Slashdot Mirror
MS Lobbies to Cut DOJ Antitrust Budget
Forward The Light Br sent us a washington post article that talks about (no I'm not kidding) Microsoft Lobbying the Government to cut funding to the DOJs Antitrust department. I'm pretty amazed by this one.
"the $51,000 is the amount Micros~1 has donated to the Senator's re-election campaign. Quite different from direct payments into the Senator's personal account (or is it, really?). Often in the U.S. elections, whichever side spends the most cash (advertisements on TV are expensive), wins most of the time."
Still sounds like corruption to me. The only reason companies like MS give money to politicians is because they expect something in return. Though the money is spent on elections, the senator has a clear interest in it since he will be reelected and receive the status and salary that is part of the job of a senator.
"Also, the U.S. has campaign contribution limits"
Yeah right, if there's one law with holes in it its probably that law.
"it will take twenty years"
It will take forever because no politician has any interest in changing the system. It will probably get worse.
Jilles
When did I claim to be a Libertarian? I respect the movement, true, but I'd never follow it.
And yeah; I don't like big, intrusive governments. But sometimes there are things that only a government has the resources to do. Keeping juggernauts like Microsoft in line is one of them.
Considering that the Gov't is very likely a major customer, and one with very particular procedures at that, why not?
Various parts of the Gov't are, no doubt, major customers. It makes sense to take that into account. {shrug}
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
"The necessary precondition of a coercive monopoly is closed entry--the barring of all competing producers form a given field. THis can be accomplised only by an act of government intervention, in the form of special regulations, subsidies or franchises."
I'm confused. Suppose Microsoft were to simply refuse to sell Microsoft products to anyone that sold non-Microsoft software? Where is the government intervention in that? Do you argue that with a desktop share of over 90 percent that such an action would quickly result in a closed entry market? Do you think anything but the threat of anti-trust is keeping Microsoft from doing that?
They tried exactly that already in the pre-installed OS and browser market. With some success I might add.
This system was deliberately designed to prevent corruption. It deals with this problem in very unique way. You are allowed to "currupt" politician as long as it is public knowledge.
- Win over public favor. - By saying "the governemtn is spending to much. cut government spending!" you win over the marjority of americans. Especially when it's on a subject that most of them don't see as all that useful in their daily lives (flame retardant: I said most).
- MS THinks they'll win the current case, wants to prevent further action down the road by hamstringing the gov't's anti-trust dogs. - Sure. This could be the answer. If you're into the paranoia aspect of MS as a global world power trying to take over everything, then this makes the most sense. But I don't buy it.
- Instead, I think they're trying to turn the attention away from their actual business practices, and on to something less dangerout to their monopoly. - By getting people to talk about the governemtn, it's spending, and why MS is giving them money, you'l divert public attention away from the case at hand, and into the realms of ethics (as in corp's giving gov't money) and maybe eventhe realm of "boy! MS has never really been a strong lobby before...wonder why they started now."
Either way, I don't think it matters much in the big picture....the anti-trust unit of the DOJ is going to be all fine and good for years to come.Werd.
I am trying to snow the conversation? You are the one who spuriously throws in the comment about what "Countless scholars and professionals" think knowing full well that much of that is simple Microsoft propaganda. By using such ambiguous terms like "Countless scholars" you give the impression that many or most scholars are in agreement with your rather minority position that antitrust laws are oppressive.
You also were careful not to address my gibe about the benefits of antitrust legislation. It appears you seem to think that nothing was wrong with Rockefeller's Standard Oil or that the breakup of AT&T hasn't actually benefitted consumers and the economy. Isn't only picking out the points you want to address in an argument a way to "snow" the conversation?
"Manipulate the government into leaving them alone", now that is expert spin control. The ironic thing is, I totally agree. I would love to "manipulate the government into leaving me alone".
Criminals bribing judges are manipulating the government into leaving them alone, Chinese agents close to the Clinton administration apparently manipulated the government into leaving an agent at Los Alamos alone and Microsoft attempts to manipulate the legislature to change the law to leave them alone.
Microsoft is not a victim here. They signed a consent decree in 1995 agreeing that they would change their business practices and they didn't, in fact they committed even worse offenses. If they didn't agree with the consent decree, they shouldn't have signed it. Had they took a principled stand in 1995, maybe you would have an argument. As it stands, they were caught in the act, they can't win in a court of law, so they try to influence the legislature to wiggle out from under the consequences of their actions.
Oh yes, Microsoft is a bastion of principle here.
Microsoft makes no secret of the fact that it takes antitrust legislation to be a breach of free-market principles. Countless scholars and professionals have weighed in with agreement, and even Scott McNealy -- outside of his vested interest in the downfall of Microsoft -- holds to strong free-market principles.
Funny how principles change when you realize that the government can be manipulated into doing your dirty work...
MJP
Don't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
One difference is that I haven't seen any evidence that the other companies resorted to paying huge donations to politicians in order to get the DOJ to take action against Microsoft. I also haven't seen any evidence that the other companies used politicians that they had funded to try to influence the budgets of agencies that were doing things that would influence their businesses.
There is a difference here in which companies are doing lobbying in a way that is ethical, and what Microsoft is doing. I am continually surprised by the lengths that Microsoft apologists will go to bend over far enough to make it look like what Microsoft is doing is no different than what other companies do. Even though it is sometimes true that individual actions by Microsoft may not be that much further than what other companies have done, I can't think of any company who so consistantly and determinedly pushes the boundaries of ethical behavior in so many ways. Even the IBM of the 70's and 80's who also found itself involved with anti-trust proceedings in general seemed to conduct themselves in a less ethically challenged way than Microsoft does. IBM has gone a long way towards cleaning up their kitchen, and lets hope that Microsoft can and will follow their example and work towards becoming a good, clean corporate citizen.
And the US has a higher GNP and higher population than most if not all other "first world" nations; do we contribute more financial aid as a percentage of GNP than any other developed country in the world - or are we, as I've seen claimed, closer to the bottom of that list?
