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

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.

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: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: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.

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?