Open Source Foes In Bed With Abramoff

Will Rodger writes, "Citizens Against Government Waste has said some highly critical things about open source software in the past. They've also pounced on supporters of the OpenDocument Format along the way. Alas, it seems their close ties to Jack Abramoff have drawn the (unfavorable) attention of Senate staff."

Comments

Vote the bums out

[BWJones]

"What is most important, however, is that this matter is kept discreet," Abramoff wrote to a colleague at the Preston, Gates & Ellis law firm. "We do not want the opponents to think that we are trying to buy the taxpayer movement."

This comment is perhaps the most telling in that it shows that Abramoff *knew* what he was doing was wrong and that this would not even pass the sniff test.

The groups are Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform; the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, which was co-founded by Norquist and Gale Norton before she became Secretary of the Interior; Citizens Against Government Waste; the National Center for Public Policy Research, which was a spinoff of the Heritage Foundation; and Toward Tradition, a religious group founded by Abramoff friend Rabbi Daniel Lapin.

This is the sort of incestuous behavior that the current Republican and NeoCon administration encourages. Of course the whako left is not immune from this sort of behavior either, but it seems to have reached a new high in the current political climate. So, regardless of your political leanings, please recognize that this is not the way to run a democratic (small "d") government and now is the time to clean house in next months elections. I'd love to see a complete overhaul of all sitting candidates in favor for new blood, Democrat *and* Republican who can hopefully work together in a more non-partisan way to actually do something rather than continuously position and campaign.

As an aside: How many days a week are our representatives and senators actually on the job in DC? What is their work week like? Anybody here know?

Re:Vote the bums out

[illegalcortex]

Just because you don't agree with the JEWS (that's what you mean by neocon, right - you totally give yourself away there)

Speaking only for myself, I have heard and used the term for quite some time before I'd ever heard the whole jewish conspiracy angle. So there's at least ONE person out there who says neocon not because they're anti-semitic, but because they need some term to distinguish between old style conservatives and new style conservatives. I think such a term is needed, as I agree on many points with old style conservatives, but far fewer with the current incarnation.

Re:Vote the bums out

[Rei]

Well, I'll put it this way: when my uncle was in the US House, he was busy nonstop. I lived at his house during that time, and he made it home (to his new home which he had just built before he was elected, and which he loves) for 1-2 evenings a month. The rest of the time he was in a little apartment in DC or other places in work-related travel. He worked on things related to his job almost nonstop. Late in his term, he had a heart attack. His doctor gave him a choice: cut down on the stress, or die early. He didn't run again.

Also, I should add that you're stereotyping of all politicians as being the same is pretty silly and unjustified. It's hard for most people to realize that these are people -- all with their own individual beliefs, opinions, principles, and moral convictions.

Talking about trying to get people to get more accomplished is contrary the very design of our government, which tries to slow down legislative action. You don't *want* laws too change too quickly, or a short-term shift in the balance of power can lead to long-lasting negative rammifications. And, contrary to popular belief, "compromises" are not necessarily better than *either* side, let alone the particular side that one chooses to believe in. Should the north have "compromised" on the issue of slavery -- "Well, you can keep them as slaves, but they get days off"? Should we have compromised on ending Vietnam -- "Well, we'll take *half* of our troops and equipment from Vietnam"? Of course not.

People stick to their moral viewpoints because they believe that they're right and a compromise is bad. When they think that a compromise is in the best interests of the nation, they work toward it. It all depends on the situation.

Talking about trying to get people to get more accomplished is contrary the very design of our government, which tries to slow down legislative action. You don't *want* laws too change too quickly, or a short-term shift in the balance of power can lead to long-lasting negative rammifications. And, contrary to popular belief, "compromises" are not necessarily better than *either* side, let alone the particular side that one chooses to believe in. Should the north have "compromised" on the issue of slavery -- "Well, you can keep them as slaves, but they get days off."? Should we have compromised on ending Vietnam -- "Well, we'll take *half* of our troops and equipment from Vietnam."? Of course not.

People stick to their moral viewpoints because they believe that they're right and a compromise will work out poorly. When they think that a compromise is in the best interests of the nation, they work toward it. It all depends on the situation.

Re:Vote the bums out

[Marxist Hacker 42]

This is totally Democratic. There are thousands of organizations in DC representing all stripes of citizenry. They work to get people who agree with them elected and then work to help direct that policy after the elections.

Ok, so who is representing the guy who lives paycheck to paycheck and would be homeless (along with his wife and children) if his job got outsourced? I don't know of a single lobbyist who works for free, do you?

Re:Vote the bums out

[7Prime]

Bi-partisian-ism, is as bad for people as are oil companies who collaborate to fix gas prices. One of the basic principals of capatalism is that any system works best if all parties (be it corporate or political) are under the pressure of competition, and even better if that competition is fairly even, so that all parties are constantly having to look over their shoulder. What we have now is a bloated government caused by a severe imbalance of power, a political monopoly, of sorts, by the extreme right. Just as bad as a monopoly, however, is the consistant agreement between parties. Way too much blood has already been spilt under the cliched and dubious banner of "bipartisanship". No, what we need are strong leaders who will fight for their convictions, but who are willing to play by the rules set by the US consitution. THAT'S how a good system works. Some of the most prosperous periods in US history were caused by a balance of power... the 90's being one of them. Both Clinton and the Congress were at their best when they were at odds with each other... that was a fine example of our system of checks and balances in operation.

The term "bipartisan" is simply a catch phrase, used, usually by the far right, as a way of trying to move the public perception of the "center" over to their side. It's a Rovian tactic, it's anti-capitalist, it's tacky, and most of all, it's not even an idea that we really want. What we need is compromise under the pressure of heated debate... NOT Bipartisanship.

Re:Vote the bums out

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Of course, my point is that as long as money is considered free speech, it doesn't matter who is in power- those who are rich will be able to afford lobbyists, those who are middle class or poor won't; and union dues don't change that. Neither does voting- Democrats and Republicans are purchased just about equally- all choices on the ballot have been bought and paid for.

Re:Vote the bums out

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Parent should be modded up- this is the way things are supposed to work.

However, I don't know how long ago your uncle served in the US House, but the events of the last 15 years, particularily the last 5, have basically proven to me that if anybody is in Congress due to their conscience they made it there because their conscience conviently fits in with the multinational corporate cabal that pays for our campaigns through lobbyists.

Re:Vote the bums out

[oohshiny]

NeoCon actually has a very old etymology going back to around 1921

The fact that the term was used first in 1921 doesn't tell you anything about what it means today. Today, it's a useful, descriptive term that is used both by conservatives and by their opponents. Whatever political baggage it has today has been created by the neo-conservatives and their heritage from Reagan onwards.

and has no basis other than political.

Yes, indeed: we're using political terminology to describe political concepts.

But you apparently subscribe to the typical neo-conservative view that "we're right, and everybody else is wrong and trying to get in our way with politics".

Re:Vote the bums out

[sheldon]

Neocon doesn't mean Jew.

Re:Vote the bums out

[Marxist Hacker 42]

So what you're saying is that most choices can't be broken down simply to two different solutions?

No, what I'm saying is that we're really only presented with ONE solution for any given problem- vote in the guy who was bought and paid for by the corporations. It doesn't matter what party you vote for, the option is still the same.

Welcome to pretty much every democracy outside of the USA :)

If we had more than one solution, it would be welcome to DEMOCRACY.

Citizens Against Govt Waste

[ackthpt]

I've often wondered about this group. They remind me of something my college accounting prof. warned us about. (He's a CMA-Certified Management Accountant, outside the classroom.) Bean counters should never be put in charge of a business, long-term. They tend to focus too much on the money aspect rather than if the long-term is better served by a few extra expenses, e.g. getting a tetanus shot for $ rather than fighting the disease later for $$$$$.

CAGW has struck me as being too pennywise in the past. Not that they haven't had some good points, but their focus is often too narrow.

Looks like this kind of irony is something they could use, if they chose to, as a learning experience.

Re:Citizens Against Govt Waste

[Mateo_LeFou]

I don't know if "kooks" is quite fair, but they do seem to rail about inflammatory issues, rather than issues that really affect the national economy.

example: I did the math, and I think "pork barrel" spending amounted to about 1% of the national budget ($23B of 2 or so trillion). Pork is bad on principle, of course, but if you think that's the biggest waste in America's federal budget you're just parroting something you heard on talk radio.

Told 'ya so! I wrote about this half a year ago.

[Bruce Perens]

In my Open Source State of the Union given at the Boston LinuxWorld Expo, on April 5, I mentioned the Abramoff connection. It's interesting to see more documentation.

Bruce

Re:..and the sheeple will follow the next batch

[Deagol]

I love how people like you seem believe that only THIS batch of politicians is bad and if we change for others, it will change.

To concentration of power in the same boys' club is the problem. Turn things upside-down, and mix things up a little -- like the whole Tower of Babel thing.

The new blood in the House and Senate may very well be as potentially corrupt (some day) as the current batch of incumbants. However, the incumbants (many have been around for seemingly forever -- see my Utah's Orrin Hatch as an example) have spent years acquiring power and connections.

Throwing out the baby with the bath water this election would bring the government to a screeching halt, which is just what we need.

My voting philosophy in 2004 was: 1) Vote 3rd party if there is such a candidate; 2) Vote Democrat if between Democrat vs Republican; 3) If between candidates of the same party, vote out the incumbant. I'll do the same this election

Re:Abramoff also in bed with software patent troll

[fermion]

My concern here is that we are getting away from judging this man based on his terrorist type behavior, that of subversion of the democratic process, and instead judging him based on the fact that his clients are people that many would tend not to agree with. This is clearly not a useful direction. I don't care is Abramoff was working to fund a guaranteed cure for cancer. The ends does not justify the means, and subversion of legitimate democratic processes are never acceptable.

Let's be clear here. To me the issue is not that he was working with patent mongers, or war mongers, or closed source fundamentalists, or that he worked with the devil incarnate Rove. The issue is that we are allowed our democracy to be subverted by fear, greed, and ignorance, and all we can do it sit back and watch our little tv, and go to our little pro government rallies, and uncritically consume the propaganda that is fed to us by whatever political machine is our favorite. Would we be having this conversation if Abromoff were best friends with RMS?

Re:Absolute Power

[Rayonic]

In Canada, political parties receive money according to the number of votes they received at the last election.

So it supports the incumbent party the most, is what you're saying. Sadly, that's what most "clean election" laws end up doing.

During elections, only political parties can run advertising, and each advertisement, down to each poster and pamhplet has to be accounted for.

Another good one, it means groups like labor unions, the ACLU, and the NRA can't run issue-specific ads. This is especially bad since there are often other law-related measures on the ballot other than who gets elected.

There are also talks of absolutely prohibiting croporate political donations, like it has been the case in Québec for nearly 30 years.

Sounds good on the surface, but individual executives and shareholders can still donate big bucks (and get around donation limit laws).