Probably not the chain reaction they wanted.
--
So long as the "authors" can remain unbiased (rare on Slashdot) and leave the bias to the comments and posts, I think a medium like that would be a great way to disseminate information about candidates and legislation.
We desperately need a place where people can go to get ALL of the information about election candidates (instead of just the biased advertising we see on TV) in one easy place. Nobody watches debates anymore because they tend to be long-winded and full of BS and evasion. Have standardized templates for describing candidates as unbiased as is possible.
Likewise with upcoming legislation. On Slashdot whenever we see an "alert" about some evil piece of legislation, it's usually the result of somebody reading a biased/uninformed take on the legislation, reporting it to Slashdot, which then takes it and posts an "article" with at least as much bias as the original report. Only in the comments do we see people say, "Uhh, this isn't as bad as you guys seem to make it out to be. Why don't you read the legislation first?" Ideally, a site like this would eliminate such confusion by providing a clear, concise plain-english description of the legislation. Phrases like "big brother" would be forbidden. Let the subsequent threads of comments be the bias.
Have the site pay for itself via non-political advertising.
I've been playing with this idea for a while, but nobody seems to think it's worth pursuing.. Unfortunately something like this is very difficult to just "start up" due to the fact that it would need to cover a lot of stuff in as much depth as possible (which means we'd need legal and political experts behind us in some fashion (NOT for the purpose of editorializing or making predictions, but for understanding what it is we're seeing, etc.)).
What, like when foreign contributors funnel money into campaigns, and members of the party at all levels (in DoJ, and Congress) block the investigation, by coaching witnesses on when to take the Fifth, and not bothering to look until witnesses have had time to flee the country? That's not a special interest?
Do unions, which spend their dues on donations -- even when the members don't want 'em used that way -- meet your definition, as well?
It's done at all levels, ranging from international (e.g. "recognize that `country` and we'll cut off trade", or "support us in the Sec. Council and we'll give you an oil deal"), to national (you don't give money to candidates who'd go *against* you, after all...), to local...
Fact is, 'tho, it's a drop in the bucket. Even if transferred all of its cash reserves to the Treasury, it wouldn't be *that* much compared to the Federal budget. A donation of $51K is peanuts except at the individual-legislator level, and there are too many that wouldn't be caught dead supporting MS here (like Orrin Hatch, whose motivations are similar to that of Gorton's...) unless they actually agree in principle that anti-trust stuff should be repealed. Money *can't* necessarily buy off somebody who's ready to lop off yer head. Now, if you're dealing with somebody who does not have to uphold any principles, because he hasn't bothered to actually ennunciate any (or because the people already consider him an unethical SOB), that's different...
As for donations in general, most of what's allowed is "soft money"; direct contributions to campaigns are limited, but "soft money" is not; arguably the latter should be regulated far more strongly.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Agreed. If you dislike the fact that companies are allowed to buy influence in your representatives, make it clear that you will not vote for somebody that takes the interests of a cash contributor over that of the normal constituents.
Remember: No amount of cash can help an election candidate if nobody will vote for them.
This all goes back to the whole lack of an informed public, which might not make this as effective as you'd hope, but if enough people write letters expressing this sentiment, you can bet your representatives will listen.
Is there really a lack of information out there? As a Pittsburgher, for instance, I might get news from:
* The _NY Times_, pretty good for in-depth (for a newspaper), and thoughtful even if I don't agree with them,
* The _Pittsburgh Post-Gazette_, a fairly provincial, somewhat lefty/human-interest paper,
* The _Pittsburgh Tribune-Review_, a rightist and extremely anti-Clinton rag,
* The _Militant_, a leftist rag put out by local Socialists,
* The _Wall Street Journal_, for the business side of things,
* The _Economist_, which carries interesting comment online,
and so forth. And that's even w/o mentioning the light-n-fluffy, often remarkably one-sided and superficial (both likely due to time constraints; few want to see the same story in depth for an hour...) drivel that passes for network news.
Overall, that's a pretty broad spectrum.
There's a lot of information out there. Much of it is remarkably biased and frequently incorrect, due to oft-repeated myths... and people tend to have a "confirmatory bias", meaning largely that they notice / accept mostly what they already agree with, which in effect reduces the utility of trying to inform them.
Not to mention the fact that many are not only uninformed (including not having the background to comprehend what's going on, like understanding their own Constitution...), but completely uninterested. That's not a good situation. Short of forcing *far* more analytical thinking, logic, and so forth from a young age, I'm not sure what can be done about that.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
A well written comment, but I fear you give capitalism too much credit.
Capitalism is a flexible framework on which you can hang pretty much anything. Corporations, after all, publish magazines as diverse as Reason and The Nation. Corporate-run media is best known not for its stalwart defense of the capitalist system, but for its consistent middle-of-the-road nature. Both left and right are consistent in complaining about the media's performance on most issues, which makes me think this "capitalist running-dog lackey" argument is overdone.
Now, it's true that corporate-run media tends to emphasize personalities and de-emphasize issues. I think there are a couple of reasons for this.
First, people tend to be entertained by personality stories, and the more of them that exist, the better the paper sells. This is an imperative of capitalism that cannot be ignored -- but note that it's in no way ideological; a paper would call for the complete and utter overthrow of the capitalist system if market research showed that was what the readers wanted to hear.
Second, the issues in our modern society are horrendously complex and difficult to explain. In the amount of time the media has before our attention wanders, I'd say they do a credible job. The problem is more with our contemporary impatience than anything specific with the media.
Finally, not only is NPR a poor marketer, they are distinctly biased against capitalism. I would no more expect to get the whole story through NPR then I would by reading the Wall Street Journal. Both publications look at the news from a totally different perspective, and - like it or not - they tailor the news to what their audience wants to hear.
If money and big corporate interests really controlled the system, there wouldn't be any talk at all about national health care. More than anything, labour unions support that particular cause, and they serve as a counterbalance for big corporations.
