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."

Comments

Ackthpt's Theorem

[ackthpt]

It is said: Power corrupts, while absolute power corrupts absolutely.

My theorem: The longer any party or group remains in power the closer they come to corrupt.

While some may draw a bead on Mr. Stevens and his 37 years in office. Remember pork is often a reward for having been loyal at some point. It's not simply Sen. Ted Stevens rolling up his sleeves for a reach into the Pork Barrel, but his reward for long, loyal service to his contemporaries. There's doubtless a bit of influence due to his seniority, but he's been a good soldier when his party has needed some. We can expect a lot of red faces when same bi-partisan muck-rakers get their hands on the online database and equally glib Senators and Representatives have to answer for decades of funny business which has passed beneath the radar in a long game of "I'll scratch your back, if you scratch mine."

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[cmburns69]

It is said: Power corrupts, while absolute power corrupts absolutely.

My theorem: The longer any party or group remains in power the closer they come to corrupt.

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.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Lijemo]

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.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Dan Slotman]

We can expect a lot of red faces when same bi-partisan muck-rakers get their hands on the online database

After the 2004 election, I have great faith in the voters' ability to ignore incompetence and corruption.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[DaveJay]

Quick note: in theory that might be true, but then in theory if this happened on a regular basis, everyone would concentrate EVEN MORE on getting elected, and do EVEN LESS for the people once they got in, because they'd know that re-election was unlikely if not impossible -- even if they did a good job.

The ability to be re-elected is supposed to be a check on such behavior; it is supposed to incentivize good performance by offering an extension. Unfortunately, when the majority doesn't care enough about what's being done in office to know a person's track record, that incentive isn't worth much.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[MindStalker]

As he said, "unless I've been especially happy with his performance"
Of course personally I'm most happy when they pass as few laws as possible, unless they are to reduce the governments power or unact some stupid law.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Drishmung]

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Lord Acton, Letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, 1887

cite

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[ctr2sprt]

The funny thing about that is that what most people term Pork Spending, IS doing something for the local people and businesses.

Which is the problem with pork: it does something for the local people and businesses.

The money ought to come from Alaska's state budget. I hope that's obvious. But it's a lot harder to find $223 million in a state's budget than in the fed's. Pretty much the only way Alaska could come up with that money is to increase taxes. There's no way that Alaskan taxpayers would approve a tax increase for such a stupid cause. So instead the politicians try to get the money from the fed's budget, where $223 mil is a drop in the bucket. It's essentially "free money" for a state like Alaska: of that entire sum, I'd be surprised if more than $1 mil came from Alaska due to its low population and relatively small economy.

Remember also that if all pork were eliminated, the feds could lower the income tax rate and not "lose money" (i.e. the deficit wouldn't increase). States could then institute or increase local income taxes without affecting the overall tax burden at all. The added revenues could be directed to improving schools, paying cops better wages, fixing the roads, etc. And because it's local politicians making those decisions and not Congressmen who've never even been to Alaska, the politicians can be more easily held accountable. (If a Senator from Massachusetts votes to reduce federal funding to the state of Alaska, there's absolutely nothing that Alaskan voters can do about it.)

I do get the impression that your tongue was at least partly in your cheek, but I wanted to make sure folks know why pork is bad. If you look at the list of pork projects, none of the seem bad... until you start to wonder why a taxpayer in Minnesota should have to pay to maintain local roads in Pennsylvania.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[Minwee]

On the other hand, history has shown that the majority of voters are most happy when handed small bags of (their own) money shortly before election time.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[regular_gonzalez]

An economy that won't get any bigger without investment. By the time they're done with that deal, the taxes on the McMansions alone will provide far more than the $223 mil. Which is why I say people against pork are rather shortsighted. Taking your ideas to their logical conclusion, we should give all of our money to the federal government, as it will invest it more wisely than any of us mere mortals can. Pretty ingenious idea; I wonder why it's never been tried before...

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[polymath69]

Pretty much the only way Alaska could come up with that money is to increase taxes.

On some level that's true, but is it an informed opinion? Are you aware that basically Alaska doesn't have any taxes?

In fact, Alaska gives away money to residents due to its huge oil surplus.

But they still want everybody else's money for their pork.

