legal. Laws restricting those clever new ways will lead to another set of even more clever work arounds, and so on.

The only way to have a congress free of corruption is to elect men and women that are free of corruption. If there aren't any, why pretend it is worth doing?

Making the contributions that electees do recieve *very public* would likely facilitate this process. Perhaps a list should be mailed to thier constituents.

Re:This is surprising how?

[WindBourne]

Actually, I think that Hefley's ideas would work.

The main one was no more election contributions, except limited from local private citizens; No Businesses; No Unions; No PACs; no person outside of the voters. This prevents undue influence. The money for the election is to come from the taxpayers once a candidate has a certain amount of support.

In addition, no junkets. No honouraium. In return, we would increase the pay to the congresman and the president. It it a small price to pay somewhat honest gov. And it has to be a great deal less than what we pay to investigate current crap.

Re:This is surprising how?

[Breakfast Pants]

This isn't a pork graph, but... haha.

Re:This is surprising how?

[Nimey]

Don't put words into my mouth. I'd be happy if the lot were hanged tomorrow from a tall tree, but that's unlikely.

Re:This is surprising how?

[RobertLTux]

heck it would take The Minute Men with M60s walking the halls of congress to get things to stop looking like a jimmy dean supply farm. (hmm GW and TJ going Rambo...)

Re:This is surprising how?

[jafac]

...we will see more even when the democrats win the congress back.

You forget: it was the republicans that awarded the Diebold voting machine contracts. So what makes you think that Democrats will win congress back?

Re:This is surprising how?

[RexRhino]

No. Corruption and pork are pretty universal when the government has vast resources. You find it in nearly every country which has a large, central government. You need to read up on other countries for a few minutes if you think pork and corruption are somehow limited to the United States.

If the government has lots of money to spend, and lots of resources, and lots of power, it is only natural that those who have an interest in gaining money and power will manipulate the government. In the U.S., the government comsumes about 50% of GDP, meaning that the government divies up half the goods and services created in this country. Combine truly Soviet Union style resources, with the fact that the United States is just so so rich, and it is inevitable... truly inevitable that you will have corruption. It is IMPOSSIBLE to eliminate corruption when you are talking that kind of money and power. People will kill their own family member for a lot less than a billion, so there is no chance of getting rid of pork when the government is spending trillions.

Entrophy is universal. The bigger something is, the more it has to fight entrophy, and the more resources it takes just to survive. And yes, as much as people like to believe the government is omnipotent, even governments run into entrophy. Don't think that it is the fault of some party, or a fault of lack of laws, or some inherent problem only in the system - It is the law of the universe, no getting around it.

Differences?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what's the difference? A water-free toilet would help the environment, and a VR paint simulator could help on training costs, and cut down on waste.

--
The "are you a script" word for today is wastes.

Waterless toilet

[jimbolauski]

The waterless toilet is a great idea and it works, it's too bad that the plumbers union doesn't approve of it. Not all those projects are evil.

Re:Waterless toilet

[WindBourne]

In fact, it should be useful to outhouses in parks as well as troops in small base camps.

Re:Waterless toilet

[ToxikFetus]

The waterless toilet is a great idea and it works

I agree. I've seen them in national parks/forests and they allow sanitary waste disposal without having to run massive lengths of plumbing. They're also popular at some ski resorts, but no self-respecting skier would ever use a urinal. That's why God made snow: For man to practice his urinary penmanship.

Re:Waterless toilet

[Tetris Ling]

My school uses a lot of waterless urinals, and they may be a great idea, but when they get clogged, it's not pretty.

Pissed off

[dotslashdot]

I was pissed off about the water free urinals.

Oh, the anguish

[carambola5]

I love the taste of real pork, hate the stench of political pork, and yet my latest project at work (ie: the one that is ensuring I don't get laid off) is an "earmark."

I'm so torn!

Re:Oh, the anguish

[Anonymous Coward]

I love the taste of real pork, hate the stench of political pork, and yet my latest project at work (ie: the one that is ensuring I don't get laid off) is an "earmark."

Well get back to work fucker. I ain't paying you to post on slashdot!

Easy to sell these kinds of projects

[Abelard Lindsay]

The esoteric is an easier sell. If poor car owner doesn't know cars, and their (untrustworthy) mechanic tells 'em "you need a shim-sham for your wicky-wack," they typically follow with an "umm...O.K."

Knowledge is power. Your average budget-approving congressperson ain't too tech-savvy, no?

I dunno...

[Otter]

I have to pay for this stuff, and I don't like having my money wasted any more than the next guy does. But the only criterion these stories ever seem to use to decide what is particularly wasteful is whether they can be described in a comical fashion. Hahahahaha -- urinals! There's plenty of serious-sounding stuff in the budget that returns a lot less value to taxpayers than water conservation.

Also, while a dollar is a dollar, even a hundred million here and there is rounding error on the federal budget. The real pieces are Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, pensions, the military and debt servicing; arguing about anything else is mostly a distraction from the structural problems.

Re:I dunno...

[QuantumRiff]

Actually, social security is not part of the federal budget. That is a misleading figure from combining the Federal funds, and Federal Trust funds. Note on your paycheck stub that you pay 2 or 3 different fed accounts. Federal Income tax, which pays for military, and most other gov't stuff, is one item, usually, Social Security and medicare/medicaid come from other line items. These are paid for with trusts, not taxes. The Social Security TRUST is huge, amounting to trillions of dollars kept safe for social security, and used only to pay for social security. It does not take money from the federal taxes. NONE. However, congress keeps "borrowing" money from this trust for federal budget stuff, and promise to repay it in the indefinable "Future". So if you pull the x% that these huge budget items consume from the published "Budget" you will find that that 100Million is a heck of alot more percentage wise than it looks.

My town of 40k just spent something like 60,000 on deep diving equipment for the dive rescue team from a homeland security grant. We have 1 lake in the entire county that is deep enough to need this equipment. The counties view is "hey, its free federal money" Its not free, we are all paying for it.. Mulitply this by x number of stupid grants for stupid things, and you get a very, very large amount wasted.

Re:I dunno...

[sgent]

That's a nice fiction -- but the real world doesn't care that its in a "trust fund" or not. The S&L reinsurce was in a trust fund, as was FEMA, as is the near bankrupt PBGC. The reality is that if the goverment is obligated regardless of trust fund antics. Fact is that bond buyers care about two facts: profit -- total government reciepts - total government expenditures; and net worth (Total Assets - Total Liabilities).