D
----
Sounds more like an attempt to do something about corruption for the public while leaving plenty opportunity for receiving money. The system was designed in such a way that it would leave plenty of room for funding (otherwise it would not have been accepted). As I understand it, the contribution limit is on an individual basis. I.e. two people working for the same company may donate to the same politicians. About donations being public, I don't think it makes much difference. Neither the democratic or the republican party has any interest in donation money scandals since they are both guilty of being corrupted. So, it usually is a non issue for the media also.
To prevent corruption, we have very strict rules in holland. Politicians are not allowed to accept gifts over 50$ or something like that. Generally it works reasonably well (we've had some small cases in local politics). At least I would be very much surprised if our prime minister would be involved in this sort of stuff.
Jilles
So you have this enormous volume of people that have been elected (with at least 1 vote). Will these people "rule" from their homes, or will they be required to live in DC? How are they made accountable for their votes and actions if they are not physically present?
Your proposal begins to sound an awful lot like a direct democracy (with people being able to exercise the option of proxy by "voting" for somebody else to vote for them). One of the main strengths of the representative nature of our government is that we effectively *pay* our representatives to educate themselves on legislation and to act with our interests in mind. If you require all of our representatives to hold "day jobs," how can you ensure that even our more highly-voted-for representatives can find the time to devote to legislating?
A possible answer would be to allow people to change their votes at any time. When a representative does something against the wishes of those who have voted for him, votes would shift, decreasing the value of that representative (or removing him from office altogether).
It sounds like this idea would be horribly complex no matter how you managed to do it.
To be honest, it sounds like this style of governing might be more appropriate at a more local level (community, city, county or (at most) state), where the sheer bulk of people with votes will be manageable.
>But Sen. Slade Gorton (R-Wash.), whose campaign has received about
>$51,000 from Microsoft or its employees since 1997, has been an
>outspoken supporter of a cut in the antitrust budget.
Maybe the real message is how disgustingly cheap it is to get politicians to shill for you.
D
----
501 c4 groups can lobby and many efforts pair them up with a C3, so a side of the operation can lobby.
matt
Hey...and maybe the government can use the money to give tax breaks to companies that keep thousands of IT people employed by producing bad software
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -RAH
"I doubt it swayed Gorton one way or another."
Just one question, what's the point of giving somebody money if you won't get anything in return? I mean, MS is a commercial company, they don't give away money just for the sake of it.
I think the only logical answer is that they expect this Gorton guy and a lot of other people they donated money to, to be nice to them when something comes up that is important to MS.
Of course they can't expect much for 50000 but there's other ways to be nice to a politican. You can take him to an expensive restaurant, invite him for a business trip to the bahamas and god knows what.
It's called lobbying.
Similarly, a politician can do small favors for a company: support policies that are good for his friends, perhaps suggest or support favorable changes in laws that may help his friends out.
This senator supporting a 9 million dollar cut on DOJ case funding is an example of such a small favor. It is easy to defend in public (goverment waisting money) and the guy probably would have gotten away with it if it stayed out of the media.
This closed door way of doing politics is better known as corruption. I doubt the senator would have taken much interest in the whole case if he hadn't been paid.
Jilles
Ofcourse America always touts itsself as the worlds guardian of democracy, but i have serious doubts. I have trouble calling a bi-partisan system a democracy. Here in the Netherlands there are at least 5 to 10 parties that matter. These parties have very different interests and cater to a specific part of the population. You have a couple of liberal parties, a couple of social-democratic parties, a couple of christian parties etc, and the result of an election is always to have a coalition formed, and compromises are made. The US has this bi-partisan system with 2 parties that have been in power for eternity. You don't see any new parties popping up having any influence, it's always between democrats and republicans, and even they don't really differ. They are both right-of-center conservative parties. I don't think thats a proper democracy, it's more an alternating olicharchy.
This is exactly the reason that our government should make lobbying illegal. The are many special interest groups and companies who are buying influence in our government, and it's not uncommon at all.
What amazes me is that we as a country allow this to happen everyday, and for issues that are far more important than Anti-trust suits...
Just call it "The buying of America", and Bill is the richest kid on the block...makes ya shudder don't it?
Shaken
The government has seen whores before, so this Washington senator shouldn't get too far. Besides, it's just another case of Microsoft believing that, and behaving like, they outrank the government, the law, and the American people.t or ticket, and totally ignore anything else including party lines to do so, and let other people take care of the other valid concerns of politics. Indeed, I'm almost _forced_ to because of how much money is being spent corrupting the government and my representatives. I'm a vermonter, and I think Bernie Sanders is sound, but I have concerns that Jeffords is getting corrupted. At any rate, I'm definitely going to be a one-issue voter currently- everything else falls by the wayside compared to the destruction of the economy and the country by tech trusts. That's my privilege, and if it stops being such a threat I can think of other issues and pay attention to them a bit more.
We've seen all this before. Hell, at one point it was the President acting like this! (Read up on Watergate!) It just doesn't fly, the Senate and the House of Representatives are there for a reason. It's like a jury- the idea is, if there is anybody who cannot tolerate the 'tyranny of the majority', they get a veto and then the country has to muddle through with a compromise to look after the best interests of _all_ the people, not just those with the loudest voices. In this case, I know there are a couple senators etc. who aren't whores for _this_ special interest, and I personally am quite happy to vote a straight don't-let-corporate-monopolies-wreck-the-tech-sec
Aw crap, you're right. I guess I'll give up after all. ;-)
Look, I don't care how systemic the problems are. They are there and they are systemic because we, the people have almost totally abrogated our social responsibility . I see no value whatsoever in sitting on our duffs whining about it (I don't mean to abuse you personally, although it seems like it).
You can make a difference. It is still a democracy. That the task is difficult is no reason not to undertake it. Hell, you heave a brick out a window and hit ten people who will readily take on an easy job. Take on the hard job!
By thunder, I'm going to my precinct caucuses this year, come hell or high water. If we all did the same the system would change literally overnight. The popular will cannot be overwhelmed by all the money and power in the world because IT IS OUR POWER. They do, at the end of the day, need the votes.
