Comments on: Appropriations Committee ignores Congress's mandate to webcast hearings http://boingboing.net/2012/04/17/appropriations-committee-ignor.html Brain candy for Happy Mutants Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:20:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: howaboutthisdangit http://boingboing.net/2012/04/17/appropriations-committee-ignor.html#comment-1397594 howaboutthisdangit Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:40:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=155077#comment-1397594 Lawmakers usually exempt themselves from laws which they find inconvenient.  If you lie to a Congressperson, you can be hauled in for perjury, but they can tell boldfaced lies about their political opponents.  They exempt themselves from telemarketing no-call lists and from insider trading legislation, and don't expect them to vote down THEIR taxpayer-funded healthcare. Even if they are technically bound by a law, that does not mean that it applies to them. Being rank has its privileges. Lawmakers usually exempt themselves from laws which they find inconvenient.  If you lie to a Congressperson, you can be hauled in for perjury, but they can tell boldfaced lies about their political opponents.  They exempt themselves from telemarketing no-call lists and from insider trading legislation, and don’t expect them to vote down THEIR taxpayer-funded healthcare.

Even if they are technically bound by a law, that does not mean that it applies to them.

Being rank has its privileges.

]]> By: Ito Kagehisa http://boingboing.net/2012/04/17/appropriations-committee-ignor.html#comment-1397569 Ito Kagehisa Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:18:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=155077#comment-1397569 We'll have to disagree, then.  As I see it, our nation's founders trusted in the willingness of the majority to abide by a set of mutually agreed upon rules. <blockquote>I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.  -- Thomas Jefferson</blockquote> We’ll have to disagree, then.  As I see it, our nation’s founders trusted in the willingness of the majority to abide by a set of mutually agreed upon rules.

I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion. 
– Thomas Jefferson

]]> By: Josh Bisker http://boingboing.net/2012/04/17/appropriations-committee-ignor.html#comment-1397244 Josh Bisker Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:23:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=155077#comment-1397244 Social contracts and issues of "respect for the law" are red herrings here. When a group of people imbue their government with legislative, executive, and judicial powers, what they're saying is, "we don't believe that the social contract by itself will let our society excel or let its members live in peace; instead, we want a set of defined rules, a set of approved punishments for violating them, and a group of people to enforce those rules." What's going on here is that our executive branch is not actually in the business of fairly enforcing our laws. This is just another file on the mountain of evidence that says that our executive branch (from cops to the White House) is either as corrupt or as self-serving or as simply bad at doing their job as the legislature is.  Yes, clearly, our legislators themselves seem to be a pack of non-law-abiding nogoodniks, but the reason that our government has different branches, in theory, is that we as a nation assume that no one participating in this society can be relied upon to simply respect our "social contract." So, I have to disagree: this isn't about people being bad or the social contract breaking down; this is about our government being bad and breaking down, and that's a lot scarier. Social contracts and issues of “respect for the law” are red herrings here. When a group of people imbue their government with legislative, executive, and judicial powers, what they’re saying is, “we don’t believe that the social contract by itself will let our society excel or let its members live in peace; instead, we want a set of defined rules, a set of approved punishments for violating them, and a group of people to enforce those rules.” What’s going on here is that our executive branch is not actually in the business of fairly enforcing our laws. This is just another file on the mountain of evidence that says that our executive branch (from cops to the White House) is either as corrupt or as self-serving or as simply bad at doing their job as the legislature is.  Yes, clearly, our legislators themselves seem to be a pack of non-law-abiding nogoodniks, but the reason that our government has different branches, in theory, is that we as a nation assume that no one participating in this society can be relied upon to simply respect our “social contract.” So, I have to disagree: this isn’t about people being bad or the social contract breaking down; this is about our government being bad and breaking down, and that’s a lot scarier.

]]> By: Guest http://boingboing.net/2012/04/17/appropriations-committee-ignor.html#comment-1397233 Guest Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:15:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=155077#comment-1397233 how very inappropriate how very inappropriate

]]> By: mccrum http://boingboing.net/2012/04/17/appropriations-committee-ignor.html#comment-1397220 mccrum Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:03:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=155077#comment-1397220 Well, it's really more of a guideline... Well, it’s really more of a guideline…

]]> By: Ito Kagehisa http://boingboing.net/2012/04/17/appropriations-committee-ignor.html#comment-1397202 Ito Kagehisa Tue, 17 Apr 2012 16:29:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=155077#comment-1397202 Making a law is just writing something down, and changes nothing unless sentient beings independently decide to act according to the law.  If the social contract is breaking down, fewer people will decide to respect the law.  The rich and powerful are usually the first to discard the wishes and needs of their fellows. Making a law is just writing something down, and changes nothing unless sentient beings independently decide to act according to the law.  If the social contract is breaking down, fewer people will decide to respect the law.  The rich and powerful are usually the first to discard the wishes and needs of their fellows.

]]>