Re:I dunno...

[alex_guy_CA]

Thank you. Very good point. If those waterless urinals don't stink, I don't mind paying my share to put them everywhere.

Just to ad to your point about rounding errors, Social Security is paid separately out of social security money, not out of regular federal tax revenue, so it doesn't even belong on the list with Military Spending etc...

Re:I dunno...

[raduf]

The real pieces are Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, pensions, the military and debt servicing;

      The first three are pretty much unavoidable. No matter how you juggle things, there's a lot of resources that has to go in health and taking care of the old. Just has to... no matter if you're capitalist or comunist.

      As for the military... it's mostly a long term/very long term investment. It may pay off, or not. Sometimes it does: Germany/Europe, Japan.

Re:I dunno...

[jafac]

Also, while a dollar is a dollar, even a hundred million here and there is rounding error on the federal budget. The real pieces are Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, pensions, the military and debt servicing; arguing about anything else is mostly a distraction from the structural problems.

That's FUCKING BULLSHIT.

The Iraq CPA *lost* $9 Billion.

And NOBODY is investigating it.

A few hundred mil here and there as a rounding error, yeah, fine. But compared to $9B, the "evil social spending" is chicken feed.

People are going to starve. In this country. Our parents. Stock up on dogfood.

Re:I dunno...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. CAGW provided the database for News.com and was interviewed for the article. Their definition of pork is spending earmarked for a certain recipient _by Congress_ as opposed to letting a more neutral executive branch agency award it on merit. You didn't RTFA, did you?

Re:I dunno...

[swillden]

The Social Security TRUST is huge, amounting to trillions of dollars kept safe for social security, and used only to pay for social security.

The Social Security Trust is a fiction. Oh, it's one carefully maintained and accounted for by the Treasury Dept., but it's a fiction nonetheless. Social Security revenues go into the trust, and Social Security payments are paid out from the trust. If revenues exceed payments (as they usually do), the Treasury dept. buys bonds from the US Government, effectively putting the surplus into the general fund. When payments exceed revenues, the Treasury dept. redeems bonds, retrieving the money from the general fund.

All of this is a convoluted way of saying: Social Security revenues go into the general fund, to be spent by the government, and Social Security payments are drawn on the general fund. That's how it really works, the trust and the bonds are just details.

It's not really clear why they even bother with the fiction, since Social Security was always intended to be a pay-as-you-go system, with current workers supporting current retirees, rather than a pay-in-advance system, with current workers putting money away that their generation will draw when it retires.

Re:I dunno...

[grahammm]

Even if having waterless urinals in the mens room helps with water conservation, next door in the ladies room the women are still using more water to flush the toilet after urinating than is used by flushing a conventional male urinal. So it would aid water conservation even more if a waterless female urinal were to be developed and deployed.

Behind the times...

[caffiend666]

I guess the American Government really is behind the times. American Corporations spent the latter part of the 20th century spending pork on technology, this is no longer in style.... Much of it was wasted on pet projects then as in the government now. I wonder if we can get the fed to start working on 'portable electronic music players' next :) Wonder what a Raytheon IPOD would be like? Would they come with standard RF cages so spys can't know which podcast you are listening to, unless they are really close? Or, mabye this is like the NSA releasing it's own version of Linux.... Next you know they'll be working on special pens that work in outer space!

An _entire_ generation?

[C10H14N2]

Hyperbolic much?

Re:An _entire_ generation?

[Pres. Ronald Reagan]

No, but I've been known to be parabolic from time to time.

NMCI

[HangingChad]

Government watchdogs, however, say earmarks ostensibly related to technology are clearly on the rise.

Just look at the Navy's NMCI project. What a boondoggle. 8 billion dollars for a computer system where many users have to resort to using their own equipment to get anything done.

Of course the contract award to EDS didn't have anything to do with EDS being in Bush's home state. We all know how honest government contract awards are under our glorious Republican leadership, dedicated to bringing accountability into government affairs and responsibility into government spending.

Re:NMCI

[Anonymous Coward]

I really wouldn't go so far as to say that Ross Perot and the company he founded (EDS) would be looked upon very fondly by Republicans.

It was Perot whom cost elder Bush the election to Clinton by splitting the Republican votes in 1992.

Re:NMCI

[NitsujTPU]

With all due respect, while I know that Bush isn't the greatest president we've ever had, I believe that the NMCI contract was in the works before his time. It was also negotiated by the Dept of the Navy, if I recall. Congress had a big thing where they scolded the Navy for awarding a this as a sole-source contract.

So, while the NMCI might not be so great, and, while Bush may not be so great either, I don't think that the two are related.

Re:NMCI

[NitsujTPU]

Yes, here's the timeline.

http://www.nmci.navy.mil/Press_Room/NMCI%20AT%20A% 20Glance

NMCI was talked about while I had a summer job doing network support at a Navy base as an undergraduate. The contract was awarded in October, 2000. Bush wasn't even elected yet.

Re:NMCI

[Anonymous Coward]

Noooooooooooooo.......

Stop injecting facts and reality into the discussion.

Re:NMCI

[Anonymous Coward]

The NMCI contract was awarded in early 2000 - Clinton was still president, and the SECDEF was a Clinton-appointee. I don't really see how Bush could have had any influence on the contract award. At the time the deal was inked he was only one of several candidates for the Republican nomination, and not even a front-runner. And if you're implying that GHWB (former presidents do have a lot of influence) had anything to do with the award, all I can say is that EDS, being founded and, at the time, still partially owned by Ross Perot, would be a really, really odd choice.

Ah, but this is slashdot - can't let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of a good rant, right?

Re:NMCI

[gatzke]

We can still make it his fault, can't we?

Just like Osama was Bush's problem. Wait, that was Clinton passing over chances to take him out.

Bad economy at start of Bush term? He must have ruined everything just by being elected since he is evil.

I bet he even had the black-ops CIA groups plan 9/11. I know it. Charlie Sheen knows it too, and I always go to bad actors to get my political commentary.

Re:NMCI

[NitsujTPU]

There are conspiracy theorists who really do believe that bit about the WTC.

I generally think that, in reality, people are unwilling to believe that the government can't take care of them. They look at it as this omnipotent thing. When it fails, they look for reasons that it failed. Terrorists attacked the WTC? No way, the government must've done it!

Re:NMCI

[goldspider]

NMCI was underway LONG before Bush took office.

While all of it was deployed during Bush's term, that alone should tell you the the planning (such that it was) began long before that.