These "implacable forces" hold sway because disillusionen citizens have given up on our democracy.
"Deep in our craven souls we know that Democracy is a dying giant, a relic breathing its last. I don't mean that America is finished as a world power, America is the wealthiest; the most powerful country in the world; and I don't mean the Communists are going to take over the world, the Communists are even deader than we are. No, what's finished is the notion that this great country is dedicated to the freedom and flourishing of every single individual in it. It's the individual that's finished. It's every single solitary one of you out there listening to me now who's finished. The entire world is becoming humanoid, creatures that look human but aren't. We are nation of 200 million deodorized, transistorized, whiter-than-white, steel-belted creatures, totally unnecessary as human beings and as replacable as piston rods."
That quote (as best I can remember it, I'm writing from memory here) is from Paddy Chayefsky's magnificent screenplay for the movie "Network" (a movie I urge you all to see, by the way).
I think that nightmare vision of America is here and real. But I don't have to accept it. Nihilistic despair has no room in my life. I choose to live deliberately. I'm going to my precinct caucus and I'm going to fight for a new software patent law and I'll probably fail. Where were you when I needed you?
If just these three things were done we would go a long way towards fixing the problem. No plan is perfect and of course the rich and the powerful of this country will not be detered easily after all they benefit from the status quo but we have to start someplace and do something.
War is necrophilia.
This is a problem with our democracy, not just a problem with MS. Most residents of Washington state are aware that Senator Slade Gorton eats out of the hand of not just Microsoft, but also Boeing and Weyerhaueser, the next two largest local companies. Politicians who perhaps are already inclined towards helping business can easily be swayed with strategic "contributions". Microsoft clearly forsees a future in which it has emerged from the current anti-trust battle and continues to practice dubious business tactics. They wish to avoid a repeat of the current finagle. This offers us an interesting insight into their corporate mentality - evidently BillG doesn't believe he is going to lose the DoJ case. Not in the long run, at any rate. The dismaying part is that they are correct. You can own Congress. As I once heard someone say, "A congressman is the best long-term investment of all". Soft money has to go. Disclosure is poor at the moment, but even full disclosure would be ridiculously ineffective. The whole point of representative democracy is that I don't have to monitor every legislative detail that comes down the pike. What then are the chances that I will want to monitor every financial detail? Politicians will "fully disclose" their contributions buried somewhere in the back pages of the classifieds, and nobody will ever read them. The Supreme Court has several times ruled that money is speech. They are right, but they take it to illogical extremes. A contribution to the campaign of my favorite politician is indeed a means of indicating my support for him or her. But does a person with ten times as much disposable cash as myself really have ten times as much to say? Far from it. Let's put some teeth into limits on campaign contributions. Ban soft money and PACs. Microsoft can only do this because the corrupt infrastructure allows it.
-konstant
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
Actually, I think the net war is going to take place in the US, not in europe. Most of europe is pretty safe compared to the US. I recently went to the US (conference visit) and to my own surpise and amusement found every single cliche I could think of confirmed: fat, stupid people all over the place and money fixes everything you need.
Jilles
They are a perfect example of how perverted the US is these this.
As a dutch person I was shocked to read this:
"But Sen. Slade Gorton (R-Wash.), whose campaign has received about $51,000 from Microsoft or its employees since 1997, has been an outspoken supporter of a cut in the antitrust budget."
If this happens in Italy or South America you call it corruption. I don't think there's another word for it. MS is just using the system, they didn't create it. The whole DOJ case was lobbied for by other parties like SUN and IBM. Nobody is talking about that. Needless to say those parties benefited from the DOJ case by taking market share back from MS.
It's disgusting what you can get away with if you have money in the US. As a comparison, if a dutch politician would accept "gifts" like this and it would get into the media, he could start looking for another job.
What amazes me most is that in the current campaigns for the US presidency, the candidates are actually using the amount of bribing money they received to prove how suitable they are for the job. Judging from this George Bush seems to be the most corrupt/best candidate of all.
Jilles
If you can prove 1% of what you are claiming our current government is history. I'm not saying we don't have any lobbying going on.
.." letter (for non dutch people: Dear Els, .., Els Borst is a minister in the dutch government) from another dutch politician speaking on behalf of a company.
.. it happens here just as much, only more covertly since there are no "legal" ways to bribe someone (like in the US with "campaign funding")"
.. and everyone has a price .. everyone can be bought ... "
It would very much surprise me if our prime minister had accepted a single dutch guilder from companies. Remember the trouble a former candidate called Brinkman had when the media found out he was involved with some obscure companies. Remember the media hype about the "beste Els
Both cases prove that there is some lobbying going on. Both cases also proof that even the not so dirty cases can cause serious trouble for a politician if the media hears about it. Brinkman lost the elections and the minister nearly lost her job on this thing (she managed to talk her way out).
"So don't say it doesn't happen here (except in local politics)
I hope I pointed out that the scale on which stuff happens is not so big as in the US. About the military stuff, I think there is a lot of diplomatic pressure when large orders are involved. Basically Holland decided to buy Apache helicopters against the enormous pressure from France and Germany to buy european stuff instead.
"politicians are people with power
True (a bit cliche though), only it is illegal to be bought in Holland. If it is proven you generally have to face prison and even being suspected of corruption can be enough to loose your job. So in practice I don't think it happens that often.
Jilles
This is what we all assumed would happen at the beginning. Once MS realized it was losing it pulled out the cash. This is where we see the REAL power behind this country, big business. The government needs money to function, big business, especially Microsoft, have LOTS of money. So MS just quietly (or not so quietly) informs the government that they need to pull funding from the DOJ. And I'm sure this is just a friendly request, based on logical reasoning and sound principles. I'm certain that MS isn't threatening to drop the US Gov, remove technical support (such as it is), move its operations over seas, or any other such militaristic business practices.
Now we're going to see just how big a stick MS wields, and how hard they can beat a government superpower with it.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Yanked from the webster site:
Main Entry: republic
Pronunciation: ri-'p&-blik
Function: noun
Etymology: French république, from Middle French republique, from Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine of publicus public -- more at REAL, PUBLIC
Date: 1604
1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in
a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified
republican government of a political unit
2 : a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity
3 : a constituent political and territorial unit of the former nations of Czechoslovakia, the U.S.S.R., or Yugoslavia
Main Entry: republic
Pronunciation: ri-'p&-blik
Function: noun
Etymology: French république, from Middle French republique, from Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine of publicus public -- more at REAL, PUBLIC
Date: 1604
1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in
a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified
republican government of a political unit
2 : a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity
3 : a constituent political and territorial unit of the former nations of Czechoslovakia, the U.S.S.R., or Yugoslavia
Looks to me like American government can be accurately described by either word.
Whoops! Pasted the one definition twice (color me stupid). Here's what I meant to paste the second time:
Main Entry: democracy
Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving
periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S.
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
I'm not sure you are familiar with the caucus system. You don't vote for candidates at a caucus. You vote for delegates out of the people there. You vote on platform. Yes, delegates are generally "bound" to a candidate, but the caucus system is the point of entry to part activism. If you are highly motivated on an issue, it is through the caucus that you get your issue into the party's agenda.
;-)
Caucus attendance is how the religious right got its surprising influence in the Republican party (surprising considering their political agenda is supported by a minority of Americans, a significant minority, but still a minority). They availed themselves of the tools. I'm urging "us" to do the same. By "us," I mean those here on slashdot, the majority of whom, I suspect, have similar views (not the same, but similar) on what I would call the "geek vote:"
1) UCITA and defeating it.
2) Crypto-law reform.
3) Patent law reform as applied to software.
4) Universal high-speed net access
Item 4, I suspect, will have quite a range of views within slashdot and wouldn't be a "party vote," because I see slashdot as having a wide range of political views, from people like me who think the governement ought to just get in there and "Interstate" the network, to radical libertarians who would hold that all government regulation of the communications industry should be torn down to let them build the network, but I think it is fair to say that the goal is shared and we would quibble about the means.
As for the now oft mentioned "slashdot" political site, I think people hesitate because it is likely to descend into flamewar central. I think such a thing could work if the editorial policy on articles kept them strictly confined to technology issues, and never strayed into more general policy questions.
Rob can call me -- I'd be willing to run such a site
This can only be bad for Microsoft, although it is typical of thier tactics: attack, attack, attack
I think this sends a signal to the government, and the signal is "we are bigger than you" and the government won't like at all.
The government response will be to go after microsoft and make sure they get a kill. You can take money from schools, health, the poor and NASA but I've yet to see laywers accepting a pay cut.
Doing this is corporate suicide - they should have spent the lobby funds showing how essential microsoft is to the american and world economy and painting a bleak future of a microsoftless world. This tactic would have been more efficient in getting a ground swell of beneficial public opinion for Microsoft.
Perhaps Microsoft have given up - thier previous attempts at getting the public to back them haven't exactly set the world alight. This is probably because its hard to feel emotional about a company that doesn't care about you or your needs.
The Open Source movement tends to get this kind of emotion because you can take the bit you care about and nurture it; you can get close to the people that actually matter in the open source movement; you can read Alan Cox's diary, see feedback from Linux Torvalds. This doesn't happen with closed source. Its a rare event to see someone who actually matters in Microsoft talking opening about the future.
Microsoft/Gorton claim the DOJ have used illegitimate tactics in their pursuit of their investigation against Microsoft. In an effort to reduce the use of these illegitimate tactics - making no mention of accusations of frivolous over-investigation - they want to cut the budget of this department?
So they're saying "The DOJ does a necessary job badly - we must reduce the amount of money they receive, so they will do a better job." Is that correct?
-=Best Viewed Using [INLINE]=-
I was talking to my fiancee yesterday and the conversation happened to turn to Bill Gates. The thought came into my mind that everyday, no matter what we do, Bill Gates somehow has something to do with it. If we go to the grocery store, the checkout line is probably running some of his software. If we watch TV, MS probably owns part of the station. He owns so much that there isn't any thing he can't make money off of.
What brought this up was the fact that we were talking about the South Park movie and how they picked on him in one particular scene. My fiancee wondered if he took offense to such a scene. Then, it crossed my mind that MS, or some subsidary of theirs, probably owns shares in the studio that made the film. I'm sure they probably used his software in the making of the movie. So, even if they pick on him, he's still making money off of it and loving it.
I wonder if this is healthy for America. Should we give a person the opportunity to control our daily lives? No way! Should we do everything that we can to stop him? Of course! The Linux movement really needs to take on this philosophy. But there is no way that the US could ever file an antitrust suit against Linux because it is free. That would be like them trying to sue God for being the sole provider of life, but making it free.
I've got to go now, my MS Coffee Maker is buzzing. It's either done or locked up now.
Brad Johnson
Advisory Editor
Brad Johnson
Does Smith have a point? Perhaps; I certainly can't see any defense for the city of Denver issuing me a "photo radar" ticket for speeding while attempting to merge into interstate traffic. (Let's see, do I want to get a ticket or killed by the semi? I have 1 second to decide!)
But at the same time Smith has such an obvious interest in cutting the budget of the agency enforcing laws against him that it should take extraordinary events for him to be taken seriously. The Ramseys asking Boulder County to stop funding the investigation if it continues to focus on them exclusively *might* have a case, but MS in the middle of an ongoing trial does not, IMHO.
*sigh* At least I can ask my congressman about the change of crypto policy that allows MS to export Kerberos, but not me to export my Kerberized Debian packages, at the same time I write him about this nonsense. Maybe I'll get lucky and he'll see a connection.
Coyote-san on soon
In other news...
--
One of the great achievements of the french revolution was separation of state, church and law. American politicians put the word god in just about any sentence they speak (to please their ignorant voters) and have great influence on the legal system since they control its funding (judging from the story).
