Print Story How do we fail it?
By nightflameblue (Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 12:01:51 PM EST) (all tags)
Let me count the ways.

  1. MF hasn't done so much as pretend to try to charge my credit card for my order. I'm guessing this will be yet another time where they just don't even try until the day comes I lose my patience with their "we may be security checking your azz" BS and rip into them, then it'll magically start moving. Final order with MF? YEP. Wouldn't have been with them if I could get this Mic anywhere outside the MF/M123/GC conglomerate. If they can't move on it, I'll just cancel and call up Sweetwater, tell them my monetary limit, and tell them I want a decentish condenser. Those guys rule it anyway. I can reset levels instead of having a direct replacement. Bastards.
  2. Many months ago we were given a request by sales/marketing for a web interface to a database they purchased from a third party. I created the web interface from scratch exactly as requested. Now, months later, and three days before training for utilizing this web interface, I am given a new, never before seen, spec sheet that will require, literally, WEEKS of my time to put into code. Training begins Monday. When confronted with the problem, the response was, "you've known about this for months."
  3. HR requested we set them up a forum for employee questions/answers. Made sense. Done and done. Now we're slowly locking that forum down. Today's request? "Can we remove the 'posted by' line and the date and time of any posts?" We've already prevented anyone else from posting but HR themselves, thus removing the need for a forum at all. I dub thee, useless time sink.
  4. The healing process had been going quite well until yesterday, when apparently I wore a not so great pair of underwear. Setback. Gat damn.
  5. Whatever the hell kind of rat poison the crapateria based their caramel rolls on this morning, it's taken a toll on me. And I had to pick today to get a roll?

On the rare bright side:

  1. The boss backed me up on the sales/marketing snafu. In fact, he actually whipped out a real-life facepalm, followed by a scalp-rub.
  2. A democratic senator appears to have resigned with the publicly stated reason that boils down to "Washington sucks. STFU and do something or I'm going home." Too bad none of the people staying will pay any attention. Made for entertainment though.
  3. Zippy has stopped tracking calls in the call log again. I won the pool.
< "Why Nice Guys Finish Last" | Ask Husi: Semi-Modular/Modular Synths >
How do we fail it? | 24 comments (24 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
Bright side 2 by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #1 Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 12:08:41 PM EST
Bayh is one of the ones who's refused to do anything.

That Ryan guy from Wisconsin at least has the balls to propose something that will actually work. It has no chance of getting passed, or even out of committee, but at least he's willing to do something.

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

is there a way to fix congress? by garlic (2.00 / 0) #2 Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 12:17:58 PM EST
it certainly seems fucked if we're going to require a 60% majority to get any work done. I'd rather not have majorities steamroll minorities in passing their agenda, but at this point it seems better than them wasting time as they are currently.

[ Parent ]
Without giving one or the other side too much? by MartiniPhilosopher (2.00 / 0) #5 Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 12:26:53 PM EST
Not really.

We'd have to do a complete rewrite of the legislative branch to get change happening in there.

Whenever I hear one of those aforementioned douche bags pontificate about how dangerous [...] videogames are I get a little stabby. --Wil Wheaton.

[ Parent ]
Keep in mind by nightflameblue (2.00 / 0) #6 Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 12:28:41 PM EST
that complete re-write would have to come from the entrenched idiots that depend on there being no re-write for their very substantial salaries.

[ Parent ]
there's another way by garlic (4.00 / 1) #8 Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 12:36:37 PM EST
but most of us are pretty comfy and don't want change that badly.

[ Parent ]
Then call it Step 7 by MartiniPhilosopher (2.00 / 0) #11 Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 04:15:24 PM EST
With steps one through six consisting of fracturing the banks, media, education, and telecom back to a more state and local size of structures.

I figure that should keep a sufficient number of people busy while we sit down and get the rest done.