I know; I worked for the Navy and spent many a frustrating hour on NMCI systems. Your post was a frankly pathetic attack on Bush. Especially since there are far more egregious messes you could have pinned on him.

Re:NMCI

[PenGun]

Only 3 high rise buildings have ever collapsed from fire. And there have been much worse fires than 9/11.

  The 3 buildings? WCT1, WCT2 and WCT7 which was not hit at all.

    PenGun
  Do What Now ??? ... Standards and Practices !

Re:NMCI

[lgw]

The towers were destroyed not by fire, but by fire following an explosion that blew the heat-shielding off the steel.

Welcome all to Slashdot, where a poster can mention any crazy conspiracy theory and someone will be along to defend it! Heck, there are people who believe that the president is a "Reptoid", a shape shifting lizard-like alien!

(Wait for it.)

Re:NMCI

[NitsujTPU]

Hahahha! I love hearing stories about "reptoids!"

They come from inside the Earth, which has a smaller interior spheroid surface, with its own source of light and everything. Incredible that people would believe it, but they really do.

Re:NMCI

[lgw]

Wait, wait, Reptoids come from inside the Earth? Please tell me there a web site about this!

Re:NMCI

[NitsujTPU]

I think that there was a book or a website on this. I heard it listening to Coast to Coast AM. http://www.ctoc.com/ Incidentally, if you like listening to people talk about conspiracy theories and such, this is probably the best listening material around. Ironically, listeners complain that the topics that one of the hosts covers are too mainstream.

The best episodes are ones where they have people with a lot of credibility come on (historians, professors) and discuss some of the listeners more, uhmm, interesting theories, with them.

Water-free urinals

[GillBates0]

Are those like poop-free toilets? Because I get one of those every now and then. But an increase in dietary fiber almost always seems to help.

Virtual spray-paint

[Rob T Firefly]

I had to read TFA if only for this vit:

For the last few years, Oberstar has worked to secure millions of dollars for the college's simulator, which involves a computer-connected gun similar to those of video games. The gun can be used to "spray" paint on a screen in a manner akin to Adobe Photoshop's airbrush tool. The college's Web site says some local businesses want to use the simulator for training painters, but it does not identify any possible military applications for the project.

Based on my days in the arcade industry, I truly believe this could be designed, programmed, and built for ten opr twenty grand at most. Someone, somewhere, just got majorly paid for cross-breeding "Duck Hunt" with Photoshop.

Re:Virtual spray-paint

[blincoln]

Based on my days in the arcade industry, I truly believe this could be designed, programmed, and built for ten opr twenty grand at most.

You could do it for ten or twenty *dollars* if you used secondhand hardware like the Power Glove. Or, better yet, why not just buy a gyroscopic mouse or a graphics tablet and use Photoshop/GIMP?

Re:Virtual spray-paint

[hairykrishna]

10 grand? This is why I'd be rubbish in sales.

"Sure, we can do it, cheap ass PC and an off the shelf light gun hacked into a paint sprayer. We'll use the GIMP to keep software costs down. Lets call it a grand, there's no way it'll cost us more than a couple of hundred in parts."

Re:Virtual spray-paint

[Mr. Underbridge]

Based on my days in the arcade industry, I truly believe this could be designed, programmed, and built for ten opr twenty grand at most.

Come on, now, I think $19,900 for beer is padding the budget a bit much, don't you?

Some ideas

[eviloverlordx]

Here are a couple of ideas for the pork barrel:

a VR program that can train a congressman how to count, so the budget can get balanced

or

a robot teacher to teach science to Republicans

I'm sure I can come up with more pie-in-the-sky ideas.

Ob "The Young Ones" quote

[Rob T Firefly]

I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate!

a recent cringely column

[enrico_suave]

seemed to think that tech related homeland security projects were waning

Government watch-hog needed!

[ironduke-particle]

Pork Barrel Tech ... Exact figures are difficult to obtain ... Government watchdogs ... clearly on the rise.

Yes, these Pork Barrel watch-dogs need to be replaced with automated watch-hogs, ASAP. Can I have a Government contract to develop them please?

I must be tired

[Aqua_boy17]

I orignally read that as 'some plausible technoligical weiner'.

It was called

[Tweekster]

"A Computer In every classroom" now that was a major scam... the amount of waste in the program is just incredible. First of all, yes every classroom needs a computer....so that it is offlimits to the students so the teacher can check their email... that was really great. Or the millions of dollars of outright fraud and the general incompetance of that era of system administrators, ordering shit just cause they can.

Virtual Reality Spray Paint Simulator

[neoshroom]

What's so funny about a Virtual Reality Spray Paint Simulator?

Re:Figures

[stupidfoo]

you create an entire generation of people who are dependant on the government's teat for sustenance

Like the "youth" in France? A law that actually allows a company to fire you? WE MUST MARCH!

Bunch of ignorant fools.

FYI

[XMilkProject]

The new lobbying reform bill, which either was just enacted, or is about to be enacted (I haven't seen much news in the last few days) does change the way this pork will work a bit...

While the bill isn't very groundbreaking, and doesn't change much, it does make a new policy for earmarks. Now all earmarks must be published 24 hours in advance, and the earmark can be stripped from the bill if 40 members of congress wish it to be removed.

Of course, if you tried to remove an earmark placed by a powerful congressman, someone like Kennedy perhaps, you'd likely regret it. So i'm not sure how this will all play out, but its a tiny step in the right direction.

If anyone else is more sure of the details or status of this Lobbying Reform bill, let us know.

Re:FYI

[Anonymous Coward]

Senate passed it today - I just pasted one of the first links google news kicks out when you search for "Lobbying Reform bill". Senators McCain and Feingold are complaining it doesn't go far enough (it doesn't). It's a start though.

Re:FYI

[Guuge]

This is a phenomenon called "Republicans scared shitless during an election year". All of a sudden they've realized that the terrorist card has been overplayed just as many of their lobbying scandals are coming to light. They're probably hoping that this gesture will be enough to let them keep their jobs and resume business as usual next year.

Re:FYI

[XMilkProject]

Well, I don't know that it falls on any party lines.

It is just how congress works. It's the slimey underbelly of our government, and is run like an organized crime group. All bills and decisions are made either becuase of a bribe or a threat, and a senators constituants have little impact on his behavior.

It has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats though. More realistically, the worst earmarks/pork/bribes/threats/power come from those congressmen who have been in office the longest. With time, they become members of very powerful committees (Ways and Means for instance) and can do pretty much whatever they want.

