[PLUG] AeA Awards Rep. Minnis

[Alan]

On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 18:33, Geoff Burling wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 gepr at tempusdictum.com wrote:
> 
> >  > On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:10:12PM -0800, gepr at tempusdictum.com wrote:
> >  > > Woohoo!!  Cheers to Minnis for killing it!  And congrats to Minnis
> >  > > and Decket.
> >  >
> >  > Just whose side are you on, anyway?  Minnis really blocked an obvious
> >  > cost-cutting measure and killed it outright, and you think that's good?
> >
> > I'm on the side of limited government and the delegation of
> > responsibility to individuals who are accountable for those decisions.
> >
> > Packing the law books with more laws will not help open source (or
> > proprietary software).... It will just make me (a small business
> > owner) spend more and more money on attorneys in order to figure out
> > what the hell I'm supposed to do with the software I create and use.
> >
> > In the case of these bills, requiring certain special interest groups
> > get attention by the bureaucrats, will just force us to hire more (and
> > smarter) bureaucrats, thereby spending more of our money employing
> > people who could be doing something productive with their lives.
> >
> > If the open source community wants to help the propogation of open
> > source, then do 2 things:  1) write more CODE or work on code that
> > is being used and 2) work to REMOVE legislation that forces decision
> > makers to give unbalanced attention to special interest groups.
> >
> > If open source is the highest quality and the playing field is level,
> > then it will win.  (In fact, I think it'll win even if the playing
> > field isn't level -- I'm about 90% free of proprietary software
> > myself.)
> >
> > [grin]  Sorry for the diatribe.  But, YES, I think it's good that
> > the bill was killed, even if it was killed for other reasons.
> >
> I think I have just read an argument from an old-fashioned Republican.

Or someone who does not understand how the process actually works.

State government works on an "old boys network".  Projects and contracts
are not handed out due to merit, they are handed out to people who have
the proper connections.

Anyone who believes that the process gives equal attention to open
source projects or even obviously useful technologies has never worked
for the state.

> The kind of person who screams that government should not spend a dime
> more than it absolutely has to -- unless it concerns a contract that
> person has submitted, in which case the government MUST pay top dollar.

The idea that Conservitives(tm) want to spend less money for government
is absurd in its face.  They want to spend less money on the poor and
disenfranchised, unless it is to punish them.  They will spend plenty of
money on their own pet projects, they just have different priorities.

The only difference in spending habits between the "Liberals" is when
you get the bill.  "Liberals" raise taxes. "Conservatives" raise taxes
for your children.  

> I, for one, see nothing wrong with asking for justification for paying
> money for software when alternatives can be downloaded & installed from
> the Internet at little to no cost. Unfortunately, Minnis & the AeA
> don't want to justify this procedure; they would rather have a special
> spending account with no limits & no accountability when it comes to
> software.

The LAST thing they want is accountability.  There is no money in that. 
If they had to choose projects on technical merits, they would not be
able to pad out their bills as much.

-- 
"Push that big, big granite sphere way up there from way down here!
Gasp and sweat and pant and wheeze! Uh-oh! Feel momentum cease!
Watch it tumble down and then roll the boulder up again!"
    - The story of Sisyphus by Dr. Zeus in Frazz 12/18/2003