US Senate & House Create YouTube Channels

eldavojohn writes "Following an election in which online videos played an important role, the United States House of Representatives and United States Senate have opened YouTube channels (or 'hubs') advertised to be a 'backstage pass to your government.' Ideally this will bring transparency to citizens and inform them of their senators' & representatives' positions and ideas."

Comments

oh goodie

[Zashi]

This we be watched as much as c-span! ....
>_

Re:oh goodie

[betterunixthanunix]

Which is unfortunate but true. Most people do not care about their government.

Even more unfortunate is that I cannot download these videos, at least not without violating the TOS, and so I cannot store my own copies of those proceedings.

Re:oh goodie

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is a nice human interest video from Pelosi:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wtOW1CxHvNY

Re:oh goodie

[Aerynlore]

I think the biggest problem is more with a lack of time then a lack of caring. While apathy is a huge problem, who has time to sit at work and watch YouTube (or CSPAN) video all day? Hell, most of the Congress speeches are already written, rehearsed and recorded before they even step on the floor. They even have the press releases out the day before. How many times have you seen "Senior Senate from a state to deliver speech on [topic de jeur] tomorrow."
So little is actually a surprise inside the chambers that there is no actual reason to watch this crap, on TV or online.

Re:oh goodie

[jellomizer]

Cspan and this is not meant to be popular. But government transparency. So you know there is a bill on something you feel strong about you can watch the debate, see who is for it who is against it. And not just go those damn republicans or damn democrats. But see who of those voted where, and if the opposition actually gave a good reason or not.

I doubt everyone will watch it like a TV show, but if something you feel important then you just may watch it.

Re:oh goodie

[Tdawgless]

Some people care about parts of our government. CSPAN doesn't get watched because you have to watch all the parts you don't care about just to get to the parts you do care about. At least now, I can search the videos for the stuff I care about. Like legalizing retroactive abortion...

Re:oh goodie

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is a nice human interest video from Pelosi: http://youtube.com/watch?v=wtOW1CxHvNY

That one's good but even better is this video on equal rights for women from Senator John:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfLAv3JHRwY

Re:oh goodie

[alvinrod]

Why let something as silly as a little TOS stop you, when it's so utterly pointless and stupid given the ease of acquiring a copy of the video. No one is going to begrudge you for trying to be a better citizen. Except for the politicians perhaps.

For those curious about how to download videos from youtube, this site will give you an easy method of doing so.

Re:oh goodie

[LordKronos]

OMG. I wish I had mod points. I thought that was fake (somebody just pretending to be Pelosi), but there it is linked from the House's YouTube channel, so it's legit (unless the account was hacked). Kudos to her for that video.

Re:oh goodie

[jellomizer]

Part of the reason for the United Stated Democratic-Republic. Is the fact that most people don't have time for full involvement in the government. While network neutrality may be a big issue for you for others they will take it or leave it. As for all the stuff that goes on.
What I find more annoying is the people who we hire to take care of our government is not there to vote for every bill that goes across, and it is widely accepted that they don't.

Re:oh goodie

[Tubal-Cain]

Or you can copy it from your /tmp/ folder. Or your ~/.mozilla/firefox/randomgibberishhere.default/Cache/ folder.
Although your link notes that his method yeilds a higher-quality video than coping from cache.

Re:oh goodie

[nwssa]

Cosmo Kramer used to watch Canadian Parliament on C-Span

Re:oh goodie

[causality]

Part of the reason for the United Stated Democratic-Republic. Is the fact that most people don't have time for full involvement in the government. While network neutrality may be a big issue for you for others they will take it or leave it. As for all the stuff that goes on. What I find more annoying is the people who we hire to take care of our government is not there to vote for every bill that goes across, and it is widely accepted that they don't.

What bothers me is that in Congress, the senators and representatives routinely vote on bills that they have not even read. They rely far too heavily on their staff to process and condense this information for them, which is flawed because we voted for and elected the representative, not his assistant.

Not only do I think they should be required to read every bill on which they vote, I also think that each year they should be forced to copy down the entire tax code, by hand, before they are allowed to take any other action (I wish I could remember where I heard this idea). When that proves impossible perhaps we would see some improvements to the way things are done.

Re:oh goodie

[kandela]

I think your being pessimistic. I'm sure the videos will generate many comments.

Re:oh goodie

[Hadlock]

Yeah but when watching C-Span for the most part it's live house/senate coverage; you might watch for a week straight and never see your elected rep on camera. Super, ultra-mega boring. This allows you to keep an eye on your elected official and review if what he says is in line with your views or not, as opposed to what he says on the campaign trail. Plus, unlike the Obama videos, you can comment on them, so you can see what others are saying about him.

Re:oh goodie

[FredFredrickson]

I also think that each year they should be forced to copy down the entire tax code, by hand, before they are allowed to take any other action (I wish I could remember where I heard this idea). When that proves impossible perhaps we would see some improvements to the way things are done.

The first improvement would be removing the "Write the tax code by hand" requirement.

Re:oh goodie

[Austerity Empowers]

Which is unfortunate but true. Most people do not care about their government.

A slight exaggeration. We care, but we cannot follow along with it all day long, down to detailed minutia and throwing Filibuster Parties, complete with chips and dip. This ignores what they do when not in session, where the real wheeling and dealing is done. Everyone has an important part to contribute to society, for us, it's our day jobs. We need to supervise the government and ensure that the right trade-offs are being made.

We do rely on media agencies to pay detailed attention to the government, and boil it down in small chunks in an unbiased way. Unfortunately that doesn't happen...what coverage exists always seems to be around hot button issues. It's very difficult to follow the breadcrumbs to figure out what actually is happening...although we generally can know with some precision who Britney Spears is having sex with at any given moment in time.

So insofar as your statement is true, it's because viewers may have more curiosity in Britney's love life than in our senators. That doesn't mean we don't care about our senators or what they're up to. Someone has boiled coverage down to an "either or" scenario.

Re:oh goodie

[Anonymous Coward]

What I believe would be a good idea would be a mandatory maximum lifetime for any law. Say 10 years max. After that, if they are not reinstated, they fall away. Problem being is nobody would agree on a lifetime, nor would that want to let any not that important laws go away. Spending too much time keeping up with all the laws etc when it should be getting easier.

Re:oh goodie

[MeisterVT]

Excellent, now we can watch Sen. Robert Byrd sleep through votes. It scares me when the guy stops moving that long.

,

Seriously though, if you actually know who your Senators and Representative are you can see how they act, if they even show up for votes, or how they conduct themselves in session. At least they are finally trying to catch up with the rest of the country on technology.

Re:oh goodie

[deraj123]

I had assumed it means that, 20 years down the line, when we realize a fetus should have been aborted, we can take necessary steps to do it "retroactively".

Re:oh goodie

[Zonk (troll)]

Some people care about parts of our government. CSPAN doesn't get watched because you have to watch all the parts you don't care about just to get to the parts you do care about.

At least now, I can search the videos for the stuff I care about. Like legalizing retroactive abortion...

Yep. CSPAN gets extremely boring. That's why I'm glad there are sites like CSPAN Junkie.

Re:oh goodie

[MeisterVT]

Why let something as silly as a little TOS stop you, when it's so utterly pointless and stupid given the ease of acquiring a copy of the video. No one is going to begrudge you for trying to be a better citizen. Except for the politicians perhaps.

Since the politicians write the laws it could be of concern. Of course it could also be one of the first times some politicians had ever really paid attention to what is included in a TOS, for good or bad.

Re:oh goodie

[Shakrai]

The first improvement would be removing the "Write the tax code by hand" requirement.

