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

Re:Jews?

[jd]

Took me a bit aback, too. Neoconservatism is heavily tied up with nationalists, supremecists and certain right-wing Christian sects, but historically the Jews' greatest enemy has been the conservatives. ("Passion of the Christ" was not what I would call the most pro-semitic movie ever made, yet was not only made by neocons, but neocon churches were almost the entire audience. I'll avoid mentioning Bush's grandfather and how that affected the Jews of Europe.) Sure, they fund Israel, but so do the Democrats. And if the Jews were in such coherts with the neocons, why did they have agents in the DoD to covertly manipulate neocon policy? They'd have just asked. The fact that they felt they couldn't is all the proof I need that no conspiracy exists in any meaningful sense. Sure, there are bound to be neocons who work with Jews and vice versa. There are neocons who work with astrologers (Ronnie Reagan) - does that mean there's a huge conspiracy between the White House and the Psychic Hotline? (And if so, who could have forseen it?)

Interest groups are part and parcel of democracy, but they need to be a carefully regulated part. Cash for questions, cash for policies, cash for any damn thing that is designed to pervert the system should be 100+ years behind bars, with no possibility of parole. Why so severe? Because everything - including the legal system - is ultimately in the hands of whoever has the money to buy power. Democracy doesn't function - at all - if you can game the system. It is dependent utterly on the premise that all are represented (directly or indirectly) equally and without prejudice. Otherwise you're no better off than you would be with a theocracy, meritocracy, ogliarchy, monarchy or some other system in which a pre-selected group (usually a minority) hold absolute sway over everyone else. If a self-selecting group naturally holds power, then elections are a drain on time and money. We'd be better off without them. If, however, you hold that elections serve a function beyond amusement value, then it would be a contradiction to assert any form of advocacy which essentially renders those elections into mere jokes.

I like the House of Commons system where ANYONE can see their representative pretty much on demand. That allows all viewpoints to be heard. In the US, why should a politician bother to see a client who isn't willing to hand over a few million in gifts? (Preferably in a hard-to-trace form, though donations to keep them in power seem to be acceptable too.) I have no opposition to advocacy groups, but they should get equal hearing and wield equal influence. Decisions should be based on the needs of the country, which advocacy groups can identify, not on the needs of one specific advocacy group.