In addition to that they are as corrupted as the french royal clan was before the revolution. It's time for a new revolution, it can't get more perverted than this: the defending party in a legal battle bribing politicians in order to obstruct justice. The sad part is that it is all legal.
Jilles
While stongly assuring us that this won't affect the FBI's investigations of Mafia doings
-Brent--
The illness in American Democracy is not Microsoft. It is not even big money. It is not even the absurd (IMHO) Supreme Court decision that money is speech. The illness is me. The illness is you. The illness is the fact that you didn't go to your precinct caucusses, did you? (Neither did I, I'm not getting holier-than-thou here).
The sickness is the way regard the government as "them" and the people as "us." I've got news for you folks. The government is "us." Why have "evil special interests" taken over the government and made lapdogs of legislators? Because we were not there.
This government is ours. It is structured to do what we want it to do. But we are not there saying what we want!
Instead, we participate in focus groups where the same researches who figure out why we buy one brand of toothpaste over another ask us a series of provocative questions and measure our emotional responses. They are not looking for what we think, they are after what we feel because they know a dirty little secret. People are not motivated by intellect, they are motivated by emotion.
This system allows our political discourse to descend from open discussion of matters of vital interest to us (like anti-trust and patent law, like tax policy and welfare reform) to grainy black-and-white advertisements showing a prison with a reveloving door and that scary black man! (I'm referring to the George Bush "Willie Horton" ad here, but both parties do this -- I'm not being partisan, I just think the Willie Horton ad was the most despicable example of this.)
Now, your intellect knows full well that if you vote for Dukakis, you wife will not autmatically be raped and murdered by a black man. But it, along with the rest of the scientific marketing research, designed to find your emotional hot buttons, creates an "emotional aura" around the candidate that is pervasive and insiduous, hard to identify and reason with, difficult to resist.
So what do we do? We aren't totally blind. We aren't robots. These ads don't MAKE us vote in a particular way in and of themselves, but they do make us digusted and fed up. We feel in our guts that this ISN'T democracy, so we turn off. The political diet is empty calories and we go looking elsewhere for nourishment.
I think this empty, mindless, constant appeal to emotion is why we stay away from the polls in droves.
Well-funded interests are all too happy to step in and take what they can from the carcass of our freedoms. What the hell? We don't want it.
We CAN stop this. While our government may seem to be totally out of control, and that we are powerless, our government still retains the FORM of democracy. Call your local library. Find out where your party caucus is held. Go. Talk. Question. Discuss. There will be organizers there for candidates. They will have a platform. They will have votes and positions. They will try to pressure you to keep your mouth shut. They will try to control the election of delegates. Don't let them. Speak up. Go. See how it works. It will make you mad, but don't knuckle under. Bring some friends. Insist on talking about what bothers you.
I've seen it here. Slashdotters have some definite opinions on real matters of law and commerce. Don't settle for the way things are. All the tools needed to take back our government are there. Make the next Congress an "open source" Congress (forgive me for such a weak and strained linkage, but I think the same kind of spirit that imbues open source/free software can be tapped to bring reality back to politics).
Think of it like exercise, or, yes, open source programming. I get paid to write software at work. I set aside a little time every week to work on my free software project. This year, I've decided to set aside a little time to work on my "software patent" idea. I'm going to my caucus and I'm going to get a vote on a platform plank. A platform that patents on software be limited to no more than 24 months. I know that many would like no patents on software, but other forces will want patents to stay just as they are. I'm going for a compromise.
Whatever it is that upsets you, go. Make your voice heard. Write your congretional delegation.
You must not wait for others to give you your freedom. You must take it for yourself. It is yours, but if you leave it lying on the ground, don't be surprised when someone (maybe Microsoft) picks it up and says, "hey, I could use this!"
It is you country. Take it.
Unfortunately the article was vague and did not mention any of the nonprofits by name. If they did, you could check with the IRS to find out their tax status since this is a matter of public record.
Note that in the US there are several types of nonprofits. The ones that I am most familiar with are 501(c)(3) tax-exempt or charitable nonprofits. The groups mentioned in the article may be incorporated under a different standard and could have different regulations apply to them.
There is anothe, even worse, flaw in what MS has done. Nonprofits are forbidden from accepting any "quid pro quo" donations. That is, a nonprofit risks losing its nonprofit status if it accepts a donation with the understanding that it will perform a specific service for the donor. So if these nonprofits were supported by MS donations, it is doubly bad for them to be coerced into illegal political lobbying.
Again, I can't say it loud enough, IANAL. Any GJ++++(-$) types out there with more info, please speak up!
Noble sentiment. I agree with a lot of what you're saying. Unfortunately I think you're being a bit naive about the way democracy works in this country. The reason it fails is because the main avenues of control are corrupted. Observe:
/. is one such example - reporting of things the public (or one segment of it) wants to hear about, not what a corporation feels will market well. I.e., no Diana or Junior stories here.
i. Informationbr> Any good democracy requires a well-informed public. If the public is going to decide what's right and what's wrong, they need to know all the facts from an unbiased source. This is impossible in America, because media is a big business. The media outlets that will succeed best are those that are most corporate in nature. Everyone won't listen to NPR, because NPR is a poor marketer.
Therefore everyone will get the tainted information peddled by the bastard child of GE, NBC, and the bastard child of tabloid merchant Rupert Murdoch, Fox, and the bastard child of Disney, ABC, and the bastard child of Warner Brothers, Time/Newsweek/CNN. Reporting is not objective or interested in disseminating relevant information. Information flow is fundamentally flawed.
The internet has the power to change such things. Maybe
ii. Expertise
The public no longer has anywhere near the expertise necessary to know what's in their best interest. Even basic economic principles like flat-taxes have to be digested by commentators and explained to the masses to tell them what the effects are. Forget about complex issues like research biology funding/free speech and censorship/separation of church and state. The public is wholly unable to, for the most part, comprehend all the factors involved.
Before you go jumping in about how you disagree, recognize that you are a select minority and you're not representative of how most people think.
iii. Capitalism
Not to fault free markets in general, but when you have a society built on money, as ours is, it's inevitable that those with more money will control everything. I don't find it surprising that someone like GE can have such an influence on politics, or that health care reform is so difficult to move along, because damnit, we created the beast that's controlling us. We allow a free market to develop giant corporations with tons of resources and very strong vested interest. Isn't it inevitable that they attempt to exercise their considerable power to protect those vested interests? Certainly. Especially since capitalism is probably good at getting unscrupulous people on top. No one got rich feeding orphans.
The solution, of course, is put in controls on how much corporations can influence government, via controlling contributions, etc. Of course, since they're the puppetmasters right now, this is somewhat more difficult than saying "Let's change it."
iv. Individualism
Fundamentally American culture is selfish and egocentric. Few individuals are motivated by notions of higher societal good, as is quite common in other nations (like our close neighbor Canada). It's inevitable that in such a situation corruption develops. Until such a fundamental aspect of Americana changes, we'll always be fucked.
Solutions are not simple. They require big-time revolution and reform. Thomas Jefferson was of the opinion that a government needs to be knocked down every twenty to fifty years to prevent stagnation. I think we're overdue for one of these.
SA
After seeing Microsoft's actions for the last year, and the inability to "punish" Microsoft for it's wrong doings, I am about fed up. What is a good country that I can move to that has a *real* free market?
-Brent--
(Note how general this is -- he doesn't specifically state he wants DoJ off Microsoft's back; the timing simply happens to be coincidental, I guess. Yeah, right. This Rep Dan Miller smells pretty corrupt.)
Er, anyway... if this guy doesn't want regulation, that's fine. But trying to cut the funding (when DoJ just happens to be prosecuting MS) is the wrong way to do it. If he really believes what he is saying, he should introduce legislation to repeal antitrust laws.
Having laws without enforcement is a very bad thing, because they'll just get selectively enforced and used as a tool to suppress whoever doesn't play ball. If you don't want DoJ going after companies that break the law, then change the law, not DoJ. It isn't their fault.
And about this "devastating blow to the high-tech industry" bullshit... This whole case was caused by the blow that Microsoft delivered to the industry. Whenever anyone tells you that this is somehow "bad for the economy" remember that they really just mean "bad for MS stockholders".
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
>Microsoft Corp. lobbyists and allies are aggressively pressing Congress to
>reduce next year's proposed funding for the Justice Department's antitrust
>division, the giant software company's accuser in a storied court battle.
>Microsoft representatives have urged House and Senate members to cut
>President Clinton's proposed funding for the division by about $9 million
>this year.
Doesn't Microsoft about that in a day or something? $9 Million is about
10% of DOJ Budget!
>And nonprofit organizations that receive financial support from
>the company have also urged key congressional appropriators to limit
>spending for the division when they begin their final negotiations on the
>Justice Department budget, possibly as early as Monday.
>The nonprofit groups made their request in a letter last month after an
>all-expenses-paid trip to Microsoft headquarters in Redmond, Wash.,
>where they were entertained and briefed on an array of issues facing the
>company.
YEAH! What's up with the DOJ attacking these non-profit's source of revenue?
>But company officials said they want to send a strong message to the
>antitrust division.
Hello... DOJ? Bill is not happy with you.
>But Sen. Slade Gorton (R-Wash.), whose campaign has received about
>$51,000 from Microsoft or its employees since 1997, has been an
>outspoken supporter of a cut in the antitrust budget.
Surprise... surprise!
>Such an action would "express total dissatisfaction with the way Justice is
>handling the case against Microsoft," said a spokeswoman for Gorton.
>She added that Gorton, a senior member of the Senate Appropriations
>Committee, is "pretty confident he will be able to get [the Senate] number
>lowered closer to the House number."
How dare the DOJ mishandle the case with expert testimony, revealing interviews,
competant courtroom demonstrations, professionalism, and supported facts?
Microsoft with it's BILLIONS is NOT SUPPOSED TO LOSE! What a terrible
precedent it would be if that were true.
Bill will make you an offer you can't refuse. Not.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
Well, you've got to admit, they've got guts.
It appears, though, that they've misplaced their brains. This move is simply too obvious. While the diehard Microslaves will be taken in by this trick, I think M$ is probably going to alienate a lot more people (particularly the politicians) with this move. Unless, of course, they can find enough corrupt politicians (heck, Billy himself could throw several million bucks at every single politician in Congress, so I suppose it's possible).
There's a difference between lobbying for something and actually getting something done. All this means is that Microsoft is trying to convince congress to spend less money on the DOJ. It's their opinion, they certainly have the right to express it. If they've convinced certain organizations to lobby with them, then good for them. Those organizations have a right to their own opinion as well, and they have a right to tell congress about them.
Even you have the right to lobby your congressman about this issue, and if you really care about it, you should do it. People like to sit back and bitch about how the US government is dominated by special interests groups, but nobody makes sure that their opinions are heard as well. If the special interests groups are the only ones that want to take part in American politics, then they should be the ones shaping our policy. But guess what? special interests groups such as MS make up a small minority of the population. If everybody actually took part in politics, they wouldn't have much of an effect.
People who say that special interests play too big a role in our government but don't tell their congressman their views make about as much sense to me as people who don't vote because they don't like the government.
Poor MS: "It's hell being the second biggest bully on the block. Someone really ought to do something about that bigger one, so I can be the biggest. Sniff."
I wish I owned a few billion dollars worth of legislators. Then we'd start seeing some real changes around here.
--
It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Very well written, and a great analysis.
My only comment is that it may not be as innocent as you depict. Who is in government? A few idealists, and many attracted to money and power. Those attracted to money and power will naturally use their money and power to accumulate more money and power. Result: corruption plus laws and behavior to keep power in the hands of politicians. Positive feedback leads to accumulation of power limited only by the need to be re-elected and to avoid provoking revolution. The means of discouragement are therefore subtle, and not planned so much as left in place as they occur naturally and happen to help the accumulation of power.