Why? Maybe it would give them an idea of just how ridicious the tax code really is. According to this the Federal tax code consists of 3.7 million words. By contrast, all seven Harry Potter novels only clock in at around 1.1 million words.

What's wrong with that picture? It really requires that much complexity to fund the Federal Government?

Re:oh goodie

[nschubach]

I've always thought it would be a good idea to build up a website that listed a bill summary and allow people to vote themselves on the site and it matched them up with politicians with the similar voting records. It really wouldn't take a long time for people to log in, read a summary and vote and they could even read the full bill if they wanted. If the system was robust enough, you could send people an email with the summary and a link they can click on to vote yes or no. Most people sit down and read through email on a regular basis now and clicking a link in an email to vote wouldn't be too bad I don't think.

The only thing that would concern me is earmarked bills. So, I'd first want to see the ability to earmark removed.

You couldn't really use it for popularity polling since there would be no real good way to enforce sign up of only registered citizens (unless it was government run and required a Social Security number?)

Re:oh goodie

[FiloEleven]

There is a bill being aggressively pushed by DownsizeDC, the Read The Bills Act, which requires not just that the congressmen read the bill, but requires each bill to be read aloud in session before it can be voted on. This ensures that all congressmen voting on the bill will have heard its text, and it will also do a lot to cut the size of these monstrosities.

In addition, the bill must be posted online 7 days in advance, and no changes may be made without resetting that 7-day period, ensuring that the public can see and react to exactly what will be passed.

Everyone whose heard of this thing (and is not in the political class) is for it, and there's been enough pressure that the House Minority Leader requested the 7-day full-text posting of Obama's stimulus package. It's a great step, and it shows that the pressure from the electorate's phone calls and messages is working, but there's no reason that it should only be applied to a single bill.

The other bill they're pushing for, which I'll mention here because it also represents another process to improve our quality of legislation, is the One Subject at a Time Act. It's pretty self-explanatory, and would end the use of "riders" - sneaking unpopular chunks of legislation (or pork) into other popular or necessary bills.

If you want to see these changes made, one of the best things you can do is to raise awareness of these bills, call your congressmen, and convince your friends and family to do the same.

Re:oh goodie

[Hatta]

Because TOS violations are federal crimes now.

Re:oh goodie

[causality]

What bothers me is that in Congress, the senators and representatives routinely vote on bills that they have not even read. They rely far too heavily on their staff to process and condense this information for them, which is flawed because we voted for and elected the representative, not his assistant.

And the representative chose the staff, and chose how much to rely on them.

If you don't like it, run for office yourself on a platform of not having your staff read bills and condense information for you, and you can test the theory of whether or not that is really as important to other voters as it clearly is to you.

I'm just curious as to whether you really consider this to be a constructive response.

The point is not the name of the person who reads a particular bill. The point is that the Founding Fathers intended for most of our experience with government to come from the state and local levels. This is a sound idea and I believe in it. But instead of that, we have a federal government that is so involved and so complex that the people running it have no hope of personally managing their own workload. When I say it bothers me that Congressmen don't read the bills they vote on, I am not saying they are lazy and that I could do a much better job (the absence of those claims from my post was your first clue). I am saying they are dealing with an unwieldy, overly complex system that does not need to be this way. They obviously need their staff to deal with the system as it is, so it's not a leap of faith to say that requiring the representatives to personally take care of thee matters would be a step in the direction of changing how the system currently is. That's all.

Sure, I could run for office and try to do things differently but it would accomplish next to nothing unless the culture itself changes. Other than a slightly more polite "shut up" I'm really wondering what you believe you are telling me that I don't already know or couldn't reason out. You really seem to have taken the most superficial interpretation possible of what I said and responded to it and I think you can do better than that.

Re:oh goodie

[Poruchik]

In 1999, there were 5,514 bills introduced in Congress (not counting procedural and internal Congress housekeeping bills). Let's generously give 30 pages per bill (although many are multi-hundred pages). That would give ~165000 bill pages a year. Let's say an average congressman can read a page a minute (give them a benefit of the doubt). That would make reading bills a full time job, year round. With no time for debates.

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
Winston Churchill

Re:oh goodie

[geminidomino]

The first improvement would be removing the "Write the tax code by hand" requirement.

Why? Maybe it would give them an idea of just how ridicious the tax code really is. According to this the Federal tax code consists of 3.7 million words. By contrast, all seven Harry Potter novels only clock in at around 1.1 million words.

What's wrong with that picture? It really requires that much complexity to fund the Federal Government?

I think it was not so much a criticism of the idea as it is pointing out that it is a "fox guarding the henhouse" situation. Basically, short of a constitutional amendment requiring them to hand-write the tax code, they would just legislate it out of existence first chance they got.

Re:oh goodie

[geminidomino]

I mean, yo really think all those shoulder massage tools are being used according to the TOS???

That has got to be one of the best analogies I've seen on /. today. Well done.

Re:oh goodie

[Opportunist]

That's basically why they choose a service like YouTube. Imagine you could and, say, 5 years from now you could open a page that showed us just what our representatives said 5 years ago.

Ponder for a moment what kind of insight you'd gain into current politics if you could watch, say, some speeches of Sen. McCarthy.

Re:oh goodie

[Nursie]

Yes, that's the point. They would be forced to simplify laws and make less of them.

There's no need for that many bills, surely?

Re:oh goodie

[Shakrai]

I think it was not so much a criticism of the idea as it is pointing out that it is a "fox guarding the henhouse" situation. Basically, short of a constitutional amendment requiring them to hand-write the tax code, they would just legislate it out of existence first chance they got.

Eh, true enough I suppose. I can still understand the sentiment and desire though.

Re:oh goodie

[IW4]

Works of the federal government are public domain. What are you worried about?

Re:oh goodie

[Opportunist]

Well, watching that your employees are doing their job is part of a boss' job.

And those people in Congress and House are essentially your employees, if you're a US citizen. Some people tend to forget that, but in fact you are their boss. Even though it's kinda hard to fire them if they fuck up, their union must be insanely strong. I mean, do you know anyone else who has a 4 or even 6 years notice period?

Re:oh goodie

[Anonymous Coward]

How about forcing them to actually pay attention to the vote? Last time I watched c-span half the people were standing around talking to each other, while the voting was on-going.

It is like once your vote is placed you are free to hang-out with your friends. They don't even seem to care which way the vote goes.

Re:oh goodie

[causality]

The first improvement would be removing the "Write the tax code by hand" requirement.

Why? Maybe it would give them an idea of just how ridicious the tax code really is. According to this the Federal tax code consists of 3.7 million words. By contrast, all seven Harry Potter novels only clock in at around 1.1 million words.

What's wrong with that picture? It really requires that much complexity to fund the Federal Government?

I think it was not so much a criticism of the idea as it is pointing out that it is a "fox guarding the henhouse" situation. Basically, short of a constitutional amendment requiring them to hand-write the tax code, they would just legislate it out of existence first chance they got.

It's better to first worry about whether an idea is sound and good. Only after deciding that does it really make sense to concern yourself with what it would take to bring it about, like a constitutional amendment in this case. The difficulty of doing a thing, alone, is not a valid argument against the soundness of an idea so long as it really could be done, which is true in this case. It does take a measure of courage to see and entertain possibilities like this despite knowing that these good things are also unlikely, but I believe that not succumbing to hopelessness is the beginning of real change.

Re:oh goodie

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

One subject at a time sounds like a good idea, and I'll research it further. But, if that doesn't make it I'd like to at least see a new law passed that requires the authors of all amendments to bills be part of public record. From what I've heard, the riders can be introduced without reveling who wrote it or proposed it.

