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

CAGW once ran a hit piece on me

[touretzky]

Citizens Against Government Waste once ran a hit piece on me, prompted by the Church of Scientology. (What I don't know is whether the Scientologists actually paid them cash to do it, or merely supplied the material.) They ran this piece without ever attempting to contact me or Carnegie Mellon University to verify their facts, or ask for a comment. They also didn't have the guts to post the URL for the web site they were complaining about, which concerned the Sherman Austin free speech case. As far as I can tell,they're just a bunch of clowns pretending to guard the people's interests while cynically pursuing their own -- much like the rest of Washington.

Re:Citizens Against Govt Waste

[Anonymous Coward]

They're a bunch of damn whores, IMHO. Don't get me wrong--I actually think that they might even believe in this stuff ("it's wasteful for the government to save money! open source is communism!!!"), but I have absolutely nothing but contempt for CAGW. Their ideas about what's "wasteful" range from sensible things to outright lunacy.

And I say this as a lifelong registered Republican.

They're nothing but a bunch of kooks who spout Libertarian-esque crap, but in reality care more about money than people. Which is, of course, one of the big reasons I'm unhappy with the party right now.

Are They Really *Evil*?

[Doc Ruby]

Abramoff's other business with Dennis Hastert (R-IL) included a child slavery industry in Saipan, the Northern Marianas Islands US territory (near the Phillipines). Sex slavery and manufacturing slavery (child and adult). Hastert was simultaneously covering up for Mark Foley (R-FL) while Foley was molesting House pages. Interestingly, ABC News' Brian Ross broke both stories, but hasn't yet connected them.

Abramoff raised money to elect Republicans, Hastert controlled those House Republicans (and through their majority, the House). Together they made laws for the past 6+ years.

Now they're revealed to be in league to suppress open source. Are these Republicans really evil, or does it just require corrupt politicians to give evildoers the advantage they need to win? Is there a difference?

Abramoff a real piece of work

[Anonymous Coward]

I recently watched this Moyers special on pbs about Abramoff and DeLay. Definitely worth a viewing.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/capitol/ index.html

Re:Vote the bums out

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Only 3 out of every 100 American workers currently belongs to a union- and companies like Wal*Mart work very hard to close any retail store that tries to form one. So that is not an adequate answer.

Re:Absolute Power

[Pig Hogger]

Publically financed elections would save lots of money. Politicians would have to convince the voters to vote for them by words and actions instead of their fund-raising prowess. They would no longer be indebted to big money interests, but to each voter equally. They would not have to spend half their lives chasing the big money and instead could spend it talking to and working for their constituents.

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

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

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

Canada always have had 3 parties (conservatives, liberals, new-democrats [labour]), which makes for a more balanced parliament, even more so for the last 2-3 years where minority governments have been elected.

Re:Absolute Power

[lawpoop]

"There are also talks of absolutely prohibiting croporate political donations,"

There may be talk, but for decades now, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that corporations are legal persons, and enjoy all the constitutional protections afforded to persons. So, if we ever passed a law that forbade corporate political donations, the Supreme Court would strike it down as unconstitutional. And corporations would certainly bring it all the way up to the Supreme Court.

The only way to fix this clusterfack is a constitutional amendment removing corporations' personhood.

Re:Absolute Power

[Shotgun]

But we have a Constitution that says a rich man can spend his money to say anything he likes.

My solution is to get away from trying to eliminate free speech, and start trying to promote it. The citizens still own the airwaves. Appoint a date each year in which all broadcasters must transmit the "Official Debates". Everyone on the ballot will be invited, though not required to participate. Each candidate will be allowed to enter a question(s) for the debate, and everyone in the debate will be given equal time to answer ("I choose not to answer" being a valid answer).

Now, voters can decide to listen to the "Official Debates" and hear from all the candidates, and all the issues (people will run independant just to raise issues, which I believe to be a valid endeavor). Or they can listen to the idiotic commercials. I believe only half the people are of below average intelligence.