Whenever I hear one of those aforementioned douche bags pontificate about how dangerous [...] videogames are I get a little stabby. --Wil Wheaton.

[ Parent ]
Start over? by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #9 Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 01:07:09 PM EST
New elections, with anyone who has ever served in the current congress banned from standing.
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
That doesn't sovle the whole problem by MartiniPhilosopher (2.00 / 0) #10 Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 04:10:23 PM EST
Because most of those who can't stand get into lobbying since they still have friends. Or another part of government as high level consultants or bureaucrats.

The problem is them using the office for personal gain ahead of the office being used for the betterment of the country/state/city. The easiest way to remove the power garnered by the office is to remove the office itself.

Whenever I hear one of those aforementioned douche bags pontificate about how dangerous [...] videogames are I get a little stabby. --Wil Wheaton.

[ Parent ]
The solution would be a direct democracy. by wumpus (2.00 / 0) #16 Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 09:22:36 PM EST
The reason we elect congresscum is that nobody other than politicians are willing to go in and hammer out the laws. Armed revolt would be easier to organize than direct democracy (and after such revolt, the revolters would feel they have earned decent "leaders" and couldn't be bothered to keep them in line).

The other thing to keep in mind is that the learning curve for control of ones actions is pretty fierce. Consider the Adams & Jackson administrations (for landed & otherwise white men) and prohibition once you added the white women as well (I can only assume that non-whites were either added too slowly and/or still being kept out to get on this list). Assume that any direct democracy in the US will be at least twice as worse than anything Bush (the lesser) did and will last as least twice as long.

Mind you, it wouldn't be that difficult to create a working system (somewhat harder than effective electronic voting, something the a small group of hardware guys completely spec'ed out the morning we woke up "unpresidented"), just try to explain it to the electorate while the other sides are busy blasting out propaganda.


footnote: Civilization (by Sid Meier) got it right when it said "democracy has no corruption". The catch is that nobody has seen democracy in action (especially on the scale seen in a game of civilization when using democracy (esp. without the pyramids)).

[ Parent ]
Yes, but with two conditions by MartiniPhilosopher (2.00 / 0) #17 Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 11:49:05 PM EST
The first is that there is a "None of the above" or spoiled ballot provision to indicate that none of the solutions offered are satisfactory. The rule would be simple, if there are more spoiled ballots than votes for any single candidate, then all of the candidates get tossed and the parties have to field new ones. Or the law gets tossed and can't come up again.

The second is that voting is mandatory. Because having the first means you always have a viable choice there is no longer any excuse not to vote.

Whenever I hear one of those aforementioned douche bags pontificate about how dangerous [...] videogames are I get a little stabby. --Wil Wheaton.

[ Parent ]
Another provision: by nightflameblue (2.00 / 0) #20 Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 09:01:19 AM EST
A law once voted down can be massaged twelve thousand different ways and reintroduced on every general election for the forseeable future.

[ Parent ]
two issues: by wumpus (2.00 / 0) #24 Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 12:02:44 AM EST
first, as long as there is a representitive on the ballot: all you have to do is corrupt the winner. The point of a real democracy (all laws get voted by the population) is that an individual voter can vote entirely in his own interest without being considered corrupt. The congresscum is representing his discrtict, the voter is representing himself).

I fail to see how forcing an unwilling voter to vote could possibly help (note, I've vollunteered for the US Democratic side, while it might aide that side, I don't think it is worth it). If there is any means to disqualify a voter, I think that the voter himself is the best judge (see beliefs in direct democracy above). If you must try to increase the quorum, either keep the pols open longer (24 hours or so), or allow "early" voting no questions asked, preferably in a post office or some other easily available location.


Note, I was serious about "direct democracy". I feel that it is quite possible to discuss and determine policy down to the dog catcher level. The real issue is that this would take many, many more man hours than is presently spent, and that those who would be willing to spend them would only belong to a "busy-body-clique" that would be nealy-identical to the congress-clique. The only difference is that you couldn't vote out the busy-bodies once a couple of years, you would have to get enough people to out-vote them every single day of the year (for several years running). I wouldn't plan on that happening for several years to come.