Re:oh goodie

[causality]

The other bill they're pushing for, which I'll mention here because it also represents another process to improve our quality of legislation, is the One Subject at a Time Act [downsizedc.org]. It's pretty self-explanatory, and would end the use of "riders" - sneaking unpopular chunks of legislation (or pork) into other popular or necessary bills.

I've always thought that "riders" were a terrible idea and a sure way to encourage corruption. I like this solution because the only other workable one I've heard of would be to give the President a line-item veto. The line-item veto idea is flawed for a variety of reasons. For one, the power of the executive branch has already been expanded especially in the last 10 years or so; if anything it may be time for it to lose some power, not gain a new one. Another problem is that there is no guarantee the President will actually use a line-item veto, especially if the legislation in question was produced by a member of the same political party. A third issue is that this would require altering the Constitution and we have no guarantee that there would be no unintended consequences (or "intentional unintended consequences" if you get my drift) from this that would be very difficult to reverse in the future.

I fear that this may be like the Fair Tax Act. The Fair Tax Act is the most thoroughly-researched piece of legislation in history. The facts support it. The general population tends to support it (cue responses that don't know what "tends" does and does not mean). It has all the makings of legislation that should pass quickly and with little opposition. Yet, it would be the very first transfer of power from the federal government to the people that I have ever seen in my entire lifetime. Oddly enough, it hasn't gone anywhere. Here's to hoping that the One Subject at a Time Act won't have the same experience.

Re:oh goodie

[joranbelar]

His point was that the first "action" they would take to "improve" government would be to remove that stipulation.

And we're back where we started.

Re:oh goodie

[roguetrick]

C-Span has had streaming video on their website for a good long time.

Re:oh goodie

[DragonWriter]

I'm just curious as to whether you really consider this to be a constructive response.

More constructive than I consider the recommendations it responded to.

The point is not the name of the person who reads a particular bill.

If that's not the point, then that's not what you should have complained about. Complaining that people respond to what you say rather than some unstated point that you did not say seems to me a bit odd.

The point is that the Founding Fathers intended for most of our experience with government to come from the state and local levels.

If by "Founding Fathers", you mean the members of the Constitutional Convention, then this, at best, misleading, if not completely wrong. They, despite a charter to work out revisions to the extraordinarily decentralized system under the Articles of Confederation, drafted a system with a strong central government and argued very forcefully for that system.

Certainly, in the early government under the Constitution, both the State:Federal and Local:State distribution of responsibility pushed more down to the smaller levels of government than is presently the case, some of that represents changes in ideology (and some of it, in the State:Federal domain, is reflected in subsequent changes to the Constitution), much of it is just response to changes in circumstances, and reflects neither ideological nor Constitutional change at any level.

But instead of that, we have a federal government that is so involved and so complex that the people running it have no hope of personally managing their own workload.

A government for a nation of 300 million people in an era of instantaneous communication and globalized trade and transport (and consquently also crime, terrorism, disease propagation, etc.) is vastly more complex than one for a population of 4 million in an era where the fastest means of transportation or long-distance communication are horse and sail. You'll also find that most state and local elected government officials rely quite a bit on staff work; its not that the work has moved to the federal government and the states and localities are twiddling their thumbs. Localities and states also have much more to deal with than they did in the 1790s (which isn't surprising as most states and many localities have greater populations, greater flows of visitors, and far greater aggregate economic activity than the entire 1790s US.)

This is all, to say the least, hardly surprising. Making federal elected officials waste time trying to imitate medieval monks and copying out documents by hand is not a "constructive" recommendation, nor are your other proposals.

When I say it bothers me that Congressmen don't read the bills they vote on, I am not saying they are lazy and that I could do a much better job (the absence of those claims from my post was your first clue).

And I didn't say you said anything like that. So what?

I am saying they are dealing with an unwieldy, overly complex system that does not need to be this way.

And I'm saying that you're wrong.

They obviously need their staff to deal with the system as it is, so it's not a leap of faith to say that requiring the representatives to personally take care of thee matters would be a step in the direction of changing how the system currently is.

It is a quite a leap to say that doing so would be a step in the direction of positive change, even if it could be done.

Sure, I could run for office and try to do things differently but it would accomplish next to nothing unless the culture itself changes.

Assuming, for a moment, the truth of that statement, it would be pretty clear that one of the things that you c

Re:oh goodie

[FiloEleven]

Oddly enough, it hasn't gone anywhere. Here's to hoping that the One Subject at a Time Act won't have the same experience.

Again, I must stress that hoping is not enough. If you want to see _any_ legislation that limits government and gives more power to the people passed, the only way to do so is to pressure your congressmen to co-sponsor and vote for these acts, and to persuade others to do the same. Congress will pass them, but they will have to be nagged by enough of us little people beforehand and dragged kicking and screaming to let go of the powers that they have seized through our negligence.

Re:oh goodie

[JaneTheIgnorantSlut]

While we're at it, how about requiring each Congress-Critter to have their federal tax return prepared by a randomly selected high school graduate from his/her district. The result would be either a much smaller tax code, or a much better education system. Of course, this pretty much kills the "tax code as welfare for accountants and lawyers."

Re:oh goodie

[causality]

I've always thought it would be a good idea to build up a website that listed a bill summary and allow people to vote themselves on the site and it matched them up with politicians with the similar voting records. It really wouldn't take a long time for people to log in, read a summary and vote and they could even read the full bill if they wanted. If the system was robust enough, you could send people an email with the summary and a link they can click on to vote yes or no. Most people sit down and read through email on a regular basis now and clicking a link in an email to vote wouldn't be too bad I don't think.

I think all that this would do is emphasize just how centrist (to avoid confusion, this does not mean "middle ground between Left and Right") our politicians are when compared to the general population.

Re:oh goodie

[Idiomatick]

Oooo delicious irony, modded redundant not GP. And hey /. I thought redundancy was something to strive for. Yet I get modded down for it, that really hurts.

Re:oh goodie

[betterunixthanunix]

http://www.youtube.com/t/terms

That is what I am worried about. It is a good thing CSPAN is still around, so that we can record this stuff on our DVRs, but if CSPAN is taken off the air one day because of the availability of things like YouTube...

"YouTube Service to a user's device in such a manner that the data is intended for real-time viewing and not intended to be copied, stored, permanently downloaded, or redistributed by the user. Accessing User Videos for any purpose or in any manner other than Streaming is expressly prohibited."

That is from the TOS. There is no mention, anywhere in that clause (Section 5, subsection B), of copyrights or the public domain. It is literally against the law to try to save videos from YouTube on your hard disk drive. It is particularly troubling that the government is using YouTube to distribute videos, because it means that either they are preventing you from storing a permanent copy of the content, or encouraging you to ignore the TOS in order to save a copy (which means the government is telling you to break the law). I would not be surprised if, when put this way, members of congress would be troubled by it; I doubt, however, that they view it in this light. More likely, our elected officials view YouTube as an Internet version of broadcast TV, which is a very misguided view of the service.

Furthermore, look at things like HDCP, the move to digital cable and now digital broadcasts, and "broadcast flag" technologies. Some day in the future, CSPAN might be un-recordable, or un-recordable without special DVR services from a cable, satellite, or TiVo-style company, which are limited and prevent truly permanent storage. It probably will not be a deliberate thing, but simply a result of politicians who are not experts in technology and do not realize the implications of digital media and broadcasts.

Re:oh goodie

[cayenne8]

I hope they put the cameras just outside the doors of the senate/house of reps.

Wasn't it a few years ago that some lady senator got into a fight with a guard and started hitting him? I think it caused her not to get re-elected.

Stuff like that would be fun to have on Youtube...

Re:oh goodie

[genner]

Oooo delicious irony, modded redundant not GP. And hey /. I thought redundancy was something to strive for. Yet I get modded down for it, that really hurts.

What a horrible injustice.
You clearly should have beeen moded flamebait.

Re:oh goodie

[lwsimon]

What I don't understand is why people seem to think we are a democracy of any kind. We aren't.

The word "democracy" does not appear in the US Constitution. In the Federalist Papers, it appears, but in a derogatory context - it is widely considered to be a flawed form of government.

We are not a "Democratic-Republic". We are a republic. A federal republic, if you want to be pedantic about it.

It appears that the word "republic" is totally gone from the English language, and the definition of "democracy" is now "anything that involves voting."

Re:oh goodie

[cayenne8]

Actualy...if our congresscritters didn't take some damned much time OFF from work, they'd have more time to read those bills.

I don't have the links on me, but, I saw a graphic on TV of how little they are actually in session....and it was shocking to me.

THey should be required to clock in, and work full days all year, much like their constituents do at their jobs.

Re:oh goodie

[Tubal-Cain]

But that would mean virtually all funding going to the popular organizations in government.
My brother used to think that 25%-50% of the government's overall budget went to NASA. He certainly wouldn't give them any more money.

Re:oh goodie

[orielbean]

You might want to ask Lori Drew about that TOS you are not concerned about...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lori_Drew

Re:oh goodie

[Ray]

"Most people do not care about their government."

Government and sausage, baby, government and sausage.

Re:oh goodie

[recharged95]

Welcome to the new age of trust.

.

In the days of corporate controlled goverenment, we elect officials not for them to do the work, but for their trust that they'll hire lobbyists or interns that put our trust (and interests) in front of their careers. Or at least consider it.

.

Unfortunately, that's not the case currently. And it's not a divided nation, it not the lost of faith in our gov't, it's not that we find gov't untrustworthy, it's that with technology and the global community, the translation of trust has been lost. It is being redefined.

.

If Obama is going to make [revolutionary] history, it's to open the discussion for how the public trusts the gov't and how that contract should be defined (for the people). At this point, everything else is just status quo, expected or 'putting out fires'... Everything.

Re:oh goodie

[coryking]

They don't even seem to care which way the vote goes.

That is because they already know who is voting for what. For the most part, the vote is just making things formal. All the wheeling and dealing goes on before.

Re:oh goodie

[Ihmhi]

I think the biggest problem is more with a lack of time then a lack of caring. While apathy is a huge problem, who has time to sit at work and watch YouTube (or CSPAN) video all day?

Probably the same people who have time to browse /. at work. d:

Re:oh goodie

[krewemaynard]

This is better than C-span! We don't have to work around their schedule...they can lie to us on demand!

This will free up my DVR...

Re:oh goodie

[chainLynx]

Or, if you're a command line fan: http://www.arrakis.es/~rggi3/youtube-dl/

Re:oh goodie

[CrimsonAvenger]

The other bill they're pushing for, which I'll mention here because it also represents another process to improve our quality of legislation, is the One Subject at a Time Act [downsizedc.org]. It's pretty self-explanatory, and would end the use of "riders" - sneaking unpopular chunks of legislation (or pork) into other popular or necessary bills.

If you want to see these changes made, one of the best things you can do is to raise awareness of these bills, call your congressmen, and convince your friends and family to do the same.

This one won't work.

It is an unfortunate characteristic of laws that a later one supersedes an earlier one. In this case, that means that even if this were passed, any subsequent law which dealt with riders would, by definition, supersede the One Subject at a Time Act, and render it null and void.

This, by the way, is what happened to all the Balanced Budget laws that have been passed over the years - the Budget is a Law, just like anything else the Congress does, and automatically supersedes previous laws. Such as Balanced Budget Laws previously enacted....

Re:oh goodie

[DragonWriter]

Actualy...if our congresscritters didn't take some damned much time OFF from work, they'd have more time to read those bills. I don't have the links on me, but, I saw a graphic on TV of how little they are actually in session....and it was shocking to me.

The large amount of time in session is notionally intended to provide members time to return from Washington to their district; its not intended to be time off "work", and very little of the actual "work" of a member of Congress is done on the floor of the Congress, anyhow.

More time in session would probably mean less time for substantive work.

Re:oh goodie

[FiloEleven]

s an unfortunate characteristic of laws that a later one supersedes an earlier one. In this case, that means that even if this were passed, any subsequent law which dealt with riders would, by definition, supersede the One Subject at a Time Act, and render it null and void.

Well, sure. But the law would stick out like a sore thumb, especially since it would necessarily be titled something like "Repeal of the One Subject at a Time Act." If (joy of joys) the Read The Bills Act (or at least the full-text-online provision) had also been passed beforehand, the public's reaction to such a measure would keep it from passing.

Re:oh goodie

[jonwil]

It should be possible to access the public record of all bills and see exactly which politician wrote, co-wrote, proposed or copied-from-instructions-given-to-them-by-a-major-contributor each of the sections in the bill.

Re:oh goodie

[RyoShin]

Sorry, but those bills will never pass. For one, they don't have cute acronyms, and so can't be summed up quickly. For two, they have nothing to do with children.

To guarantee they pass, they should be given cute acronyms and have riders about increasing government spending on child psychology related to gay couples.

I'd be okay with that as the last rider ever.

Re:oh goodie

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

That's not what I've heard and read from people like Anderson Cooper.

Re:oh goodie

[CrimsonAvenger]

Well, sure. But the law would stick out like a sore thumb, especially since it would necessarily be titled something like "Repeal of the One Subject at a Time Act." If (joy of joys) the Read The Bills Act (or at least the full-text-online provision) had also been passed beforehand, the public's reaction to such a measure would keep it from passing.

Umm, you misunderstood me.

You don't have to repeal the law to render it invalid, if you're Congress. You can just act as if it's not there for purposes of passing other laws.

For the "One Subject at a Time Law", all you'd need to do is pass a law dealing with two subjects. Since that law came after the "One Subject" law, it would automatically be valid (even though it didn't have only one subject).

Re:oh goodie

[FiloEleven]

Yes, I did misunderstand you; thanks for clarifying.

Here is the relevant text of the bill:

A BILL

To prohibit the abuse of legislative power...by declaring that all bills enacted in violation of this Act shall be void, having no legal effect whatsoever, which should be treated as nullities by the American people, this Act being mandatory in purpose, not directory only.

(full text)

Doesn't that language, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the restriction, take care of the issue you raised?

Re:oh goodie

[Wildclaw]

I fear that this may be like the Fair Tax Act. The Fair Tax Act is the most thoroughly-researched piece of legislation in history. The facts support it

The facts support it? Introducing a tax change that is favorable to the rich when the rich already have had favorable tax laws for the last 20 years (as evidenced by wealth accumulating into fewer hands).

A real fair tax act would replace the income tax by a flat percentage wealth tax. That is real fairness speaking from a market point of view. If you have more capital, you should be able to make more profit. That is how the market functions. Always moving capital to areas where more profits can be made.

Anyone for the "fair tax act" is for increased concentration of wealth in the hands of the rich. It is an inevitable result as sales taxes favors those who can spend a lesser percentage of their income on goods. Flat income taxes are of course just as bad. Progressive income taxes are better, but have the nasty side effect of punishing those are better at leveraging wealth to earn money. Especially those on their way up through the class system. (as once you are past the max limit there is no more resistance).

Wealth taxes on the other hand focus on the basics which is that the more wealth you own, the more wealth you should be able to earn. Those who make good use of their resources to produce more wealth get richer, while those who make bad use of it grows poorer. Wealth taxes do have some problems, especially when it comes to actually evaluating wealth. But that is a price you have to pay if you really are looking for a fair system.

Re:oh goodie

[CrimsonAvenger]

Doesn't that language, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the restriction, take care of the issue you raised?

