Re: [OT?] Free Software petition on WhiteHouse.gov
On 12/26/2012 09:10 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Maybe you should live in the Washington, DC area like I do, and actually
> PARTICIPATE in the process. Have you ever spent any time in with the
> staff of either of your senators or your representative? Have you
> actually sat in the visitors' area during the session of either house?
> Have you ever attended a committee meeting?
>
> Here's a bit of "Gov 101" for you. No, the President cannot introduce a
> bill into either house. Only the respective members of their houses can
> do it. The President can REQUEST a bill be introduced, and if someone
> agrees, they will do it.
Wow. Just wow. Maybe I'd better move to DC so I can play with the big boys!
I first attended U.S. Congressional sessions in the 50s -- when the hcua
was going strong. What a privilege it was to see those jack-asses doing
the "nation's work."
You seem to think that you know a lot about the way Congress works.
Well, come to think of it, based upon the way you read content in my
messages where it doesn't exist then jump to conclusions, I'd say you
probably really do know how Congress "works" these days.
>
> As for the petitions. Just the fact they are on the White House site
> doesn't mean ANYONE is interested in them. These petitions are started
> by THE PEOPLE - not the White House - see
> https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/. The petitions are routinely ignored
> unless one party or the other needs them for political capital.
>
Pretty much exactly what I said -- except the part where you seem to
assert that no one is interested in the petitions posted there.
Obviously, the people who place the petitions there may be interested in
them. If enough people sign a petition there, I'd guess it's likely to
come to the attention of someone who might do something about it. See,
that's what a petition is for, to signal the minions of the
powers-that-be that there might be political paydirt in one idea or another.
>> Sign, don't sign. Big deal. But just about everyone who's used the
>> Internet for anything has "signed" in some way at even more "dangerous"
>> sites -- and for less laudable causes. I don't think my point was that
>> obtuse. People give their credit card data to poorly secured Web
>> entities to buy Teletubbies, for pity's sake.
>>
>
> Maybe YOU do. I only give private information to known sites. You give
> your information to whomever you want.
>
So whitehouse.gov is an unknown site?
By posting to this list you give your name (or at least an alias) and
some type of e-mail address, and other traceable information in the mail
headers, to the entire Internet-accessing world. That's roughly the same
information I provided to whitehouse.gov.
>> You do have to take some risk in order to try to stand for any idea. One
>> can argue points about where one can do the most effective risk-taking,
>> but none of us really knows what's going to be done with even the best
>> ideas and intentions, regardless of how one goes about trying to get
>> them enacted -- especially when we're talking about government (or any
>> other big industry).
>>
>
> I take risk. But I take it where it counts. And I participate in the
> government process. But I do it in a way that counts. Writing your
> congressman and senators has a much greater effect than signing a
> petition no one in the government cares about.
>
You don't have any way of knowing who might or might not care about
what's posted at whitehouse.gov. And you have no way of knowing whether
or not any Congressperson or any other politico you write to or meet
with really gives a hoot about your concerns. You make a lot of
assumptions about what other people have and have not done, and about
what they care about. Those assumptions seem to be based largely upon
speculation.
>> I've bought stuff at Amazon.com, and I signed the petition at
>> whitehouse.gov. Just call me a serious risk-taker.
>>
>>
>
> Or very naive.
Yeah, yeah I know. That thing I care about, it sucks, and I'm stupid for
caring about it and/or for trying to do something about it in a way that
you disapprove of. Same with the OP. Same with anyone (apparently) who
disagrees with the "way things should be done" according to you. Perhaps
the only way to be effective in political endeavors is to do things the
"Jerry Stuckle" way.
Considering the unwarranted assumptions and assertions you've made on
the limited information available in this thread, and considering the
way you at least seem to deliberately misconstrue the content of my
messages and those of others, I'm wondering just what types of causes
you might be doing such a fine job of espousing. But not wondering much.
I "participated in the process" at a time when it almost cost me my
career, at a time when that type of participation did cost other people
their careers and even their ability to simply continue to live where
they'd lived their lives. I've participated in legal, political, social
and medical processes ever since. Too bad I wasted my life by not
consulting you about my methods.
I think I'm out of this conversation. You want a baseless argument,
argue with yourself. All your baseless belong to you.
Reply to: