Re: [OT?] Free Software petition on WhiteHouse.gov
On 12/26/2012 10:45 AM, Worrier Poet wrote:
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!
Yes, I do - I've been active here. And my experience is not over 50
years old. A lot has changed since the Eisenhower era.
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.
That's a nice idea, but it's not how things work today. If no one is
interested in a matter, no one is going to do anything about it -
especially an internet petition, whether it's on whitehouse.gov or not.
Now if someone is interested in it, he/she MAY use it to garner
support. But otherwise, it's ignored.
What IS more effective is when Senators and Congressmen get letters
(individually written, not form letters) from their constituents
(actually the MOST effective is a personal visit to their office, either
here in DC or in their home state/district). If someone gets several
thousand letters from their constituents, they take notice. Phone calls
help also, but not as much.
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?
I never said it was unknown. Maybe I should have said TRUSTED sites.
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.
Sure. But not private information such as my zip code. I have,
however, given such information IN PERSON to congressional staffers. But
then I at least use my real name and email address, not some 'nym.
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.
You would be surprised. It's very easy to tell when they care about
your concerns or not. They'll all listen. But with some experience and
some guidance from experienced lobbyists, you quickly learn to read how
interested they are.
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.
I know what works, and what doesn't work. For instance, when big PACs
want something done, they ask their members to write and/or call their
Senators and Representatives. Snail mail is best, but even email has
some effect. These PACs don't put up petitions on whitehouse.gov or any
other site to try to influence people. And I think they know a lot more
about how things work than some anonymous poster on the internet.
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.
They are "unwarranted assumptions" to you only because you don't want to
believe how things really are.
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.
Things have changed a lot in the last 50+ years. This is no longer
Eisenhower's government!
I think I'm out of this conversation. You want a baseless argument,
argue with yourself. All your baseless belong to you.
You've made a lot of claims, with nothing to back them up.
Reply to: