Slashdot Mirror
Bloggers 1, Smoke-Filled Room 0
MarkusQ writes "A few days ago a bi-partisan bill (PDF) to create a searchable on-line database of government contracts, grants, insurance, loans, financial assistance, earmarks and other such pork was put on 'secret hold' using a procedure that does not appear to be mentioned in the Constitution or in the Senate bylaws. This raised the ire of bloggers left and right and started an all out bi-partisan effort to expose the culprit by process of elimination. As it turns out it was our old friend the right honorable Senator from Alaska, Mr. 'Series of Tubes', Ted 'Bridge to Nowhere' Stevens."
I agree wholeheartedly. My new policy on voting is to always vote out an incumbent, unless I've been especially happy with his performance. If the whole country did that (especially on the national level, but also on the local level), I believe we'd have a lot fewer issues with corrupt politicians.
But then again, what to I know... I'm just a lowly working class citizen.
Online Starcraft RPG? At
Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
Turns out he's just concerned that this bill would cost too much of the good American taxpayers' money.
Seriously--the man deserves his seat in Congress, if only for being able to sling such profoundly obvious bullshit with a perfectly straight face.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
It is said: Power corrupts, while absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I would argue that a more accurate saying would be: "power attracts the corrupt. Absolute power attracts the corrupt irresistably".
The longer any party or group remains in power the closer they come to corrupt.
...because that means the corrupt have had that much longer to maneuver their way into power within the party or group. Changing ruling parties/groups frequently means a lot of corrupt power-brokering ends up being wasted maneuvering to power within a group that no longer has any externally.
Or as my great grandfather liked to say, "political parties are like old socks: if you don't change them often enough, they get so they smell"
Having just two isn't that much better. Because "the corrupt" can do well for themselves by maneuvering to power within either one of them.
The thing I like best about this story is that its part of a larger reframing of the conflict, from a red-team vs. blue-team battle where you're stuck choosing the lesser of two evils to a more clear-cut battle between We The People and those who would like to take advantage of us.
As a life long Republican that can't stand Bush, I probably have deep ideological difference with half (or more) of the people who worked on this, but I respect not only their right to hold opinions that differ from mine, but to know where their tax dollars are going, and who doesn't want them to know.
--MarkusQ
t's a GOOD thing. Really. It's representative government at its finest....
Ouch!
It is sometimes said that the American political system, while good in structure, has become so beholden to money and self-interest that it is now one of the worst of the Western democracies.
For example, you have Jesse Helmes who was prepared to inflict terrible things on people in other countries to save a few jobs or a bit of pork in his own district (eg. tobacco). The companies involved rewarded him with the money to advertise, and the voters were prepared to sacrafice many people they couldn't see in the name of their (or their neighbors) self interest.
Now, the fact that you think this is a GOOD thing REALLY scares me.
The latest version of Steven's telecom reform bill has the broadcast flag, the RIAA's audio flag, and compulsory web labelling for US adult sites. The bill is currently unpopular among some senators because there's no network neutrality provisions -- but there's a lot more in there that stinks.
More information at the EFF. Please write to your senator, and tell them to stand against Steven's bill.
First of all, any Senator can block almost any bill already, using a filibuster. So it's not like this is a new concept.
Furthermore a "hold" is not secret to everyone; otherwise it would be pointless. The Senate leader is informed by the cloakroom that Senator so-and-so has placed a hold on Bill X. And it's rarely a "secret" within the halls of the Senate who placed the hold and why...it typically flows from dissention that is already there. Most Senators and staff can guess or find out who placed the hold. That does not mean they will share it with the public.
The hold process is just one of many ways the Senate operates to get things done. There are finely graded degrees of escalation in a debate--necessary in a legislative body that can be stopped cold by any one person. Think of the filibuster as a nuke and you'll start to get it...there needs to be many levels of diplomatic tools below that, or shit will blow up too easily.
The "hold" is just one of those tools--a way for a Senator to demonstrate that they are more than a little unhappy, and to slow down the process until they are satisfied. It's effective precisely because it usually is back-channel...so it avoids pointless public posturing, and allows the people to compromise out of the public eye. This is not always a bad thing...think of the difference between how people act in normal life and how they act on a reality TV show. Putting people under the microscope 100% of the time distorts their decision-making process. The Constitution doesn't require all deliberation to be open. Our system of government calls for the election of leaders, and allows us to petition them. But it is designed, on purpose, to provide some insulation for the elected leaders.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I've been tossing around the idea that, one month every year, legislators should work on repealing stupid old laws. It'd make great press, and it might encourage public debate about progressive versus traditional values.
Oh, by the way, know what the top story on the front page of the Ketchikan Daily News was today? Apparently the $230,000,000 estimate for building the bridge was off by a bit and they're now saying it will take $328,000,000 to build the bridge they plan on building. Meanwhile about half of the money allocated for the bridge last year is now gone, used to pay for other transportation projects in Alaska after the earmarks were removed from the funding about a month after the first package passed. I wouldn't be surprised if, by the time it's done, we wind up calling it the Billion Dollar Bridge.