A particularly sickening example comes from one of the most powerful members of congress, Ted Kennedy. He orchestrated the Big Dig which had spent $14.6 billion tax payer dollars to build a highway in his state. No one is quite sure why the other 49 states should have to chip in on $14.6 billion for a road that only benefits Massachusetts. Of course it is great if you are in Boston, where $14.6 billion was pumped into the economy in the form of new jobs. Only a congressman could get away with murder and still pull off something like that.

This sort of thing is common though, find any congressman who has server for 15 or more years and they will be equally corrupted.

Re:FYI

[Guuge]

I personally would not be disappointed if the Democrats would take this outrage as a cue to finally show that they can rise above the corruption and actually change the culture. Both parties are in a state of change right now. Shrugging your shoulders and saying that the Democrats can be no better than the Republicans is sending the *wrong* message to both parties. It tells the Republicans that they can go ahead and do whatever they want because people don't have a choice anyway. It's telling the Democrats that you wouldn't vote for them no matter what, so why should they take a risk to gain your vote?

One party rule

[plopez]

What makes the pork easier is the defacto one party rule. There is no real accountability, and congress at this point is also no better than the president's rubber stamp. WIth a split congress some of the excesses may dissappear. As well as returning a little democracy to congress.

Re:One party rule

[Tweekster]

ohh that was adorable.... now in reality you will notice things are exactly the same regardless ofthe split, and who is where

Before you slam Pork Tech projects...

[marlinSpike]

Fellow /.tters, Everybody who has partaken in, endorsed or voiced a paranoia about losing their jobs to developers in India, China or suchlike foreign countries with lower costs of living, spare a minute before you last out at Pork.

After all, Pork is the onething that's guaranteed not to be outsourced! Think about it -- you can finally ignore all those teaser /. articles about the newest company to invest $1B in India... you won't give a crap, because your job will be safe for 10 years or more, which in the Tech industry is an eon.

Now the only thing you'll have to worry about is getting the right Pork project, so that your skills don't languish in those 10 years, so much so that you become outmoded even for Pork projects.

Cheer up fellow /.tters. It's Washington to the rescue!

Re:Before you slam Pork Tech projects...

[WhiplashII]

RIGHT! That way, in 20 years when the economy runs out of money and no one is willing to work we can riot in the streets when the government tries to get rid of the pork!

This is great! Oh, wait - we'd have to be French for this to work.. Oh well...

Re:Before you slam Pork Tech projects...

[forand]

After all, Pork is the onething that's guaranteed not to be outsourced!

You didn't read this article did you?

Back In The USSR

[Hoi Polloi]

"...rapid growth in homeland security and military spending..."

Isn't this what helped collapse the old USSR?

Re:Back In The USSR

[techno-vampire]

Isn't this what helped collapse the old USSR?

In part, yes. In full, it was trying to spend more on defense and the military than they could afford, trying to keep up with SDI, aka Star Wars. That, of course, was the whole point of SDI: competing with the USSR on our turf (ability to spend money) rather than on theirs.

Re:Back In The USSR

[jerpyro]

Back in the USSR... the military spends YOU!

sorry it had to be said :p

Re:Back In The USSR

[kryten_nl]

I'm so sorry, I just can't resist:

In IRAQ the military spends you...

Actually, a lot of it was cut this year

[slagell]

Our ear-marked money for a security research center was cut in half this year. From what I understand a lot of projects were cut across the board, though not eliminated. And ours is a little more relevant to security than spray paint simulations (www.ncassr.org).

One man's pork is another man's state-craft.

[nbahi15]

One man's pork is another man's state-craft.

That is what one of my political science professors said about so called pork and I tend to agree. Getting up in arms over what doesn't directly benefit you, or that you don't understand is fairly normal. For example I am sure the same people that complain about water-free urinal technology were buying grey market toilets when congress mandated low flush technology. Sure there were problems in the beginning, but nothing some hard working engineers can't sort out. Frankly I think not flushing relatively scarce fresh water down the not-so-proberbial toilet is a good idea, but hey I am a tree hugging, dirt worshipper.

Let's be honest, some people complain if you spend money on anything other than what they personally like. Which would be fine if you represented everyone, and were fairly omniscient. Alas, nobody seems to listen to me when I say we should cut the War Department's (AKA Department of Defense) budget in half, and give the money to the national lab's, NASA, and health coverage for all American's

Because to me the pork in the economy is the military.

Re:One man's pork is another man's state-craft.

[marlinSpike]

Three Cheers! If /. endorses you, will you run for Prez?

Re:One man's pork is another man's state-craft.

[Breakfast Pants]

With universal health care will will have a population explosion amongst latinos, catholocism at it's best.

Re:One man's pork is another man's state-craft.

[k_187]

yup, pork benefits somebody. Just because its not you, doesn't diminish the value to the other person. I do think its out of hand, but pork is only meter-stick constituents have for their representative. If you're really going to get mad about it, get mad at your representitive for not bringing more to you.

Re:One man's pork is another man's state-craft.

[thc69]

For example I am sure the same people that complain about water-free urinal technology were buying grey market toilets when congress mandated low flush technology. Sure there were problems in the beginning, but nothing some hard working engineers can't sort out. Frankly I think not flushing relatively scarce fresh water down the not-so-proberbial toilet is a good idea, but hey I am a tree hugging, dirt worshipper.

I'm tired of flushing -> waiting forever for toilet to reload -> re-flushing. I'm more tired of plunging. I don't have city water; my well is a very abundant supply of water, although sometimes lacking in pressure/flow volume. How does the illegality of a reasonably functional (for me) toilet save the environment?

Why, oh why, don't toilets have multiple flush options? One toilet is subject to vastly differing jobs from one usage to the next; why is it expected to do all those jobs efficiently with a single function?

I want a toilet with a quiet and low usage liquid-only function, a mid-range normal-sounding function, and a high power WHOOSH function that can move whatever evils exit from my bowels and uses whatever water necessary to ensure that I can walk away without having to watch my excrement like a hawk (er, not that hawks generally spend a lot of time watching my excrement...stupid colloquialism). Hell, I'm trying to get rid of it, I don't want to watch it and see it regurgitate from the drain or have to shove a plunger into a pile of it...

Re:One man's pork is another man's state-craft.

[RexRhino]

What your forgetting about pork, is that pork projects are almost always things that no-one in their right mind would invest in, or donate their own money to.

You might say that "Well, there are some things that could be really useful that no-one is going to invest in or donate money to"... and that is true. But there is always going to be more people looking to make a quick buck off of Uncle Sam, than there is people with truly good ideas that could use government funding.

That means that the vast majority of pork spending, is pure and utter crap.

Re:One man's pork is another man's state-craft.

[DigiShaman]

Alas, nobody seems to listen to me when I say we should cut the War Department's (AKA Department of Defense) budget in half, and give the money to the national lab's, NASA, and health coverage for all American's.

Sure, let leave Iran and N. Korea to themselves. After all, we will need a boost in health care once a few "porta-nukes" (sold on the black market) demolishes our cities.

I for one would rather prevent that shit from happening in the first place. You will need good intel and military might for this.

Re:One man's pork is another man's state-craft.

[macshit]

Why, oh why, don't toilets have multiple flush options? One toilet is subject to vastly differing jobs from one usage to the next; why is it expected to do all those jobs efficiently with a single function?

Many Japanese toilets have bi-directional flush levers: one direction is labelled "small" and the other "large" (with hopefully obvious meanings)...

Re:One man's pork is another man's state-craft.

[thc69]

Hmm...I thought they just had temperature-controlled seats, music, aromatherapy, and integrated bidet. I didn't realize they had variable flush control too. I've gotta get me a Japanese toilet!

Re:One man's pork is another man's state-craft.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems some of the low flush toilets have accually have multiple flush modes. Its not exactly documented on the box but if you just hit the lever on a bunch of them you get the 1.6 gallon flush. If you hold the lever down it will empty the tank, which on a lot of them is just the old 3-5 gallon flush. Since the water locks are lower and the bowl holds less water it ends up being a lot more powerful than the old toilets.

Here is a link

[VP]

How it works

Why is it not Chicken?

[ericwfrost]

OK two comments, why do you have to assume that "earmarks" are pork? Chickens don't have ears.

And number two (I'll refrain from another why question) This is great for the tech industry, remember that tech is accelerating and the more tech projects and brainy people working on new tech, the sooner we will all be immortal.

ELF Mapping Technologies

Eric

Re:Why is it not Chicken?

[Breakfast Pants]

Immortal or mortal, we will still be finite in complexity/capability, so what is so much better about the move to immortal?

Re:Why is it not Chicken?

[mfrank]

Uh, not dying?

The option to live as long as you want would be nice. And with enough time, maybe the finite complexity/capability could be addressed.

They smell bad

[gatzke]

Supposedly they work for years, but they smell.

We have them in a new "green dorm" on campus. That plus dim lights in conference rooms and a fuel cell backup generator. A new 5kW system, nearly 100x more expensive than a gas powered system of similar size...

Hippies.

pending bill text archive?

[Bob the Hamster]

So where do I find plain-text archive of all past and currently pending bills in congress?

Preferably in a subversion repository so I can view diffs between amendments. ;)

If we had a resource like that, I bet we could even train a bayes filter to automaticly detect porky amendments the moment they were proposed.

Re:pending bill text archive?

[Locke2005]

So where do I find plain-text archive of all past and currently pending bills in congress? Gee, I don't know... have you tried reading the Congressional Record? Of course, if you do, you better be a fast reader... I hear it increases by about 4000 pages each day!

Re:pending bill text archive?

[Athenais]

GovTrack appears to be exactly what you asked for. You can look up past and present bills, see where they are within the system, monitor what your own representatives are doing, and even get email updates about the progress of a bill.

Inner... Conflict... Rising....

[Anonymous Coward]

I so want smaller government but pandering to me sounds so nice. I'm torn.

Maybe this will spark companies to make less ridiculous job requirements due to competition.

Oh great...

[Anonymous Coward]

>Pork Barrel Tech ... Exact figures are difficult to obtain ...
>Government watchdogs ... clearly on the rise.

Who put Shatner in charge of this?!?!?

Re:It's ONE party

[mpapet]

The distinctions you make are quaint, but old-fashioned.

Republicans have their constituents to support with projects and legislation, Dems have theirs. PAC's don't care too much who is running the show because it's pay to play all the way.

The other thing to understand is if American's really wanted fiscal spending, then it would happen. Ideally the candidates running on fiscal conservativism would win. There's been a whole bunch of fiscally conservative legislation that gets gutted every time the budget ceiling is hit.

Finally, so far there have been no consequences to running the government this way. Until either enough voters have some consequences and/or the wealthiest 2% have some consequences, then nothing will be done.

Where's my pork?

[EmersonPi]

I'm a PhD student working in computer graphics, and I have to say... where's my pork? NSF funding has almost completely dried up, military and homeland security spending has all gone to corporate pockets (or savy small business pockets), and corporate funding is very, very scarce. I've been lucky enough (and had enough hustle) to just barely bring in my own funding for the last year and a half or so, but everyone I know is pretty well starving for any sort of research funding. Highly successfull professors and researchers from all over are not getting the funding they need for some very good tech research proposals.

I don't know who's supposedly getting all this tech pork, but I can pretty well assure you that it isn't universities.

Re:Where's my pork?

[fishybell]

Perhaps you misunderstood the definition of "pork."

You seem to be trying to do things legitemately. This is not pork fundage, just fundage. If you get funding after talking to your local senator or representative, then it becomes porcine in nature. It's really all about handshaking and golf trips.

A case could be made for the squeeky wheel deserving its oil, but I have to say that the proper routes (such as the NSF, and other grant-giving organisations) seem perfectly capable of properly oiling the right wheels, not just the squeekiest ones.

Re:Where's my pork?

[alex_guy_CA]

Someone moderated you a troll? Wild. Hey, mods, please mod parent up. The poor guy wasn't trolling, he was making a good point!

Re:Figures

[vertinox]

Like the "youth" in France? A law that actually allows a company to fire you? WE MUST MARCH!

Hey least they are doing something active... Here if they pass a law that violates the constitution or lets people die in a national disaster, we might get irrate enough to post on /. about it, but you won't see us take the day off to riot in the streets.

Hell... People were in the streets in Egypt to protest the Red Sea ferry sinking. Most of us here were hard pressed to even bother to take notice of the New Orleans fiasco other than to make some rantings on our blogs from the comfort of our homes or office.

Seriously, if we Americans had half the backbone of these foreigners that go ape crazy in the streets in protest of these minor things ,we wouldn't be having these discussion about government pork. We'd have a government that wasn't run by lobbyists...