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[brian.glanz]

While this concept is, as moderated "interesting" in some respect, it has been controlled for in famous and fundamental experiments which to the contrary, strongly support that it is in fact power which corrupts. The Stanford Prison Experiment is certainly the most famous and instructive. For recent interpretations of this and related work, try consulting Zimbardo.

I've spent a lot of time around politicans, their staff, and their active supporters, at the national level in the U.S. Most people get into politics at this level with altruistic intentions. I am political and partisan personally, but however entirely I disagree with the other side's interpretation of the world, I respect that people on the other side are involved because they truly believe they are in the right. No, I'm serious. New Members of Congress especially come in with full heads of do-gooder steam.

It doesn't take long for most of them to compromise so much that, from the outside looking in, it would appear they have been corrupted. Some never slide all the way into vote trading, nepotistic business-as-usual, but they are in the minority and either end up as failures or highly respected successes. IOW the mainstream, beaten path in a position of power is a corrupt one.

Most people entering any path will walk right up the middle of it, even if they are natural leaders. Newton's first law: it's not only mechanics ... and power: it corrupts; when absolute, absolutely. BG

Re:Ackthpt's Theorem

[McNally]

The money ought to come from Alaska's state budget. I hope that's obvious. But it's a lot harder to find $223 million in a state's budget than in the fed's. Pretty much the only way Alaska could come up with that money is to increase taxes. There's no way that Alaskan taxpayers would approve a tax increase for such a stupid cause.

You're perfectly right that Alaskans would never consider paying for this "vital" project themselves. Heck, I live in the community where the famous "bridge to nowhere" is supposedly going to be built and I'm sure you couldn't get voters here to tax themselves to pay for 5% of the bridge construction costs. What does that mean when you don't want to pay for something even when 95% of the cost will be paid for by someone else?

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

It had to be put on hold...

[cmburns69]

Mr. Stevens put the bill on hold while waiting for the Internet sent by his staff member.

I believe he'll still be waiting when hell freezes over.

No Shit, Sherlock?

[Kadin2048]

How the heck did it take them that long? Were they working through the Senate in geographic order, from south to north?

When I first heard about this thing, my immediate thought was "it's gotta be that fuckhead from Alaska. Wait -- he couldn't possibly be that stupid, could he? ... Yeah, he could." How was he not the first person they looked into?

It's a little alarming that there might have been that many better suspects than him to investigate first. But I guess that's become the point of the Senate these days: a high-pressure hose of pork-barrel cash back to your home state. Keep the money rolling in and your head down, and you can stay there apparently forever.

Re:No Shit, Sherlock?

[MBCook]

I think it's terrible too. But reading the article something else struck me.

Doesn't it give someone entirely too much power to let a single Senator be able to block and entire bill indefinatly and anonymously? Isn't the whole point of a body like the Senate to make multiple people have to agree on something so one lone quack can't screw things up like this?

Alaskins... PLEASE tell me you are doing something about this guy.

Re:No Shit, Sherlock?

[XorNand]

Damnit. And that was at the top of my Netflix queue.

Re:No Shit, Sherlock?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't it give someone entirely too much power to let a single Senator be able to block and entire bill indefinatly and anonymously? Isn't the whole point of a body like the Senate to make multiple people have to agree on something so one lone quack can't screw things up like this?

The reason for these holds is that Senate rules require unanimous consent to put something to a vote. It's basically a way of saying "Some of us haven't made up our minds yet." Without such a rule, you'd could easily have Senators forcing votes on issues that the potential opposition hasn't had time to consider. Expect to hear something like this from Sen. Stevens.

Clearly, it is being abused in this case, but I just wanted to make it clear that these rules exist for basically good reasons.

Re:No Shit, Sherlock?

[Ksisanth]

It's a touch ironic that the secret hold issue was taken up back in March with the Wyden-Grassley amendment to prohibit secret holds (SA 2944), which passed with a Yea-Nay vote of 84-13. It was an amendment to S.2349, Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006.

Re:Scoreboard is a Little Off

[sterno]

Besides, now that we know it's him, is he lifting the hold? Sure we can shame him but my impression is that Stevens is well beyond being vulnerable to that.

Here's The Icing On The Cake

[American AC in Paris]

Now, you may ask, why would Sen. Stevens, father of the $250,000,000 "Bridge To Nowhere" , the King of Pork himself--why would this man ever want to put a hold on a bill such as this?