It is no accident that people are turned off by politics. The less people pay attention the more the politicians can do as they please.
Political education is poor. Many schools are poor in general, tend to teach history by convenient ommission of ugly details, and have student governments that are complete figureheads for the adminstration as a great practical example of democracy.
There is a two party system that relatively no one cares to pick between. Parties run on emotional ideologies, not critical analyses of issues. Demogogue A, or Demogogue B, let me see... well, B sounds more friendly and dresses better...
The low level details of politics are obscured. When was the last time you saw a public service announcement that a local caucus was taking place soon, be sure to attend? How many people could describe the entire process by which national candidates are selected and elected?
Usually both parents have to work to maintain an approved lifestyle. And work doesn't mean 8 hours a day for many, more like 10 or 12. We get a generous 2-3 week vacation while most of the first world takes 6. Where is the time to get involved in politics?
And presuming you do work hard and get a plank in place, what makes you think it will be implemented? The Christian conservatives have had much more luck getting conservative planks in place than outlawing abortion, using just the grassroots technique you suggest.
Yeah, it's our fault for not being disgusted enough to force ourselves to jump thru their hoops to take power back. But we've had a *lot* of help with that inertia, and if people ever seriously tried, it wouldn't be without very intense opposition. Worth doing, but you need a few major issues to mobilize around, and the powers that be can defeat the movement by giving in on those any time, so pick well -- they have to be truly hated by the powerful and very popular at the same time.
Ah, finally someone with some intuition.
Although the prevalent accusation is that Linux users are incessant in proclaiming the goodness of their OS, Microsoft Bigots are often more so.
-Brent--
Bzzzzzzt, you lose. Amendments change the Constitution, and are a part of the document itself.
Now where's that amendment restricting campaign financing, eh?
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Where to begin?
> If the public is going to decide what's right
> and what's wrong, they need to know all the
> facts from an unbiased source. This is
> impossible in America, because media is a big
> business.
The first part is partially incorrect. The same effect can be had by getting information from a number of sources with different biases. Given the difficulty of objectivity in anything but physical or logical disciplines, this is the only option.
The second part is simply incorrect. There is nothing about media as big business that makes it impossible to be informed. Just the wild exaggeration denoted in the use of the word 'impossible' is telling. While media may often be less than objective, different media sources serve different agendas. Mother Jones and Time-Warner are not going to give the same take on a news story. However, both are available to anyone who searches them out.
Which brings us to the real problem: public apathy. It isn't that it is impossible to be informed, it is that most people don't bother. They either don't have an interest in politics or prefer to take the easy route and ride on their personal prejudices rather than examine a view from all sides.
Intellectual laziness and a lack of critical thinking skills are what makes a person uninformed, not the 'Big Bad Media'.
> The public no longer has anywhere near the
> expertise necessary to know what's in their
> best interest. Even basic economic principles
> like flat-taxes have to be digested by
> commentators and explained to the masses to tell > them what the effects are.
Has it ever been otherwise? Even the most celebrated multidisciplinarians in history have not been able to master every field. Nor should they need to. It is enough that the public know what's its interests are. They don't need to know themselves how to implement them. It is no different than owning a microwave. Odds are, most folks who do don't know how they work. They can still, however, make informed decisions on whether or not to buy them. When more detailed information is needed, they can go to specialists. This is how human society has functioned since cities rose. It isn't anything new.
> Not to fault free markets in general, but when
> you have a society built on money, as ours
> is, it's inevitable that those with more money
> will control everything.
Money basically is a representation of human life. As an indicator of value, it is an abstract of how much of our energy, our labor, something is worth to us. Thus, it represents the basis of all human existence.
The only difference between free markets and other economic systems is that the flow of money is most efficiently distributed to represent the value of goods to individuals. In a free market system, a person gets rich because people highly value the goods or service he provides.
The contrast is to systems of coercion where the flow of capital is determined by the will of a smaller portion of the population (governments, rulers, guilds, etc). Both sorts of systems are based on money, as any economic system is.
> We allow a free market to develop giant
> corporations with tons of resources and very
> strong vested interest. Isn't it inevitable that > they attempt to exercise their considerable
> power to protect those vested interests?
> Certainly.
Often, when business tries to dabble in politics, it is because politics is presenting some sort of threat. Political dabbling in markets is anathema to capitalism, thus your logic is very questionable.
Further, while it may be inevitable that they try to further themselves through dabbling in politics (which happens as well), it is not inevitable that they have avenues to do so. In fact, again, if there are means to have business influence government, this is against capitalist notions of economic-political interaction, and again your attempts to blame it on capitalism fall short.
It always baffles me to see people try to blame an economic system whose defining characteristic is seperation of economics and politics for interaction between economics and politics.
> Fundamentally American culture is selfish and
> egocentric. Few individuals are motivated
> by notions of higher societal good, as is quite > common in other nations (like our close
> neighbor Canada). It's inevitable that in such a > situation corruption develops. Until such a
> fundamental aspect of Americana changes, we'll
> always be fucked.
There's a lot wrong with this statement. First off, the first statement is a gross generalization verging on bigotry, as well as being incredibly inaccurate. Individualism is a basis of American culture and encourages enlightened self-interest, not juvenile egotism. Some of the most rugged individualists in American history have also been some of the most compassionate humanitarians and it is an insult to their memory to make such inaccurate statements.
Second, it again baffles me that America is considered selfish and unconcerned with higher societal good and at the same time be criticized for its 'policing of the world', where American soldiers go to risk their lives around the world in efforts to suppress tyranny and injustice. Also, I might add, America contributes more financial aid to other nations than any other country in the world (including Canada).
I fear, unfortunately, that our general lack of willingness to sacrifice our rights and freedom for the illusion of security that government sponsered humanitarian programs offer is seen as being 'heartless'. All I can offer to this is that it was American aid that kept Russian Communists from starving to death after the revolution. So much for 'heartless capitalism'.