See... If 1970's America had the same amount of apathy we have today, we'd still be in Vietnam.

Americans today don't really care about morality, truth, freedom, equality, and good government. We just want the steady pay checks, food, sex, big screen TV, nice house, nice car, and whatever entertains us til we grow old and die... As long as we have our bread and circuses there isn't much of a point of us to bother changing anything.

Now you'll have to exscuse me while I go play WoW while listening to my iPod while enjoying movies I downloaded to play on my 42" plasma... I guess it might be a few more minutes before this breif outrage and desire of actually voting this year passes in a big huff of apathy. Least I have chicken.

I'm forgoing moderating you down

[Inoshiro]

to say this: there is a very, very large difference between a law that says you can't be fired unless there is just cause (and if so, you get a time unit of notice so you can find another job), and a law that says you can fire anyone under the age of 26 with no reason, and no time delay, whenever you want.

Oh, you won't sleep with the boss? Fired.
You called in sick too much this week. Fired.
I don't like how you're dressing. Fired.
We hired on my 40-year-old brother. Fired.

Instead of working with the worker to correct behaviour that is causing a problem (and optionally letting them go after they have time to find another job), it makes firing be a big, ugly stick over everything.

Egalitarian societies should not tollerate such laws.

Re:I'm forgoing moderating you down

[stupidfoo]

I'm forgoing moderating you down
Good, because the point of the mod system isn't to mod down people you disagree with.

you can't be fired unless there is just cause (and if so, you get a time unit of notice so you can find another job

If you suck at your job, why should a company keep paying you to work there? Not sure why I should be required to keep paying a worthless employee while they screw around looking for a new job.

The problem is this "just cause" nonsense. In the US, let alone France, "just cause" is terribly hard to define and defend. I've seen people get fired for sexually harrassing women and drinking on the job, and then sue and win.

a law that says you can fire anyone under the age of 26 with no reason, and no time delay, whenever you want

Unless they've been working for with a company for 2 years... and why should a company have to keep you on once they fired you? I just don't get it.

Oh, you won't sleep with the boss? Fired.
I would assume that is already covered under existing French law, as it is in the US. If this were to happen the person being fired would easily win the lawsuit.

You called in sick too much this week. Fired.
Some people call in sick a ridiculous amount of the time. I've seen people miss almost a month of work with a new sickness almost everyday. They were (thankfully) fired.

I don't like how you're dressing. Fired.
An employer should be able to uphold a certain dress code.

We hired on my 40-year-old brother. Fired.
I don't see the problem. Why do you think the government should have such extensive power over the hiring and firing practices of private companies?

Egalitarian societies [wikipedia.org] should not tollerate such laws.

Excuse me while I go throw up... but at least that gives me a chance to throw out one of my favorite quotes:

"Prosperity or egalitarianism - you have to choose. I favor freedom -
you never achieve real equality anyway: you simply sacrifice prosperity
for an illusion."
Mario Vargas Llosa
(Peruvian novelist and politician)

And here's a little article you may wish to read about the future of your "egalitarian" economy: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/933

Re:I'm forgoing moderating you down

[vertinox]

I don't see the problem. Why do you think the government should have such extensive power over the hiring and firing practices of private companies?

If the people of France wish to have such a system, then what is the problem? If they elect government officials to carry out a socialist policy than it isn't very democratic if you say they aren't allowed to do so.

Socialism is quite flawed, but if the majority of people of a nation want such a system and want to have strict labor laws and don't mind the high unemployment then who are we to say they shouldn't?

Businesses and corporations are allowed only to exist for the benefit of the people of the nation. If the nation wishes to do away with such things then well... Maybe the economy is going to suck but otherwise your living in a totalitarian regime that enforces its will with a system that doesn't involve elections (ie not democracy).

Still you have to safeguard the fact that people are often willing to vote away their rights...

Re:I'm forgoing moderating you down

[GrodinTierce]

But what if the problem is not with any specific worker? Sometimes workers may have to be fired if there is not enough business to sustain them (I realize that this is often an excuse, but it is also sometimes true).

Re:I'm forgoing moderating you down

[Anonymous Coward]

Being bad at your job, lying about being sick etc. are all fine reasons for firing someone that you could have sucessfully used before the legislation.

"We hired on my 40-year-old brother. Fired.
I don't see the problem."

You really don't? You like nepotism? You think it would be good to go back to when jobs were basically inherited, no matter what your skills were?
It's corruption, that simple. Corruption is the enemy of capitalism, anyone in favour of a free markets (of employment in this case) is against nepotism.

Just Give Me Some Action!

[mpapet]

Typical ./ reaction, hands wringing, Oh dear, Oh my!

Well, let me be the first then to suggest:

http://www.taxpayer.net/

http://www.taxfoundation.org/

http://www.concordcoalition.org/issues/scorecard/i ndex.html

Each spin a different way and I'm sure there's a few dozen more groups out there. One of which is bound to have a message that you agree with.

Ah Fear, what ever happened to Lee Ving anyway?

Oblig. Civilization Ref

[Rhys]

The level of corruption in washington is high! Maybe we should build a Forbidden Palace...

Re:Oblig. Civilization Ref

[Darby]

The level of corruption in washington is high! Maybe we should build a Forbidden Palace...

Won't help. Washington is already the capital.

Re:Oblig. Civilization Ref

[Rhys]

You assume I play the Americans in Civ.

Re:Oblig. Civilization Ref

[Darby]

You assume I play the Americans in Civ.

Doh! Right, you could have conquered it. My bad.

Here's a visual breakdown of govt spending

[Errandboy of Doom]

This project took a year of research and number crunching (and procrastination) according to the author, but it's a nice visual layout of government spending in the US.

The project page.

Re:Here's a visual breakdown of govt spending

[lgw]

It's cool visually, but it's a political statement as well. Since it's just the discretionary budget, it makes it look like defense spending is half od federal outlay. Everything in that picture is small compared to entitlements.

Re:It's ONE party

[demachina]

"The other thing to understand is if American's really wanted fiscal spending, then it would happen."

I am relatively sure the vast majority of American's want their taxes reduced. American's universally hate the IRS and payroll taxes, they just can't do anything about it.

It is probably true they could care less if spending is or isn't cut to pay for their tax cuts, and if the U.S. destructs one day under a massive debt burden. After all American's wrongly think they can use credit cards to make ends meet. But this is the role national leaders and economists are supposed to fill, to insure the U.S. budget and the national economy are on a sound footing, something ALL of today's leaders are failing miserably at because they are both corrupt and incompetent.