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.

Re:Here's The Icing On The Cake

[American AC in Paris]

You're talking about spending $233,000,000 in federeal funds to build a bridge to serve a community of 7,500 people. That's roughly $30,000 per resident. How do you justify that, especially when there's a perfectly serviceable ferry that's been in operation for ages?

Re:Here's The Icing On The Cake

[hey!]

I wonder if it might be because THE BRIDGE WILL BE CHEAPER TO RUN THAN THE FUCKING FERRY? Possibly?

Well, that would have to be the world's most expensive ferry service on a per passenger basis before that argument holds water; by several orders of magnitude.

223 million dollars is a lot of money, which would certainly pay for a lot of ferry operations many times over if invested at a normal rate of return. And that's assuming we need to give free ferry service; ferries normally charge tolls which cover their operating expenses.

If you don't believe that, consider this: The ferry in question serves 50 people, and covers one mile. It's probably a rather small and slow ferry. By way of contrast, Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority serves on the order of 160,000 residents of Martha's Vinyard and Nantucket, with routes that go from about two miles to something around twenty. This means they run very large ferries and run them frequently. The Authority's operating budget is $69 million dollars, and it serves 3,200 times the residents over many times the distance. And it pays for itself.

But in this "short-term" only country of the USofA, it's not surprising everyone's seeing the expenses up-front and not the savings down the line.

I love it when Republicans sound like deranged Democrats. Even accepting your dubious proposition, where would the Federal Government be if Uncle Sam pulled out his checkbook and funded every project on the basis that it creates long term cost savings for somebody (other than Uncle Sam)? That's the sort of thing you're supposed to fund with bonds.

As a liberal Democrat, I'm not against investing Federal money in communities in every case of course. But such investments should serve larger national purpose. This project is to benefit certain individuals, not the nation at large. And (surprise) it's not the residents of the Island. It's for the benefit of politically connected developers who want to make a buck treating the Federal budget as their personal piggybanks.

Pork and gerrymandering

[Dan Slotman]

I certainly hope it is only a matter of time before some clean politicians get voted in. Since Democrats and Republicans share blame for pork-pushing, I don't know of a solution beyond knowing about the candidates for whom you vote. Unfortunately I can't see systemic changes without an end to gerrymandering. Incumbents are the only ones benefited, hence there is no motivation to eliminate it. It seems to me that politics in the United States is becoming more of a farce each election.

Bravo!!

[$RANDOMLUSER]

I say we put Senator Stevens on double-secret probation.

My Apologies

[Ambiguous Coward]

As someone who was born in Alaska, raised in Alaska, got a degree in Alaska, and is now a professional in Alaska, I want to apologize on behalf of the state. Also, I'm sorry we vote Republican. There just aren't enough dense population centers to cause people to pull their heads out of their cousins' asses. :)

Re:smoke filled room?

[ArmyOfFun]

The smoke is not from cigarettes, I know because I toured the Capitol Building. The smoke is actually from the candles light the place. The candles produce a lot of smoke because instead of being composed primarily of wax they're made of torn pieces of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.

Re:Scoreboard is a Little Off

[Nematode]

Just to illustrate a little further where Sen. Stevens' priorities (and shame) lie, remember that this is the man who said, when the Senate voted NOT to allow drilling in ANWR earlier this year, that it was the "saddest day of his life." Remember also that his wife died in a plane crash in 1978.

Now, maybe his wife was a very nasty person, but when an 83-year old man thinks that the saddest day of his life is not getting Exxon into a wildlife preserve....

The other white meat.

[ColdWetDog]

Ted Stevens and his counterpart in the House of Representatives, Don Young, are very popular in Alaska for the very reason everyone on Slasdot is up in arms - Pork.

The Knick Arm bridge is seen as a shot in the arm for local developers and construction critters. Remember, pretty much the only economic engines in Alaska are Oil and Government. Nothing else but a bunch of trees, rocks and the occasional brown bear.

So they bring in the Pork. Christ, half of Anchorage is named Ted Stevens this or Ted Stevens that. It's a GOOD thing. Really. It's representative government at its finest....

The other way to look Mssrs. Stevens and Young is that they are pretty cheap dates. For one genuine vote in the House or Senate, you need only to bribe a couple hundred thousand people. You got the money, honey, they've got the time.

Re:The other white meat.

[SoCalChris]

I don't know, Conrad Burns has brought a lot of pork into Montana, and almost everyone I know here hates him, and can't wait to vote him out of office.

Re:The other white meat.

[Qwavel]

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.

Re:The other white meat.

[cayenne8]

"Ted Stevens and his counterpart in the House of Representatives, Don Young, are very popular in Alaska for the very reason everyone on Slasdot is up in arms - Pork."

And the only way to get rid of this, is to dry up the 'well'.

First, Let's not give the feds taxes directly!! They should have to depend fully on the states for their finances. This would not only help dry up 'pork' funds, but, might would also cut out what I find to be one of the nastiest things, having the Feds take tax dollars, then use them as blackmail over the states in order to get them to legislate laws the Feds really should have no power over. Witholding hwy funds really chaps my ass, and it is their fav. thing to do.

Lastly, the more I hear about it, maybe we need to go back to having the Senators appointed by the state's legislature rather than general elections, that would keep them more loyal to their state's interest, rather than the national political parties' interests.

Re:The other white meat.

[pikakilla]

First, Let's not give the feds taxes directly!! They should have to depend fully on the states for their finances. This would not only help dry up 'pork' funds, but, might would also cut out what I find to be one of the nastiest things, having the Feds take tax dollars, then use them as blackmail over the states in order to get them to legislate laws the Feds really should have no power over. Witholding hwy funds really chaps my ass, and it is their fav. thing to do.

Been tried before. It was called the Articles of Confederation. It turned out that (suprise suprise) no one would give any money to the federal government and that provided for an crippled central government. No money means no central military, which means no defense (state militias cannot compare to a central military, there just is not enough cohesion), which means, eventually, no country....

The whole issue of states rights has been debated throughout American history as well. In fact, we had a little tussle over it in the middle of the 19th century.

From the Wikipedia Article

[TheRaven64]

In his speech on the senate floor, Stevens threatened to quit Congress if the funds were removed from his state.

It sounds like they missed an opportunity there...

Re:Wha???

[stinerman]

http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/hold .htm

Its a quid pro quo type of "good old boy" agreement among those in the majority party.

And the best part is...

[MarkusQ]

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

Re:Wha???

[underwhelm]

A hold is an implied promise to filibuster. So when a senator places a hold on the bill, the senate generally agrees to move on rather than force the issue of an ugly, inconvenient showdown. They're then traded, logrolled, and used as bargaining chips in the legislative process.

To answer your question, it doesn't happen constantly because if it did the hold system wouldn't be an effective means of negotiations. The senate would constantly be in filibuster (if the people issuing holds follow through on their threats) and voting for cloture (to end the debate). It works because in general the senate at least wants to appear to get things done--and perhaps actually wants to get things done--and not waste a bunch of time on filibusters and attempted filibusters.

Re:Well,

[chill]

The only thing I can think of doing to remedy this situation is to move to Alaska to skew the vote, and get this guy out of office.

This will be unnecessary as Sen. Stevens is not expected to run for re-election in 2008. He is expected to retire at age 85.

Re:Scoreboard is a Little Off

[Anonymous Coward]

You've never been married, have you?

Be afraid, he's trying to get allies in WA state

[WillAffleckUW]

The Senator from Alaska is the primary funding assistance for the GOP candidate for the US Senate in WA State, too.

They're trying to sneak under the radar and pretend they're moderate, but they're not.

Secret Hold not in the Constitution

[NiteShaed]

put on 'secret hold' using a procedure that does not appear to be mentioned in the Constitution

Actually, it is, but it's a secret. It's printed on the back, in invisible ink, next to the map....

Yea for Blongers???

[DAldredge]

Twelve days ago, at a town meeting in Sallisaw, Oklahoma, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) accused Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) of obstructing his porkbuster-database bill with an anonymous hold.

That's according to an Aug. 18 article in the Fort Smith (Ark.) Times Record:

One of the senators most criticized for his personal projects, Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, has a hold of his own on Coburn's bill to make public the spending patterns of the government. Called the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, the legislation calls for the creation of a database open to the public where citizens can track government spending.

"He's the only senator blocking it," Coburn said of Stevens.

Coburn's office was not available for comment this evening.

The article has gone largely unnoticed in recent days, as hundreds of bloggers and blog-readers (at TPMm and elsewhere) have called Senate offices in an effort to determine who placed the "secret" hold on Coburn's bill. The piece does not turn up in a Nexis search, although it is in Google.

Stevens has been the odds-on favorite since the hunt for the Holder Who Dare Not Speak His Name began.

But did he really do it? Well, he had a motive: As the paper and others have noted, Stevens and Coburn have clashed before -- in particular over Stevens' now-legendary "bridge to nowhere." Coburn attempted (and failed) to block the $233 million boondoggle. And revenge certainly fits the senior Alaskan's m.o. "Stevens can play rough," the Seattle Times noted in June. "Despite denials from his staff, he retaliates - and doesn't mind waiting years to do so."

Stevens' office has so far refused to comment on the hold. Ninety-five other senators have confirmed they were not responsible.

Ok, but....

[crhylove]

Is anybody going to actually press charges and put this guy in jail? Can we PLEASE start jailing all the politicians that are breaking the constitution left and right, STARTING with every one who voted for the patriot act?

These people need to go to jail. How do we get them there?!?!

rhY

Call and politely complain

[claydoh]

I just called and asked politely that Senator Stevens remove his hold on Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. I encourage everyone to do the same.

The Honorable Ted Stevens
United States Senate
522 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224-3004
(202) 224-2354 FAX

Re:One man's Pork is another man's Job Well Done

[rgmoore]

We may all think that $223 million on a bridge to nowhere is a waste of money, but Alaska voters, the guys who keep putting Stevens back in office, think it's not an altogether horrible way to work down Alaska's federal tax deficit (more money paid in federal taxes than received in federal benefits).

That might be true if Alaska had a federal tax deficit, but they don't. According to The Tax Foundation, Alaska paid a total of about $4.1 billion in federal taxes in 2004 but received about $8.4 billion in federal spending. The only state to get a higher return on its tax dollars was New Mexico ($9.2 billion out and $19.9 back). A lot of that, of course, is precisely because Alaska's Congresscritters are so good at bringing home the pork.

He's also Mr Broadcast Flag, and Mr Web Censorship

[ntk]

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.

For Ya'all Who Don't Know Ted Stevens

[Greyfox]

Linky

More on Senatorial holds

[snowwrestler]

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.

0 to 1????

[dangitman]

I think that the author of this story's title may be somewhat ignorant of the real world. The "smoke filled room" contains people in power, who most of the time get anything they want, and can get away with crimes, murder, extortion - at the same time as having women throw themselves at their feet, and countless people to do their bidding, while swimming in pools of champagne.

On the other hand, you have bloggers. The name alone says enough about their power, prestige and effectiveness.

I'd say the scores are more like: Bloggers 1, Smoke-filled room 9,000,000,000.

Re:Scoreboard is a Little Off

[SanityInAnarchy]

I have never known a man who didn't make similar comments about his wife.

I have also never known a man who has lost his wife and didn't grieve.

Re:He's also Mr Broadcast Flag, and Mr Web Censors

[808140]

Because mandatory labeling will make it easy for companies and others to block porn sites, which porn sites do not want. We care about what porn sites want because internet companies are not beholden to any particular physical location to do business -- a porn site based in Russia reaches American consumers just as effectively as a porn site based in the US. The long term effect of porn site registration is that the big, profitable porn sites simply move their base of operations to another country -- there's already strong incentive to do this, as Americans are fairly trigger happy when it comes to pornography (is that 30 year old in pig tails really over 18? Maybe we should take you to court and find out) and smaller pornsites (with narrower profit margins) will be forced to label themselves, see their business die due to the ensuing blocks, and ultimately go out of business.

The reason we should care about this is because the porn industry is an extremely profitable industry. It employs many Americans and pays an awfully large amount of corporate tax thanks to its profitability. If labeling had the desired effect -- ease of censorship -- it would quickly become financially viable to simply move operations elsewhere to avoid the situation. This would be bad for the American economy. Let's face it, porn on the internet isn't going anywhere -- all this sort of thing does is hurts Americans, it doesn't help stop porn (because, after all, all those Russian porn sites with real lolitas aren't going to be affected by this labeling scheme.)

End result: foreign porn prospers, American porn dies, Americans lose jobs, government loses taxes, and ends up raising income taxes to compensate (or sells more debt to the Chinese, which is probably not good either.)

And our ability to find porn is not improved -- because a) finding porn is already easy now and b) what's to stop a morally minded ISP owner from blocking labeled porn sites router-level?

All in all, a stupid idea. Just like the .xxx domain was (is this the same idea?)

Progress by Repealing Stupidity 2006!

[Myself]

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.

Re:Progress by Repealing Stupidity 2006!

[Nefarious Wheel]

I've been tossing around the idea that, one month every year, legislators should work on repealing stupid old laws

Another R.A.Heinlein idea independently arrived, heh .. his idea was to form a third house of Congress whose job was simply to repeal laws.

Re:Progress by Repealing Stupidity 2006!

[Agripa]

Since there is no upper bound on the complexity of existing law, create one by adding an ammendment specifying that all federal laws expire after a certain amount of time. Nothing would preclude congress from passing them again but this would create pressure to work on what they believe is truely important.

NCTA = Phone Cos. = Stevens' Backrub service

[Bushido Hacks]

The NCTA sent out a message this evening stating that Net Neutraility is "bad for consumers". They expect us to believe that Google and Yahoo are the bad guys. That Silicon Valley is home to "multimillion dollar internet companies". How about a REALITY CHECK. Here's all the information from the NCTA that is demonizing Google.

What does "network neutrality" mean?
That answer is difficult because each stakeholder assigns it a different meaning. Cable's viewpoint is that network neutrality means that consumers should be allowed to access any lawful content, application or services available over the public Internet as well as attach devices that do not cause harm to the network.

This coming from an industry that calls computer hacking a crime, but does not mind if the people at Comcast or Adelphia abandon their customers or when Time Warner Cable blocks out TV networks distributed by Disney. If it were up to me, I would let the people in Silicon Valley be in charge of the Internet, because they actually know how the internet works.

The NCTA does not want Net Neutrality, not because they want to abondon their customers, it is because they don't want to maintain or upgrade their equipment. They are in the business of cutting costs at the consumer level while the men in the smoke filled rooms make a profit. The Cable Industry had me on their side when they were opposed to the phone companies monopolizing competition. Now they have become the phone companies. They are now sending messages to their customers telling them that customers will lose service if they do not oppose net neutrality. What are they going to do next? Tell us to vote Republican or we loose HBO?

AT&T is already cutting back services on DSL customers while their security is compromized. Yet, immediately following the news story about how 19,000 IDs were compromized on the AM radio, there is a commerical for AT&T promoting an offer!

The NCTA, the major Telecoms, and Mr. Stevens do not know the the consequences of their actions. They don't listen to Boole, Babbage, or Tesla, they listen to Washing, Lincoln, Hamlton, Jackson, Grant, and Franklin.

It is this ideology that only capitalism should be the deciding factor of any technological or scientific decision that will create significant anarchy if Net Neutrality is disregaurded.

After all these year, the facade that "Cable Cares" or "Cable is a community leader that does good things" has just eroded!

Contact the National Cable & Telecommunications Association at (202) 775-3550 and tell them that threatening us with bad service is no way to run an industry.

Then give Senator Ted Stevens a call (202) 224-3004

Re:Seeber's Theorem

[808140]

Wow dude, you really need to read an economics textbook. I'm not saying that to be cheeky or insulting, but what you're suggesting would destroy the US. First off, "full employment" is an economic term that does not mean "100% of all people employed." This may seem weasily to you at first, but the reason is simple: due to frictional unemployment, it is not possible to have sustainable 100% employment (or even 100% employment at all, probably) in an economy which depends on the market to assign jobs. 100% employment is possible in a planned economy, but the US isn't a planned economy.

