Slashdot Mirror
$18M Contract For Transparency Website Released — But Blacked Out
zokuga writes "The US government recently approved an $18 million contract for Smartronix to build a website where taxpayers could easily track billions in federal stimulus money, as part of President Obama's promise to make government more transparent through the Internet. However, the contract, which was released only through repeated Freedom of Information Act requests, is itself heavily blacked out. ProPublica reports: 'After weeks of prodding by ProPublica and other organizations, the Government Services Agency released copies of the contract and related documents that are so heavily blacked out they are virtually worthless. In all, 25 pages of a 59-page technical proposal — the main document in the package — were redacted completely. Of the remaining pages, 14 had half or more of their content blacked out.' Sections that were heavily or entirely redacted dealt with subjects such as site navigation, user experience, and everything in the pricing table. The entire contract, in all its blacked-out glory, is here."
because obama is a nigger..
Standard practice, unfortunately. Despite what folks may think.. the website itself will provide the necessary transparency. However, the redactions in the contract are to protect trade secrets, national security concerns (explaining integration with other confidential government systems), etc. What we need, is the website, and for the website to provide the information clearly, and efficiently. Who does it,a nd the details of the contract, are largely irrelevant.
0100010001101001011001 0100100000011010010110 1110001000000110000100 1000000110011001101001 0111001001100101
As we've seen to date, when you criticize the Obama administration they'll simply label you an extremist or rabble-rouser and dismiss all allegations against them. You think Bill Clinton was slick? He was just Teflon. Obama is made out of superfuid.
The funny thing about events of late is that politicians think people are pissed simply because they oppose the certain bills, like the health care initiative. Newsflash Washington, you're pissing EVERYONE off with your nonstop bullshit. You're in the pockets of those that truly control things, so why should we give two shits about what you say? You don't make decisions obviously, they are obviously made by outside forces. You work for the people alright, it's just which people we wonder because It's obviously not us.
Dear Mr President. I'm not angry because Glenn Beck or anyone else told me to be. I'm pissed because:
A. Unemployment is way too high. Jobless recoveries don't pay the bills.
B. The economy is in the tank. Blame it on Bush, again. That seems to be what you guys are great at.
C. You bail out banks that simply took too much risk, breaking the model of capitalism that you tout as the best in the world.
D. You refuse to allow oversight of the Federal Reserve and it just keeps printing money out of thin air. A huge risk for us if we can't meet our economic goals.
E. You don't stick to your promises (see deal with drug manufacturers for an example)
F. Your party is filled with hypocrites and fools (for example Nancy Pelosi) and you pander to them repeatedly.
G. And finally you promote transparency and then blank out FOIA released contracts. WTF?
The gig is up Obama. Time to cut the shit. Your blank check is revoked. And yes I voted for you so save your "Republicans yada yada" nonsense.
Is it just me or is Slashdot really ramping up the troll articles lately?
Do people really care what the details are of the contract for building a website? (I can assure you it's full of semi-technically garble designed to assure both parties that on the one hand the work will get done and on the other hand they will get paid for it.) Or does this just provide the Obama-haters in the audience another thing to bloviate over?
That it's mostly redacted is probably overkill and I suppose regrettable. But it's not like there's any information in that document you or I might be interested in. (If only they hadn't redacted it we would now know the location of Sadam's WMDs!)
They're just building a website, people! Don't get your panties in a bunch.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc. These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks). Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian. So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern. Only about 65% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama. In other words, a maximum of 65% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable. (A maximum of 65% for McCain is okay. So, European-American support at 55% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.)
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65% of them would have supported Obama. At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals. That claim is an outright lie. Look at the exit-polling data for the Democratic primaries. Consider the case of North Carolina. Again, about 95% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton. Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical. Yet, 95% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton. Why? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
Here is the bottom line. Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America. He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100% acceptable. Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior. Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color. Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American. You need not defend your actions in any way. Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.
So, ahh... how are you impressed with Obama's promise of "transparency in government" so far?
I mean, seriously - rushing bills through faster than anyone can read them and check them for problems, and now this?
I wonder where the $18M is really going.
A majority-based representative democracy is no less a representative democracy than a direct-percentage representative democracy. It just has different methods of assigning representation.
Whether or not those different methods are better--that's a different question, and one on which I share similar views to yours; I would much rather more granular representation. But it doesn't stop being a representative democracy because you, personally, have your ox gored.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
It's cute how Mark Fink, aka "twitter", keeps going around modding me down because he doesn't like my stance on Mono.
Keep it up, Mark. Maybe Roy Schestowitz will give you a hug someday.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
Keep it up, Mark. That hug is waiting for you!
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
I have more karma than you have mod points, Mark.
You're so close to getting that hug!
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."