[ Parent ]
They don't really need 60 votes by lm (4.00 / 2) #15 Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 09:17:58 PM EST
The Democrats in the Senate are just being pussies. They don't like conflict.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
I can't see by garlic (2.00 / 0) #19 Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 08:58:10 AM EST
how they can get anything done without a cloture vote, which requires 60 votes. And as far as I can determine, the rules for fillibustering may not require anyone to actually fillibuster anymore so it's pretty easy to do. forcing the filibuster doesn't seem like it'd would provide any good camera shots. Not that they're making any progress anyway I guess.

[ Parent ]
Lots of ways by lm (2.00 / 0) #21 Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:22:00 PM EST
One way is that senate majority leader can not only require an actual filibuster (i.e., someone debating the issue at hand) but can also require such debate to be germane to the question under consideration.

Another way is to bring the legislation to the floor piece by piece and, by doing so, forcing those opposed to filibuster each piece of the legislation and thereby go on record as being opposed to the more popular bits.

Then there are options like keeping the Senate in session 24x7 with a presence of at least 51 Democratic legislators.

Then there is the so called `nuclear' option.

The well runs deep with possible parliamentary maneuvers. The Democrats in the Senate have barely even looked into various possibilities because most are overly concerned with keeping up the appearance of comity.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
articles I've read by garlic (2.00 / 0) #22 Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 08:52:47 AM EST
say that parliamentary procedure doesn't work such that they can require an actual filibuster, or germane debate.

[ Parent ]
Which articles? by lm (2.00 / 0) #23 Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 03:21:10 PM EST
As for germaneness consider the Pastore rule combined with the fact that a legislative day is a logical day rather than a calendar day.

As for requiring the filibustering senator to actually speak, there is, to my knowledge, no rule that allows for this but rather it is merely a convenience. If so, then the majority leader could certainly require it to happen.

But even if I'm wrong on those, that leaves open a myriad of alternatives. Rather than looking for ways to direct end the filibuster, the innovative parliamentarian will look for ways to make the lives of the filibustering party so difficult that they will give it up. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
To be fair by nightflameblue (2.00 / 0) #3 Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 12:19:18 PM EST
the probability of trying to do anything when you see any attempt at doing anything being shot down and gridlocked becomes almost null. Case in point, my job.

Essentially, doing something = doing nothing, so why do something?

[ Parent ]
you scared me for a second by LilFlightTest (2.00 / 0) #18 Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 08:02:43 AM EST
I thought you were talking about Mayor Ryan, from WI, who never proposed anything except taxing the crap out of this city...
if de-virgination results in me being able to birth hammerhead sharks, SIGN ME UP!!! --misslake
[ Parent ]
Poor Bayh by georgeha (4.00 / 1) #4 Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 12:24:53 PM EST
I hope they can get by on just his health insurance executive wife's salary, the huge premium increase makes sense.

I did like his postscript by nightflameblue (2.00 / 0) #7 Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 12:30:05 PM EST
"I can do more good in the private sector." i.e. Someone just offered me a boatload of cash over what I could get if I stayed a congress critter.

But still, it was a cool public stand to make, even if my inherent distrust of all politicians leads me to the conclusion there's ulterior motives all around.

[ Parent ]
s/democratic/Democratic by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #12 Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:17:18 PM EST
All of our senators - in theory - are democratic.

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

Progressive! by dev trash (4.00 / 1) #13 Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:58:02 PM EST
That's the title they like.

[ Parent ]
But by Herring (2.00 / 0) #14 Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 07:43:41 PM EST
Democracy and progress seem to be in short supply

christ, we're all old now - StackyMcRacky
[ Parent ]
How do we fail it? | 24 comments (24 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback