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

[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

[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.

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.

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