No. Prior law does not prevent the making of new law. And each bill is "new law". So no bill that you can write can prevent the Congress from making another law, even one that contradicts the older law. You'd need a Constitutional Amendment to deal with this.

Re:oh goodie

[thtrgremlin]

It is like open source. It is about enabling freedom that should have existed if not for technical barriers. Few people will watch this like few people can code even reasonably well. The most common excuse used for taking rights away is that "nobody uses them anyway". Really, how many innocent people open their mouth and say stupid stuff that gets them in trouble. Miranda Rights really seem like an obnoxious waste of time that just makes jobs harder for cops. How many people would this really affect, and think about how much we could reduce crime?

Miranda is stupid at face value, just like this move with youtube. The issue is that SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE will be the nerd paying attention to everything, and they are going to hear or see something that is going to get them all twittergasmed, and people are going to become aware of things just in time to really make a mess for people that might want to get reelected.

This will enable something important necessary to give people a chance to really see what our government does with our money. This is the first thing I have seen in quite awhile that really excited me that the government is doing. I encourage you to look at what this could enable. If Miranda has any meaning or value, I encourage you to see at least the same level of value here.

Re:oh goodie

[FiloEleven]

Well thanks for taking the jam out of my doughnut.

=(

Re:oh goodie

[geminidomino]

It's better to first worry about whether an idea is sound and good. Only after deciding that does it really make sense to concern yourself with what it would take to bring it about, like a constitutional amendment in this case.

Except that was my point. It's NOT a sound or good idea any more than a prison where the inmates have the keys to the internal and external doors.

The goal is a good one, but "putting something into law" to affect the behavior of congress is kind of like trying to drown Neptune.

Re:oh goodie

[causality]

It's better to first worry about whether an idea is sound and good. Only after deciding that does it really make sense to concern yourself with what it would take to bring it about, like a constitutional amendment in this case.

Except that was my point. It's NOT a sound or good idea any more than a prison where the inmates have the keys to the internal and external doors.

The goal is a good one, but "putting something into law" to affect the behavior of congress is kind of like trying to drown Neptune.

Then please do explain the (modern) function of the Bill of Rights. That is of course a rhetorical request. This is dealt with by having a hierarchy. Your response seems to indicate that you believe laws created by Congress are equal to laws included in the Constitution but this is not the case. The Constitution is the highest law of the land and Congress is not authorized to contradict it. An amendment like this would be ratified by a sufficient number of the state legislatures and the national Congress really wouldn't have much to do with it.

My point was that you can decide whether an idea is sound and good (or from a lower perspective, desirable) in principle and only after making that decision do you consider how feasible it is. This is part (and only a part) of not being tempted or otherwise lead astray by what look like easy answers. You are making an argument against the feasibility that, even if it were a valid and insurmountable argument, cannot actually be extended to decide the soundness of the underlying principles involved.

Re:oh goodie

[geminidomino]

Then please do explain the (modern) function of the Bill of Rights. That is of course a rhetorical request. This is dealt with by having a hierarchy. Your response seems to indicate that you believe laws created by Congress are equal to laws included in the Constitution but this is not the case. The Constitution is the highest law of the land and Congress is not authorized to contradict it. An amendment like this would be ratified by a sufficient number of the state legislatures and the national Congress really wouldn't have much to do with it.

That would be why I said in the first place that an amendment would be required...

My point was that you can decide whether an idea is sound and good (or from a lower perspective, desirable) in principle and only after making that decision do you consider how feasible it is. This is part (and only a part) of not being tempted or otherwise lead astray by what look like easy answers. You are making an argument against the feasibility that, even if it were a valid and insurmountable argument, cannot actually be extended to decide the soundness of the underlying principles involved.

That's just it. I never disagreed with the principle. Just that the conditions for successful execution are sufficiently unlikely that, no matter how great of an idea it is, it isn't going to happen.

Re:oh goodie

[FiloEleven]

I emailed the team at DownsizeDC to ask if the problem you raised is really a problem. Here is their response:

Legislation that passed gets codified in the U.S. Code. When OSTA gets passed, it, too, would be placed in the code. A subsequent bill could repeal OSTA or amend it. But if that bill violates OSTA without specifically repealing or amending it, it is void. OSTA can't be superceded unless it's specifically repealed or amended.

If the momentum builds to get OSTA passed, it is unlikely Congress would quickly turn around and repeal it or try to ignore it. There's be too much pressure on them to obey it.

I think the second paragraph is the most poignant. If enough people push for this thing to get it passed, even if your loophole exists, taking advantage of it would piss off hundreds of thousands of people. I doubt anyone's reading these comments anymore, but I couldn't let your argument stand unanswered since it may discourage some people from pushing for this legislation.

Cheers!

Coming Next:

[eln]

United States Congress: After Dark

Re:Coming Next:

[Redpill82]

United States Congress: After Dark

You don't wanna know.

Re:Coming Next:

[Shakrai]

You don't wanna know.

Poor interns and pages.......

Re:Coming Next:

[Beat The Odds]

United States Congress: After Dark

Don't you mean:

United States Congress: In The Dark

Re:Coming Next:

[genner]

United States Congress: After Dark

You don't wanna know.

Dick Cheney and a bag of doritos.

Re:Coming Next:

[internetcommie]

Well, that's already available online. We usually refer to it as Pr0n.

House Remixed

[SoundGuyNoise]

Can't wait to see floor sessions with all those snarky word balloons superimposed everywhere.

Re:House Remixed

[ILuvRamen]

you know, I wonder who actually encodes and uploads them. Because if it's a republican, they'll add those on top of democrat speakers and say "this guy's a dick" and "what a bunch of crap" lol.

Series of Youtubes

[A. B3ttik]

"Congressmen, YouTube is a series of Tubes..."

I'll be impressed

[MikeRT]

When the federal budget is released in a well-documented, well-designed XML file format.

Re:I'll be impressed

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Heck, I'll be impressed when I find a well documented, well designed XML file format from anyone..

Re:I'll be impressed

[dmayle]

If that's what you're waiting for, than you might want to have a look at this article about http://www.usaspending.gov/... It's an eye opener...

Re:I'll be impressed

[MeisterVT]

It seems that last week or so I heard mention of a bill being introduced/drawn up that votes on a budget bill couldn't be made until the full text had be posted online in an easily searchable format.

I believe that right now they deliver bills to correspondents/reporters in something like PDF but often on controversial matters it is last minute and the text is not searchable. I would consider an Obama administration at least a small success if he could get something like this accomplished. At least tech-savvy folks could be more aware of what is happening.

Re:I'll be impressed

[sanjosanjo]

The New York Times has introduced an API that will help with data mining for congressional voting. Hopefully the budgeting aspect is included. http://open.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/introducing-the-congress-api/

Re:I'll be impressed

[jdgeorge]

If that's what you're waiting for, than you might want to have a look at this article about http://www.usaspending.gov/... It's an eye opener...

This comment (and the GP) illustrates the point that people's expectations for the US government are often much lower than justified. This reflects the fact that there is much in the government that is thoughtful, competent, efficient, and honorable.

Re:I'll be impressed

[RulerOf]

You sir, have won in a way I would have never, in my entire life, imagined possible.

Bravo!

Re:I'll be impressed

[geminidomino]

This reflects the fact that there is much in the government that is thoughtful, competent, efficient, and honorable.

Unfortunately, the intersection of those things and "people" is \varnothing.

Re:I'll be impressed

[geminidomino]

*facepalm*

Yeah, slashdot's gonna support LaTeX math... good job there, me...

Re:I'll be impressed

[hansamurai]

Epic win, but more importantly:

Holy crap, that actually appears on Slashdot without Adblock?