I want payroll taxes completely out of my life and would gladly sign a sheet of paper renouncing all future claims to social security, medicare or unemployment insurance to get it. I would give anything to opt out of the Democrat's Socialist agenda. I want to make my own way in the world, and live or die based on my choices and not have a nanny state making my decisions for me. I want money I make in my pocket and not disappearing in to a bureaucracy possibly never to be seen again.

I want nothing to do with funding the American military at its current size, nor with sinking $400 million in insane wars like the one in Iraq, nor do I want to live in an ever expanding police state, nor do I want my tax dollars going to subsidize giant corporations who don't need it and who should sink or swim in free markets on their own merits. I opt out of the Republican agenda too and most Americans probably would as well if they really thought about it today. The Republican rank and file is increasingly sick of the monster the Republican party has turned in to I was in a small minority before the war that saw through the web of lies used to justify it, but since then most Americans have come to their senses and realize it was a war based on lies, and a massive waste of their money and American lives. I'll support a military adequate to defend the U.S. from aggression but that is a small fraction of what we have today.

I think you are wrong, American's do want a return to sane and thoughtful government with fiscal responsibility. The fundamental problem is there is an entrenched two party system which has a stranglehold on the ballot box. Neither party is offering people the government they really want, and both parties are aggressively snuffing out any viable independent or third party to protect their monopoly on power. People hold their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils but nearly everyone hates it at this point. If there was a viable alternative with savvy, responsible leaders offering fiscal sanity, defense instead of offense, and an end to corruption American's would be there in a heart beat.

The problem is in an $10 trillion dollar economy any party that gains power is very likely to be completely corrupted in a heart beat which is what your post suggested. There also aren't many great people left who would devote their lives to public service without the promise of a big payoff for themselves and their friends.

$100M To "Research" A Commuter Rail

[Doug Dante]

The US Federal government has given a $100 Million grant to "research" Ann Arbor To Detroit mass transit system that just won't be built!

All of the important decisions about the rail have already been made, and the "research" mainly consists of trying to convince people that it's worth the astronomical costs to invest more money in such a system. We get so much federal funding from gas taxes specially allocated to mass transit, and Michigan has very little besides cars, so it's use it or loose it, but the proposal is just not going to happen in a region with a local recession, reasonably limited traffic congestion, and stable to declining population.

Sadly, this "research" gets in the way examinig of potentially useful and applicable solutions, which might actually be installed, and might actually have a net positive impact, especially in Detroit where poverty is so aweful and people have a genuine lack of transportation. Cheaper and faster solutions such as Mini Pods, more buses, or even rentable GPS tracked electric motor bikes might be considered instead.

Heck, just toss aside a measly 3% and double the M-Prize and you'll do the people of Metro Detroit more good.

Re:$100M To "Research" A Commuter Rail

[maxume]

I went to school at UofM and lived in the area for a couple of years and have to agree that the proposal is nuts. Nobody along the I-94 corridor is ever going somewhere else convenient to the I-94 corridor. It's really too bad they can't just put the money towards road maintenance, that stretch needs it.

The article you linked does mention adding buses/routes though.

Water-free urinals?

[Dhar]

Ain't that an alley?

-g.

Re:Figures

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hey least they are doing something active..."

Shouldn't they be trying to find some way to mitigate the 20% unemployment rate among adults under 26? I don't know if this law will help, but what other suggestions are out there? Just being active isn't enough. You have to have a plausable plan.

"Here if they pass a law that violates the constitution or lets people die in a national disaster, we might get irrate enough to post on /. about it, but you won't see us take the day off to riot in the streets."

That's what the Supreme Court is for. Someone will bring a case, and if it's against the Constitution, it will be struck down. It's a good thing people aren't rioting in the streets.

They should, however, pay attention to current events, write their elected officials, and get involved.

As the quote goes...

[irimi_00]

As the quote goes... One man's funny is another man's flamebait.

pending bill text archive?-XML

[Anonymous Coward]

It should come in an XML format.

Fair point...

[Errandboy of Doom]

Here's a more comprehensive breakdown.

But the first one is a cooler visual, and I'm pretty convinced, at this stage in my life, that aesthetics are far more important than politics.

Re:Fair point...

[lgw]

I can't argue with that!

Re:Figures

[vertinox]

That's what the Supreme Court is for. Someone will bring a case, and if it's against the Constitution, it will be struck down. It's a good thing people aren't rioting in the streets.

What if the Supreme Court is also corrupt? Or no one bother's bringing the case to them? I'm not saying they are corrupt now, but what happens if in the future the system completley fails? Are you going to sit there and take it?

I'm sure our founding fathers could have not taken up their concerns with British government in the streets or they could have just stayed home? British rule and taxation of the American colonies was 100% completely legal under British Law remember! Why didn't the revolutionaries go to England and put their case through the British legal system?

Because sometime laws and the rule of the land fail when corruption and despotism take over. Didn't Jefferson and Thomas Paine teach us this?!

U.S. Federal Deficit by Political Party

[Futurepower(R)]

U.S. Federal Deficit by Political Party

Read the Bills Act (RTBA)

[AnotherScratchMonkey]

One way to deal with excess pork deniably buried in huge bills is to force elected officials to read the bills in their entirety prior to voting, and requiring a "cooling off" period for public review. It's too easy for Congressmen to claim that they didn't know what was in a bill.

The Read the Bills Act is one proposal to enforce this. Congress has been working to avoid acknowledging this proposal, but it seems that everyone else who finds out about it loves it.

Re:Read the Bills Act (RTBA)

[mOdQuArK!]

One way to deal with excess pork deniably buried in huge bills

Actually, the most straightforward way to deal with excess pork is to put strict, hard limits on how much Congress can spend, like a Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment, or some similar solution.

Right now, there is no incentive for legislators to prioritize which "pork" items are actually important for the country, except for public relations and vague fears of future financial collapse, both of which are seeming to have very little effect on legislative behavior.

I think the "Read the Bill" act is more of an attempt to put the brakes on the sheer _amount_ of legislation which gets turned into laws. My favorite variation of that concept is to require that any legislation must be _orally_, and _by memory_, read on the floor of the relevant legislative chamber by an elected legislator before it can become an actual law. Legislative simplicity achieved through the max limits of human brains :). Also, some kind of sunset provision so that laws which aren't regularly reenacted won't perform "submarine" attacks on unsuspecting citizens.

