Amazingly, Congress held a hearing back on 12/4/13 on alien life. Yep, they actually spoke with scientists and everything. via io9

via Instagram http://instagram.com/p/h_p78dSrqW/

the original post on io9

Honestly, the fact that this happened at all should have been headline news on every news website in the world. In our "Christian" nation, it's a shock when any of our leaders actually give a scientist the time of day, let alone ask them questions. Of course, if you read the original io9 post, you can tell that the politicians really don't have any reasonable knowledge of what the search for alien looks like outside of a science fiction film. But hey, I give them points for trying. Let's hope this wasn't just a flash in the pan and that they ask about aliens again some time.

$1.2 TRILLION Deficit! Well-done, Politicians! Oh, it's not just Bush's fault!

Yep, the US government's budget deficit is $1,200,000,000,000!! And
Congress is said to find that number "jaw-dropping."

I'm pretty sure this would be the case for ANYone who understood what kind of money that is.

First off, in case you're fuzzy on it, the budget deficit is the difference between the amount of money a body has and the amount it wants to spend. Yep--the USG wants to spend $1.2 tril more than they've got--that being a "surprise" to Congress, really gives us an idea of how much they've got!

The main thing to consider is just how absurd it is that Congress finds this jaw-dropping. Why is this so shocking to them? Where have they been all of this time? Have they not been paying attention to things like this? Seriously:

Just who the hell is minding the store down there in Washington??

I don't think it's possible for our government to do anything more to undermine our confidence in it. Come on--how do you not see a hole so big you could stick $1.2 trillion in it??

You people in DC are absolute idiots. Why do we put up with this behavior from the people who we've supposedly hired to protect us? This isn't just a Bush thing, clearly--it's EVERYONE IN WASHINGTON.

I suppose it's too much to ask that you all impeach yourselves, isn't it?

The above screencap comes from: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/6199619.html

Access Government on Your iPhone for a Price

Before I get into this, I just want to say that I believe in the general concept of making money. I also think charging for an app that you've put real effort into is fine. However, The Unnofficial Apple Weblog just posted today (here: http://www.tuaw.com/…r-pocket/1 ) about an app that seems so cool and so lame at the same time.

First off, let me tell you about the app. It's called "Congress+" and it basically rocks. It allows you to find out who your representatives in DC are and gives you their contact info. According to the description, it even looks like you can call or email your reps right from the app. That's a nice touch.

What's not a nice touch is that the developer is charging ten bucks for the app.

Most apps are cheaper than that--even really good, useful apps are cheaper than that. Then, the fact that this app allows you to partake in the democratic process more easily bugs me, too. Not that I think people should have to work to take part, but because it should not cost anything to interact easily with your elected representatives in Washington.

I know what some of you are thinking: "But, ThePete, the developer obviously put a lot of effort into the app--why shouldn't he be justly compensated for his work?"

Well, he should be justly compensated for his work, but not at the people's expense.

Taking part in democracy should be free no matter what.

If I were him, I'd have gone to the department of the government that is in charge of the information website for the USG. I'd have asked them if they'd be interested in hiring me to write an app like this. If they said no, I'd hound them for a bit. If they still turned me down, I'd go ahead and do the app on my own.

However, I'd consider it a service to my country and charge a dollar. At that price, I wouldn't look greedy and everyone would be like "yeah, cool--I'll take it!"

Instead, the developer is charging more than most developers do and seems to be taking advantage of our current economic situation to make even more money. Luckily the developer did respond to other folks criticizing the price in the comments of the TUAW.com post. In a comment outlining how this app is better than a website that would give you the same info, he includes the following line in a comment he left on the TUAW post before I left mine:

"...won't allow you to email key staffers directly. Often they are more accessible than the standard webform and are tracking what constituents think -- like on this $700B bailout."

To me, bringing in the bailout is pretty skeezy stuff.

I exaggerated what he's doing there in my own comment to the post in order to make a point:

"Hm, seems to me, the developer is using the current situation with our economy to help sell his app--better to charge less in light of the economy and seem a bit less greedy. It's like he's saying:

"Ooo, WHAT a mess in Washington!! You should contact your representatives in Washington and let your voice be heard! I've got *just* the app for you! $10 please!"

Of course, he could say:

"In light of the current economic crisis, we'll be giving away our app for free so everyone can have easy access to their representatives in Washington. Once the bailout bill is passed or is down for the count, we'll go back to the regular price."

That would make the developer look like a prince and inspire a lot of positive reviews to help sell future copies of the app.

Just my 2 yen..."

Yes, I was a bit harsh, but I'm making a point here. As Americans we should be making it easier for each other to get information. Not making money off of exploiting people's interest in finding an easier way to take part in the process.

When Marc, the second commenter, to the post pointed out that iPhone users could just bookmark http://votesmart.org/ the developer responded with an irksome list of reasons paying $10 for his iPhone app was better than just using one's iPhone to pull up VoteSmart.org. Here's the developer's list with my commentary:

Marc, you could bookmark that site but it

(1) doesn't give you access when you don't have an Internet connection

So, that's like never, right? Maybe us subway riders would find ourselves without the ability to reach info about our representatives from time to time. But I think I can handle waiting until Columbus Circle to grab some Pinkberry and look up Hillary Clinton's phone number.

(2) doesn't have correct and updated information all the time (Joe Lieberman's Chief of Staff recently resigned, many candidates are just plain wrong)

There's always the USG's own websites for such info. It may be a bit more work, but $10-worth? Meh...

(3) doesn't give you iPhone Google map links to the office locations

Which is great because I'm not capable of remembering the addresses and entering them myself.

(4) won't allow you to email key staffers directly. Often they are more accessible than the standard webform and are tracking what constituents think -- like on this $700B bailout.

Once again, it's not that hard to remember information in the old biodrive mounted in your skull. Of course, if Steve Jobs had many gigs in his own biodrive he'd have Apple implement fricken cut and paste in the damn iPhone, already.

(5) we are launching a $1.99 version that will not provide updates for folks who do not want to spend $10.

Ah, so poor folks get inaccurate info. That's definitely inline with democracy! Did I say democracy? I meant corporatism.

FYI, the paper version is $17.95 and you only get it for one year (now). We give it to you for $9.99 through 2010.

Ah, so you point out the government sucks but that you suck less? Good advertising ploy. Let me guess, you're a Republican, aren't you?

(6) looks like blech on an iPhone.

Hm, this looks OK to me:

Discover Simple, Private Sharing at Drop.io

Sure, any site that doesn't have a mobile version is going to be a little annoying to deal with, but hey, get a computer, right?

The funny thing about VoteSmart.org is that, if you look in the center toward the bottom of that screencap, you can see that they've announced their API. An API allows developers to access the service provided on a website via other websites or other applications. So, odds are, there just might be some competition to the Congress+ app for iPhone soon.

You might want to save your $10 just in case something else comes along that's a bit cheaper. Since the responsibility to research will be on VoteSmart.org's plate, all developers will have to do is work on writing the app. That means they'll be able to charge a heckuva lot less.

Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterli.  Replies.

Didn't They Already Have a Say?

Grabbed this screencap from Google News in the early hours of 7/9 and just had to shake my head.

I mean, REALLY.

A bipartisan panel wants the government to play a bigger role when a president decides to go to war.

Uhhhhh, YEAH.

You know what, Mr. or Mrs. Bipartisan Panel?

THEY ALREADY HAVE A BIGGER ROLE.

They just turned over that role to Bush in the lead-up to the Iraq Attack--or did you guys not study very hard in school?

I mean, any kid who paid attention in history class (or for me, Social Studies class) knows that it's Congress' job to authorize military force. Before we invaded a sovereign member of the UN (Iraq) back in 2003, the US Congress told Bush that he could swing his ability to declare war around like a huge penis in order to scare Saddam into fessing up about his WMD.

Of course, no amount of penis-swinging would get Saddam to admit something that wasn't true, so Bush got to use his war powers. Of course, if Congress hadn't been lied to by the White House, they'd have known Saddam had nothing to declare as we threatened to cross his border.

They trusted the guy in the White House. It's my impression that the Founding Fathers didn't want the guy in the White House to have the power to invade a country--so why did Congress defy that interest of the FF? Especially to a man like Bush who was such a great leader he let 911 happen, invaded a whole country and then couldn't even capture the guy who was behind 911.

This was a guy who didn't even have the decency to make sure he won the 2000 election.

Hey, did you know that when there's a tie in a presidential race the US Constitution states that it's *Congress* that votes on who the president should be?

Yeah, apparently the Supreme Court hadn't heard that either. By I digress!

The USC(ongress) should never have given Bush the ability to shoot his military load into Iraq to begin with, so essentially, since Bush "took office" the Supreme Court, Congress and the White House all let us down. That's all three branches, isn't it?

Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterz.  Replies.

Bush in TheNews: What's Wrong with this Picture?

OK, this is getting seriously out of control.

BUSH is scolding CONGRESS about Iraq???

HOLEEE Moley.

This isn't America, it's BIZARRO AMERICA. After the incredible mess Bush, himself, has caused in that country, he has the GALL to scold CONGRESS?

It would be one thing if he were saying something like: "Why did you guys vote to give me the power to go to war? Don't tell me you didn't think I'd screw it all to hell, now! We had African tribesman yet undiscovered by modern society sending emails to the White House telling me not to invade, but you guys let me do it anyway!"

However, here's what a March 27, 2008 article from http://AP.org/ and http://MyWay.com/ (here: http://apnews.myway.com/…RRLO0.html ) reported Bush saying:

Bush derided calls from Congress for troop withdrawals or deadlines so that the military could focus more on the anti-terror battle elsewhere. "This argument makes no sense," he said.

...

Bush suggested that Iraqi officials were able to make more progress than the U.S. Congress.

"They got their budget passed," the president said. "Sometimes it takes our Congress awhile to get its budget passed.

"Nevertheless some members of Congress decided the best way to encourage progress in Baghdad was to criticize and threaten Iraq's leaders while they're trying to work out their differences," Bush said.

...

"They're trying to build a modern democracy on the rubble of three decades of tyranny, in a region of the world that has been hostile to freedom. And they're doing it while under assault from one of history's most brutal terrorist networks," Bush said. "When it takes time for Iraqis to reach agreement, it is not foot-dragging, as one senator described it during Congress' two-week Easter recess. It is a revolutionary undertaking that requires great courage."

...

But, he countered, "If America's strategic interests are not in Iraq, the convergence point for the twin threats of al-Qaida and Iran, the nation Osama bin Laden's deputy has called the place for the greatest battle, the country at the heart of the most volatile region on earth, then where are they?"

Yeeeeah.

That last part is what you call a "straw man argument" and the Bush Administration uses them all the time. It's like using "rape" or "Hitler" in your argument--it's a fairly sure sign you *have* no argument. In case you're not familiar, a straw man argument is when you rephrase the issue in a way that makes it easier for you to beat.

For instance, Bush is waging a war on a concept (terrorism) where our enemy is a few-thousand strong (which got that strong thanks to his foreign policy). So, rather than admit that Al Qeada is a tiny, minuscule threat to America (especially when compared to something like cancer, AIDS or even car accidents) he says something like "Don't you want to protect America against the people who hate our way of life?"

How can you say "no" to that?

He sets up the straw man and then knocks it over--paraphrasing Shakespeare:

...it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.

Of course, what's really disgusting, to me at this point, is the way Congress is behaving through all of this. It's bad enough Bush has lied and bullshit his way into wars that are making his friends filthy rich(er), but Congress has the Constitutional authority and obligation to stop him. Yet, they've instead acted like a bunch of sheep, allowing themselves to be herded around by the good shepherd George.

I hope we all vote against our incumbent senators and congresspeople the next chance we get because every single one of them has let us down. Sure, some have tried, but none have stopped Bush from continuing this mess.

The whole thing makes me laugh like Chuck Heston in "Planet of the Apes."
Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterz.  Replies.