In case you're not aware, frictional unemployment refers to unemployment that is the result of "shopping around." When you look for a job, you typically have several leads but unless you're absolutely desperate for income, you're unlikely to take the first job offered to you -- you'll look around, see what else is available, see if there's anything better. On the other side of the fence, employers do the same thing: they don't take the first job applicant that responds, but instead shop around for a while to see who the best applicant is. How long this process lasts depends on how badly the worker needs a job and how badly the employer needs an employee. Frictional unemployment is not the only kind of unemployment. Obviously, you can have unemployment as a result of structural changes in the economy (buggy whip manufacturers, for example, had a needless skillset after the rise of the automobile, and were thus structurally unemployed) and unemployment due to overall poor economic conditions, but it is important to recognize that even if everything is completely hunky-dory in the economy and there is a job for everyone, there will still be a certain amount of frictional unemployment.

The result is that 100% employment is not an achievable goal, so instead economists talk about full employment as meaning the full natural rate of employment, not including people who are frictionally unemployed. I believe full employment in the US is estimated to be around 95% of the labour force.

Of course, 95% of the population is not employed, but it's important again to realise that a large percentage of the population is not considered part of the labour force by economists. People in the labour force include people working and people looking for work -- something like only 60% of the US is employed at any given time, but that's because there are lots of children, old people, students, bums, and other folks that for whatever reason are not actively seeking employment. They are not considered "unemployed" by economists because they are not participating in the labour market.

Further, consider that the Fed is helpless to do anything at all about structural unemployment, which results when the structure of the economy changes and results in people being unemployed because their skillset is no longer required by the labour market (the aforementioned buggy whip manufacturers lost their jobs for this reason.) Structural unemployment is a reality in a dynamic economy -- those VAX/VMS experts are out of a job these days, unless they learned some other, more marketable skill in the meantime. The Fed is helpless to stop this, so when they talk about bringing about full employment, you have to be fair and recognize that there are some kinds of employment they can't do anything about, nor should they be expected to.

What they can help with is cyclical unemployment, at least theoretically. Cyclical unemployment is a result of the natural recession-boom-peak-bust cycle: during a recession, people lose their jobs. The fed can temper how eratic the business cycle is with countercyclic monetary policy. When we enter a recession, the fed generally buys US treasury securities on the open market, and when we enter a boom, they sell them. This stimulates the economy during a recession and tempers it during a boom (because when the fed "buys" something, it creates money out of thin a

Boomerang time.

[Chibi Merrow]

The Judicial branch is freed from that nuisance and can focus on doing what the Constitution mandates, not what the people consider fashionable.

Or they can do whatever they feel like because, really, who's going to stop them?

Keep in mind that without the Judicial branch, we'd still have segregated schools.

Keep in mind that without the Judicial Branch we wouldn't have had a Federal rubber stamp on the practice of segregated schools for about 80 years.

Things like "legislating from the bench" are exactly what allow the Constitutionally "right" thing to overrule the popular thing.

Dredd Scott

Plessy vs. Ferguson

That's my definition of "legislating from the bench". "Legislating from the bench" is by definition not "constitutionally right", as if you could find it in the Constitution you wouldn't have to make it up by "legislating from the bench" in the first place. "Legislating from the bench" gives us "slaves as property", "seperate but equal", and "tax revenue == public good" (ala Kelo).

I think you need to check yourself on this.

Prohibition of a federal army

[JimBobJoe]

No money means no central military, which means no defense (state militias cannot compare to a central military, there just is not enough cohesion), which means, eventually, no country

The US Constitution has a prohibition on funding an army for more than two years. ("Congress may tax...To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;" Article 1, Section 8.)

The Founders had no intention of there being a permanent central military, and indeed, there really wasn't one until the latter part of the 19th century (how they get around what is clearly a pretty clear prohibition is a bit mysterious to me.) Our system of national defense was always supposed to be through the independent state militians (however, that same section does allow for Congress to set up the rules for "organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States" which implies a way of standardizing them for the time when they need to be combined into a federal army.)

A navy, on the other hand, was permitted to be permanent.

Re:OT

[VirusEqualsVeryYes]

I thought it had something to do with the phrase "smoke and mirrors" which refers to a magician's attempt to hide the secret of his tricks. Apparently not, says Wikipedia:

A smoke-filled room is a term used in the United States to describe a gathering of minds secluded from the general public, often insinuating that the majority of people in the room is comprised of old, white males smoking cigars.

Thanks for asking, I learned something today.

Best said...

[Z34107]

Alexis de Tocqueville said it best, at the time of Our Great Country's inception:

The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.