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

[ScrewMaster]

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.

To quote Lewis Black: "The only thing stupider than a Republican or a Democrat is when these little pricks work together."

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.

All of them?

[Mendak Jemuna]

All of them?

Must be a big bed.

Re:All of them?

[Tackhead]

> All of them?
>
>Must be a big bed.

It went well until everyone decided to do introductions and handshakes.

"Foley, Jack Abramoff."

Then things got weird.

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.

More info about what exactly they said...

[KingSkippus]

If you're like me, you're probably wondering, "The who said what about what?"

Wikipedia to the rescue.

Read on past the Linux stuff. This is the same group that took money from Phillip Morris and then (can you imagine?) complained that the Department of Health and Human Services report on the dangers of smokeless tobacco was a waste of taxpayer money. Go figure.

Abramoff also in bed with software patent trolls

[linefeed0]

This is a repost of a comment I have made previously, but I think the connection is important. Jack Abramoff took money to lobby on behalf of a company, eLottery, whose business model basically depends on software and business method patents in order to raise the cash they need to spend on lobbyists. Without the patents, there would at best be a trade association for such companies in a competitive market, probably more open in its dealings with government as well.

An article several months ago in the Washington Post described more about how Jack Abramoff took money to influence congressional proceedings. In this case, it was to scuttle a bill that would have prohibited state lotteries from going online. As with his work with Indian casinos, Abramoff pulled strings to get otherwise anti-gambling members of Congress to vote against a law prohibiting companies like eLottery from conducting lotteries over the Internet.

Oh, did I say "companies like"? Oops, no, just eLottery. They seem to have some patents "broadly covering Internet retailing of state lottery tickets". In other words, software patents, or actually business model patents (legalized monopolies) disguised as them. Of course, those patents let them raise capital from investors eager to profit from that legalized monopoly. Where did that capital go? Right into lobbyists' pockets.

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.

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

Jack Abramoff?

[Shishberg]

Who's Abram?

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?

Corrupted Windows Filing System

[Doc Ruby]

'"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."'

Preston Gates & Ellis: 'The "Gates" in the firm's name is William H. Gates, Sr., father of Microsoft founder Bill Gates.'

Abramoff's gang of Republicans took control of the entire elected government in 2001.

"The DOJ, now under the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush, announced on September 6, 2001 that it was no longer seeking to break up Microsoft and would instead seek a lesser antitrust penalty."