Of course, as much as I daydream about that, it would probably only push all the legislative complexity down into the various agency/bureaucracy "rules & regulations", which tend to be complete legal systems on their own.

Re:Read the Bills Act (RTBA)

[AnotherScratchMonkey]

DownsizeDC is working on a separate solution to the problem of rule by the bureacracy, but it was felt that including it in RTBA would dilute support. You can read about the decision here.

What do you have against Libertarianism?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well the Libertarian's aren't even close to garnering enough votes to make difference so no they aren't a viable option.

In the last local and state elections here, the Libertarians did reasonably well -- especially considering how few registered Libertarians there are. We probably won't have a Libertarian in the White House next time, but that doesn't mean the Libertarians don't make a difference.

A case could be made that their form of government would be as bad if not worse than what we have. The fatal flaw in Libertarianism is it would let loose the wolves of Capitalism and they would devour the nation and most of its people in a sea of unchecked greed.

That's a very colorful analogy, but I see nothing inherent in Libertarianism about "wolves" or "devouring". Would you care to provide a follow-up response in the form of a sports analogy?

For example railroad tycoons who devastated farmers by charging just enough to ship their goods to market that the farmers made nothing or lost money for their hard work.

I'd rather have that, than the government propping up farmers. There's nothing that says you have the right to earn $X for being a farmer. If what you're doing isn't profitable, then either (a) accept that you're going to lose money while doing it, or (b) find another job.

My guess is Libertarianism would lead to massive imbalances in wealth distribution, a small number of very wealthy people and a lot of people living in poverty.

This sounds like the very definition of FUD: you "guess" that this would happen, but have nothing to back it up, so we'll spread this information around and hope people prefer the status quo.

Do you want to understand how to help?

[Futurepower(R)]

Relevant articles if you love the United States and want to understand how to reduce the corruption:

U.S. Federal Deficit by Political Party

History surrounding the U.S. wars with Iraq: Four short stories

Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government

--
Before, Saddam got Iraq oil profits & paid part to kill Iraqis. Now a few Americans share Iraq oil profits, & U.S. citizens pay to kill Iraqis. Improvement?

CNET claims somewhat dubious

[kupci]

I'm as critical of big gov't and wasteful spending, and while these folks are almost unbelievable in the "good ol boy" spending and profiteering, Let's not get too carried away here. The "concerned taxpayers" seem to play a little fast and loose with the definitions, i.e. Joe Senator lives in some district, some company gets some funding, so that's pork? I mean, what district *doesn't* have representation in government? Besides, what's a few million compared to the *billions* of dollars spent on no-bid contracts to companies like Halliburton and Bechtel in Iraq, especially when those companies play fast and loose with U.S. tax law, by being "foreign" companies? Talk about pork.

So if it were up to these "concerned taxpayers", the gov't wouldn't spend any money, because if any company received money that would be considered pork. Because here's the deal: Some projects are worthwile, take a gander at the list, many are military related. Are these folks saying they don't want to support the troops?

Another example is DARPA. There was a great program on PBS about the unmanned robot challenge, in which Stanford's "Stanley" and 4 other 'bots went the entire 100 mile plus route, when the previous year the top showing was 7 miles. That is pretty fantastic stuff. I believe the Carnegie-Mellon team got about $2 million or so from the military, I'm sure that is classified as pork, but this could have significant consequences on future battlefields. Don't forget DARPA funded the internet too. Sometimes "concerned taxpayers" have to think out a little farther out.

As for the water-free urinals, the CNET article insinuates that Falcon is not a world leader as they claim, but provide no evidence for this assertion. Also there was just an article here about a company trying to build a skyscraper with water-free urinals, to save 1.6 million gallons. That's a good thing. $100-$200/per toilet per year saved. Not bad. Certainly not pork - how much money would be saved if those were installed in every gov't institution - considering the fact that the govt is probably the largest employer in the U.S., for example? Granted, it no-bid contracts, and even bid contracts are probably corrupt, but this is chump change compared to the *billions* thrown at Halliburton & Bechtel & KBR, etc. This is the 80-20 rule, fix that leak first.

Re:CNET claims somewhat dubious

[Anonymous Coward]

but the filters cost more then the water, and you have the buy them from the manufacturer. So that savings goes away very quickly, and besides while there are costs for filtering water, last i checked when water is used, it gets filtered and enters back into the system. So it is not like a candy bar that gets eaten and gone.

Wake up modders!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wondering how the parent is a troll. Because if anyone bothers to RTFA, looks like a lot of valid work. Sure there's the Bridge To Nowhere, that's ridiculous and a huge waste of money, benefiting maybe 50 people and the politician who owns all the property he's going to develop. So I think a couple things are going on here:

Your "pork" is going to fund companies in no-bid contracts like Bechtel, Halliburton, & other companies, since this country is now run by lobbyists, marketers, and MBAs, and they've figured out how to finagle every last penny into their own pockets, rather than invest in America's future. That leaves precious little funding for anything else. Don't worry, American's, the Chinese and Indian's are happily investing in their countries, they are in this for the long-haul, not quick profits, like separating Iraq from it's oil. It's going to pay for itself! Bwhahahahahahah!

Where's my simulated pork?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm a PhD student working in computer graphics, and I have to say... where's my pork?"

Big hint. America's Army Bigger hint Biggest hint

had one at school, got removed after 2 months.

[Anonymous Coward]

namely because it became a health risk, (it was also mounted too high) it smelled horrid, and at one point (what got it taken out) was piss and shit were found flowing from it after a heavy rain storm.

you need water to keep things flowing, keeps bacteria from being able to sit in a stagnant environment.

though it can be said that they do work better in an environment with fewer people (the seal that stops backflow can last longer and such, and health problems would lower) but that'd kill the entire point of the system. as it's meant to solve high water usage in largely occupied areas (stadiums, etc)

if it cant survive my alma mater, where it wasnt used as much as the normal urinals (the very few tall people could use it, and only used it when all others were being used) it cant survive a baseball stadium. thus rendering it useless.

VR Spray Paint Simulator in Second Life!

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a VR spray paint simulator you can buy for less than US$1.00 in Second Life from Cypher Olsen! Be sure to tell him he's missing a good bet by not going after the Federal grants!

i see water-free urinals all the time

[Hachey]

I don't know about you all, but I see them water free urinals all the time. Each has a sticker saying how many gallons of water it saves every year by being water free. I actually feel kind of good peeing in them.

Porkbusters

[fbg111]

FYI: http://porkbusters.org/