Re:I'll be impressed

[RulerOf]

:P

I tried noscript once. It drove me insane.

I imagine Adblock would be similarly as annoying... I'm too lazy for extensions.

Re:I'll be impressed

[hansamurai]

Install and forget. It updates automatically, and you don't have to worry that it's messing something up every time you go to a new site like Noscript does.

Hmm

[invisibleairwaves]

Ideally this will bring transparency to citizens and inform them of their senators & representatives positions and ideas.

+5 Funny.

Re:Hmm

[strength_of_10_men]

Exactly.

I won't be impressed until every meeting that doesn't involve state secrets is recorded and shown on youtube. Then it'll be interesting to see what kind of back-room shenanigans our "representatives" are involved in.

I just saw one

[paiute]

Check out the A bill to provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets for the purposes of providing stability to and preventing disruption in the economy and financial system and protecting taxpayers, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes remix featuring Bun B and Lil Wayne.

Killer!

feedback!

[Utini420]

This would be AWESOME if it came with a feed back loop, something like the cellphone services that transcribe voice mails into text messages. Only this would work in reverse, so that all the wonderfully insightful YouTube talkback comments could be enjoyed by our hard-working CongressCritters as they work for the good of the common man.

Re:feedback!

[Utini420]

ya dude.

we so need a sarcasm emoticon, though a reference to "hard-working CongressCritters as they work for the good of the common man," might suffice in some circles.

On the other hand, I was only half kidding. Politicians who suck should find it next to impossible to avoid the discontent of their constituents, and I can think of far worse punishments for my governments various crimes than listening to YouTube style comments read to them in a droning computer voice all friggin' day. Well, I can think of worse, but not necessarily more appropriate punishments.

Well, that's nice.

[girlintraining]

So I can watch my government officials with inserted annoying advertisements, with crappy video that's blocky and looks like an angry fruit salad, and I can't save it to my own computer or give it to my friends because it would violate the TOS. Wow. There's a token gesture to government accessibility if I ever saw one.

It's almost as bad as the signs at the county service center, where they print in 13 languages "Warning! Big guy with gun go smack smack if past this point you go." Ah, but all the other signs are in english, spanish, and somali... And at the counters, you only get english and a card with a phone number on it that says "go somewhere else." God bless America -- land of the Infinite Queue, and home of the Rejection Letter.

Re:Well, that's nice.

[Utini420]

I'm not sure what you're complaining about here. The first bit, I get -- YouTube looks like crap and its a pain to save. Got it. But is the second bit:

1. The signs have too many languages
2. The signs are written poorly
3. The card at the counter doesn't contain these other languages

or (and I suspect its this one)

4. The person at the counter only speaks English

If it is 4, I will pull up just short of saying, "Folks living in America really outta learn English," and instead I'll go with, "My tax dollars can and should be better spent on things other than multi-lingual DMV clerks."

I'm all about government transparency, but I'm also all about folks speaking English in America.

Re:Well, that's nice.

[girlintraining]

I think you missed my point. It's that the so-called "accessibility" to these services is a patchwork of inconsistencies that fail to accomplish its main purpose -- which is providing services to all of its citizens. If they're going to be multi-lingual, they should make a proper go of it. As it is now, we all have to search the giant displays for the 10-point sized english text buried somewhere in with a few dozen other languages in a half dozen fonts at different sizes, weights... These posters look more like murals made out of letters than informational notices. I have also received letters before from them where it took me ten minutes to figure out what the point of the letter was because there were a dozen languages competing on the same page. -_- This is epic fail, whatever your native language.

And yes, I agree with you - you should learn to speak the native languages of this country. How good are you at Ojibwe?

Re:Well, that's nice.

[Ortega-Starfire]

Don't worry, you missed his point too:

What he wrote:
>but I'm also all about folks speaking English in America.

What you wrote:
>And yes, I agree with you - you should learn to speak the native languages of this country.

Seems we shouldn't bother with the extra languages until we can get people that claim to speak English to actually understand English.

Re:Well, that's nice.

[morgan_greywolf]

So I can watch my government officials with inserted annoying advertisements,

Well, what business is Google in again? Right. Selling ad space.

with crappy video that's blocky and looks like an angry fruit salad

Serving up video is very bandwidth intensive. What were you expecting? A 1080p HD MPEG-4 with a 256 Mb/s Dolby 5.1 surround sound audio track?

I can't save it to my own computer or give it to my friends because it would violate the TOS

You can link it to share with your friends and as far as saving it goes, there's always the Video Downloader extension for Firefox, which will now even automatically transcode it for you (at least on Linux).

Look...what's your alternative? You can already stream Congressional hearings live, and they also have a video library with all the highlights.

What more do you want? Blu-Ray discs hand-delivered to your door?

Re:Well, that's nice.

[girlintraining]

Please read the entire sentence before replying. -_- I was telling him in so many words to frack off, because English is not the native language. And I support multi-lingual resources. I think their implementation to date is full of suck, however.

Re:Well, that's nice.

[Neoprofin]

And he didn't say a word about English being the native language, he said people should speak it. It is by far the most common language in America, and last I checked the most common second language in the world. Not one word about it being native, but plenty to say about it making your life a lot easier.

In the enlightened words of Jules, "English, motherfucker! Do you speak it?"

Re:Well, that's nice.

[Utini420]

English may not be the native language of this land, but it is the native language of this nation. As governments deal in nations and not real estate (well, at least not normally) the original language of the land is irrelevant. Should the Ojibwe people again take a leadership role in affairs foreign and domestic this situation may change, but for now they are stuck in the same historical bin as every other nation-state to loose a war bad enough to no longer exist.

I am in no way saying that white people in America treated the native Americans as anything other than shit. That doesn't change the fact that their language and culture are next to irrelevant at this point.

I'm not really sure if I support multi-lingual resources, and certainly not in a universal kind of "Everything the government can possibly do is available in every language on Earth." Yes, the government should be accessible to its citizens, and some stuff like the cops reading a Mexican his rights in Spanish are pretty obvious. On the other hand when, as you pointed out, I can't find the English because its been crowded out by 27 other languages on the off chance one of their speakers wanders by, something is wrong.

Now, if I was looking for a place where, "you frack off too" would fit into this, what I was REALLY driving at is this:

"at the counters, you only get english and a card with a phone number on it that says "go somewhere else." "

What, exactly, do you think should be the case instead? The sub-humans who typically inhabit the kind of gubment job you describe are barely competent at their basic tasks, even in their native language, and you think the government should be hiring translators to just hang out in pretty much every government office, ready and waiting?

Come the hell on. I'm not hard core about immigration, or a sealed border, or any of that. But people should learn the common language of the land wherein they live, and 'round here that's English. The government should provide materials in all major languages, but they should emphatically NOT be in the business of enabling people to get by without language skills.

If the government actually required literacy, we might actually start improving things around here...

there needs to be a "save" mechanism

[johnny cashed]

If youtube is going to start carrying government videos, presumably funded by taxpayers, the videos need to be public domain and youtube needs to have a built in mechanism to allow views to save the video. I know there are ways of saving the videos already, but youtube does not provide this functionality.

Re:there needs to be a "save" mechanism

[DragonWriter]

If youtube is going to start carrying government videos, presumably funded by taxpayers, the videos need to be public domain and youtube needs to have a built in mechanism to allow views to save the video.

Sure, if they are produced by the US government, they have to be in the public domain, but why does Google need to change the features of its service if the government chooses to submit videos to the existing service with the existing features?

Re:there needs to be a "save" mechanism

[Midnight Thunder]

If youtube is going to start carrying government videos, presumably funded by taxpayers, the videos need to be public domain and youtube needs to have a built in mechanism to allow views to save the video. I know there are ways of saving the videos already, but youtube does not provide this functionality.

Google videos does, and it is still operational I believe. All it would take is for Google to mirror a copy of the YouTube video on the Google videos sites.

Re:there needs to be a "save" mechanism

[ender81b]

*Wah* *Wah* This public domain government book you distributed doesn't come with a copy machine! THIS IS A SLAP IN THE FACE!!111 It should be able to replicate itself easily!!!1111eleventyone

Grow up.

Whew! What a relief...

[Mr. Firewall]

At first, I thought the summary said, "Following an erection in which online videos played an important role...."

Plan B

[pak9rabid]

Sweet...I need a good plan B for when melatonin doesn't work.

Re:Plan B

[StaticEngine]

Wait, Congress causes abortions?

Re:Plan B

[genner]

Wait, Congress causes abortions?

No the Supreme Court does.

Re:Whew! What a relief...

[darjen]

that would be the engrish version of the headline.

Re:Yay!

[Shakrai]

Now we can watch the Republicans sit in and try to resolve problems while the Democrats turn out the lights and go home!

Nothing amuses me more than to see our elected officials resolve disputes by acting like Eric Cartman. "Screw you guys, I'm going home!"

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Any idea in minutes?

[eyecantremember]

Maybe it's better than nothing, but am I the only one concerned when I hear someone talk uncynically about transparency and true information through YouTube video clips?

TV suffers enough from the short attention span disease. Why do we need to force it on the Internet as well?

For example: If a senator (long shot, I know) has new or non-mainstream ideas about Israel and Palestine, is a 10 minute clip on YouTube gonna cut it? Maybe as an introduction, but that's probably it.

Or to put it this way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cceC3DeFcY

By the way, I am aware of the irony of posting a YouTube link in order to decry it, so don't bother pointing that out.

What about 508 compliance?

[beetle496]

Anyone find anything that is captioned? Looks like YouTube changed their ToS so the Feds are not endorsing idenification.

Something wrong with hosting it themselves?

[geekmux]

Any particular reason they can't host this content on a .gov server that I could possibly get to from work?

Sorry, just find it annoying to see yet another VERY large victim join the YouTube/MySpace/Facebook herd.

Of course, this also begs the question as to who will be the first to censor this type of content too, yet another issue with relying upon others to host your content.

Re:Something wrong with hosting it themselves?

[DragonWriter]

Any particular reason they can't host this content on a .gov server that I could possibly get to from work?

Having it hosted on YouTube doesn't cost the taxpayer anything for hosting and distribution, whereas hosting it on a .gov server would have a cost to the taxpayer.

Re:Something wrong with hosting it themselves?

[DragonWriter]

So the IRS is gonna put all their forms up on Google Docs instead of hosting them in-house soon, right?

I didn't say anything remotely like that.

The fact that cost is a factor doesn't mean its the only factor, and doesn't mean it applies to every bit of content any part of the government might want to distribute for any purpose in the same way.

Re:Something wrong with hosting it themselves?

[Shakrai]

I didn't say anything remotely like that.

I know. I was being a wiseass. I'm in that mood today for some reason.

To make a serious point I think there's a lot of people around here (myself included) that would prefer the ability to watch Congressional proceedings without having to agree to the Youtube terms of service or the C-SPAN copyrights. I would make the case that the costs of setting this up would actually be a proper use of Government funds and I wouldn't mind seeing my tax dollars go towards such a venture.

Re:Something wrong with hosting it themselves?

[geekmux]

I didn't say anything remotely like that.

I know. I was being a wiseass. I'm in that mood today for some reason.

To make a serious point I think there's a lot of people around here (myself included) that would prefer the ability to watch Congressional proceedings without having to agree to the Youtube terms of service or the C-SPAN copyrights. I would make the case that the costs of setting this up would actually be a proper use of Government funds and I wouldn't mind seeing my tax dollars go towards such a venture.

Agreed, especially given the fact that the bandwidth requirements for sites like change.gov are already extremely high I'm sure. I mean hell, what's the cost for running all they currently run on C-SPAN? Move it ALL over to streaming video, or better yet, get it off the Internet entirely and put it on a FREE OTA digital TV channel, if you want to try and get your message out to EVERYONE, not just those who choose to watch YouTube. Hell, they're already paying for the digital converter box.

I just get frustrated over yet another lemming getting sucked into YouTube like there's NO other way of hosting and distributing video anywhere else online.

Nothing like the sale, DDoS hack, or bankruptcy of YouTube affecting the very means of which our new eGov uses to communicate with the masses.

Re:Something wrong with hosting it themselves?

[bit01]

Having it hosted on YouTube doesn't cost the taxpayer anything for hosting and distribution, whereas hosting it on a .gov server would have a cost to the taxpayer.

Nonsense, this meme needs to die. Advertising pays for nothing. Who do you think pays marketer's salaries? You do. You pay twice, once in time and attention to avoid the ad and twice in the increased price of the product to pay for the ad.

Granted, youtube currently only has non-self advertising on it's search page but like it did with google.com that's going to change. Google is not a charity.

Very little is free and people who keep pushing advertising supported as "free" need to stop listening to the marketing parasites, who have a rather large vested interest in maintaining this fiction.

---

Living the American DRM.

Re:Something wrong with hosting it themselves?

[DragonWriter]

Nonsense, this meme needs to die.

This abuse of the word "meme" needs to die. "Idea" works fine.

Advertising pays for nothing.

Advertisers do, in fact, directly pay for things. Yes, the people advertising generally hope to change peoples behavior in some way through the advertising , often (though not always) in ways which financially benefit the advertiser (not all advertising is done to sell things, though that's the biggest single reason for it.) But those people who buy things, hey, someone is paying them to. You can go infinitely far in regress of where the money comes from.

Directly, the hosting and distribution costs are paid for Google. The immediate support for them doing so is advertising dollars. Everything else is fluff.

Who do you think pays marketer's salaries?

A marketing firm, directly, for those that work for contract marketing firms; the company for whom they are marketing otherwise (and, indirectly, that company or those companies, in any case.)

You do.

Except insofar as I choose to have something marketed on my behalf, that is only even arguably true only in a very loose and indirect sense in which I can be argued to pay for just about everyone's salary on the planet through enough levels of indirection.

You pay twice, once in time and attention to avoid the ad

The time and attention I pay to avoid the ad (assuming I try to avoid the ad at all) does nothing to pay any marketer's salary.

and twice in the increased price of the product to pay for the ad.

If the product doesn't have an expected utility to me that warrants the price, I don't pay it.

Very little is free and people who keep pushing advertising supported as "free" need to stop listening to the marketing parasites.

Advertising-supported media is, often, free, in financial terms, to the media consumer. This is a fact, not marketing, not fiction.

Why hasn't anyone posted Pelosi's video?

[DangerTenor]

....in which she rickrolls the taxpaying public 37 seconds into her Cat Cam video?? (Kudos to TC for posting it...)

Re:Why hasn't anyone posted Pelosi's video?

[Neoprofin]

We were all trying to wait a couple hours before we started pointing out what a massive waste of time most of our elected officials are.

Re:Why hasn't anyone posted Pelosi's video?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah ... I saw a link to it in one of the earlier posts and I have to ask two things:

1) Is anyone else cheesed that she feels this is a useful use of her time to reach the public?

2) Did they actually get the rights to the song/video, or are they infringing on its copyright?

Re:Why hasn't anyone posted Pelosi's video?

[DelgadoRandom]

She completely got me with those freaking cats.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Clearly Fiction

[Cros13]

"Ideally this will bring transparency to citizens and inform them of their senators' & representatives' positions and ideas."

This is clearly fabricated. In what crazy mixed-up world do elected officials have ideas?

Translations...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Of course these videos won't make any sense until they are buffalaxed.

All along watching you pumping my retard!

Yeah ....

[Archangel Michael]

" Ideally this will bring transparency to citizens and inform them of their senators' & representatives' positions and ideas."

Good Luck with that!

Makes sense to me.

[Chris Burke]

It only seems fair that they allow us back stage when we're forced to allow them in our back doors.

limit all Congress speeches to 5 minutes?

[peter303]

That was an original constraint of YouTube. That could make it worth it. If you can't say it in five minutes, then you can't say it.

And Now We Can Watch

[AMSmith42]

...the new and improved "Do Nothing" Congress... do nothing! Weeeee.

Re:And Now We Can Watch

[Frigga's Ring]

That seems like a silly thing to say... I mean, with a democratic majority in both the House and Senate and a democrat in the White House, they're going to get a lot done. The only question is "For whom?"

Re:And Now We Can Watch

[Opportunist]

Considering what has changed in that last few years, I'd say "doing nothing" would actually be an improvement.

Re:And Now We Can Watch

[Mr. Firewall]

...with a democratic majority in both the House and Senate and a democrat in the White House, they're going to get a lot done. The only question is "To whom?"

There, fixed that for you.

Am I the only loathing seeing Pelosi

[antifoidulus]

pour her heart out and cry on camera under the name LonelyCongresswoman65?

How to get the tax code rewritten

[Doghouse Riley]

....enact both of these.

1. No more withholding. Everyone has to pay their full taxes to the IRS by check or plastic.

2. Change the tax due date from April 15th to the first Monday in November.

Re:How to get the tax code rewritten

[dlaudel]

1. No more withholding. Everyone has to pay their full taxes to the IRS by check or plastic.

This is good, if only to make it feel more like the robbery it is. Withholding the money makes it feel better. On a side note, it would be amusing to see how many people had spent so much that they didn't have the money at the time it is demanded without withholding.

2. Change the tax due date from April 15th to the first Monday in November.

So we can procrastinate 6 more months? Or what other reasoning did you have here?

Re:How to get the tax code rewritten

[pluther]

2. Change the tax due date from April 15th to the first Monday in November.

So we can procrastinate 6 more months? Or what other reasoning did you have here?

I think it has to do with the fact that elections are the first Tuesday in November.

I'd watch "2 Senators 1 Cup"....

[Doghouse Riley]

.....or anything else they care to do instead of actually making laws. Frankly I'd pay them each a couple million a year to just preen on YouTube and not legislate at all.

Re:I'd watch "2 Senators 1 Cup"....

[jayayeem]

Sadly, the two Senators would be Barney Frank and Larry Craig.

Three words:

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

"Senator Larry Craig"

Now available for your YouTube viewing pleasure!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Yeah!

[Quiet_Desperation]

Ideally this will bring transparency to citizens and inform them of their senators' & representatives' positions and ideas.

Ha ha ha ha ha! You kids these days with your crazy talk! :-)

Propaganda face

[bluefoxlucid]

Yay, we can expose video of processions that favor public opinion, and bury other processions! We should take the important discussions (lobbying etc) outside the house and senate, of course, to increase public integrity.

you can't force people to be interrested

[Scrameustache]

requires each bill to be read aloud in session before it can be voted on. This ensures that all congressmen voting on the bill will have heard its text

I was required to sit and listen to a lot of monotone reading of books in my education.
I learned very little from that.

Re:you can't force people to be interrested

[FiloEleven]

Thanks for sharing!

Myself, I played kickball a lot and got picked last. I gained very little self-esteem from that.

I confess that I don't understand what you are implying.

Re:you can't force people to be interrested

[gknoy]

His point is that the congrescritters, if they had to listen to every bill be read, would:
- find it a waste of time
- not get a lot of things passed, unless they were small bills.

Some consider a slow-moving congress to be a good thing. Those who wanted something to ACTUALLY get done (or at least get a vote done) would be encouraged to have shorter bills. In theory, they can't claim that they didn't read it (though they might be absent the day it was read ...) before voting on it. This way, there are 100+ chances for someone to listen to it and say, "wait, what??" when some screwy quirk might otherwise get overlooked in an 80 page stack of paper.

On the other hand, listeners would likely just tune it out -- and it would effectively be "surf my blackberry" time, or something similar.

Some consider a slow-moving congress to be a good thing. I'm not sure that it is or is not, but this would at least make it easier for smaller bills to stand out, and would make it easy for the populace to understand what the hell our people are voting on. Moreover, "riders" would stick out more blatantly.

Re:you can't force people to be interrested

[Scrameustache]

I don't understand what you are implying.

Forcing people to be present while someone reads something out loud does not mean that the content of the text is transferred to the brains of the audience. You can't force someone to pay attention to the droning monotone of a legal text read out loud.

Re:you can't force people to be interrested

[FiloEleven]

Do you know of an alternative method for determining if a congressman has understood the text of the bill he's voting on? If you think such a requirement (that is, ensuring that the bill is understood) is excessive, how else can we ensure that we are being represented by our elected officials?

Also, what do you make of the bill's other provisions about posting the full, final text online before a vote is called?

Re:you can't force people to be interrested

[FiloEleven]

Thank you.

I agree that such a policy could cause listeners to tune out the readings, but I believe that this would only happen if there were a long stream of bills that required no debate before a vote. In practice this would be in my opinion unlikely, but even so I think that the effects you discuss in your last paragraph are beneficial enough to warrant some bored congressmen.

Re:you can't force people to be interrested

[Scrameustache]

Do you know of an alternative method for determining if a congressman has understood the text of the bill he's voting on? If you think such a requirement (that is, ensuring that the bill is understood) is excessive, how else can we ensure that we are being represented by our elected officials?

Also, what do you make of the bill's other provisions about posting the full, final text online before a vote is called?

You give them the text, some time, and quiz them individually.
If you want to know if they understood the text made available to them, you ask them questions that will prove that they have the information and the ability to process it.

As for posting the bill on line: W00t! Full disclosure, baby!
But isn't that already the case? Those .gov sites have a lot of content...

Re:you can't force people to be interrested

[FiloEleven]

Full text is sometimes available through the THOMAS system, but good luck finding it.

The key change is that the full and final text would be available for public scrutiny a week before a vote is called, giving the public plenty of time to rant and rave to their respective congressmen when they find something they don't like, and giving the press plenty of time to find poor legislation and bring it to the public's attention.

The clause stating that it must be the final text is key, eliminating 11th-hour closed-session dealing and helping to ensure that each bill passes on its own merits. Since (according to CrimsonAvenger) the One Subject at a Time Act is dead on arrival, this is a decent alternative: at least all those riders will be flapping in the breeze for all to see.

Regarding the forced readings: I still like this idea mainly for the reason that it would tend to make legislation much, much shorter than it currently is. The more complex and lengthy a bill is, the easier it is to hide stuff in there that nobody (save those in the political class and their owners) wants. I would still be quite satisfied if nothing in the bill were passed save for the W00t Full Disclosure Baby clause.

Fed

[xPhoenix]

How about a YouTube channel for some transparency into the workings of the Federal Reserve? Yea, that's what I thought...

Congress = trolling

[planetoid]

Adding comments has been disabled for this video.

Only trolls and intellectual cowards do this with their videos.

goddamnit

[commodoresloat]

Rickrolld? We got fucking rickrolled by Nancy fucking Pelosi? What the fuck is the world coming to?

At last!

[Roadkills-R-Us]

``Ideally this will bring transparency to citizens and inform them of their senators' & representatives' positions and ideas."''

Because obviously they could never have done that with mere text.