Slashdot Log In
US Senate & House Create YouTube Channels
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Jan 14, 2009 12:20 PM
from the can't-wait-for-them-to-do-something-that-matters dept.
from the can't-wait-for-them-to-do-something-that-matters dept.
eldavojohn writes "Following an election in which online videos played an important role, the United States House of Representatives and United States Senate have opened YouTube channels (or 'hubs') advertised to be a 'backstage pass to your government.' Ideally this will bring transparency to citizens and inform them of their senators' & representatives' positions and ideas."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
oh goodie (Score:5, Funny)
This we be watched as much as c-span! ....
>_
Re:oh goodie (Score:5, Interesting)
Even more unfortunate is that I cannot download these videos, at least not without violating the TOS, and so I cannot store my own copies of those proceedings.
Parent
Re:oh goodie (Score:5, Funny)
Here is a nice human interest video from Pelosi:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wtOW1CxHvNY [youtube.com]
Parent
Re:oh goodie (Score:4, Funny)
Here is a nice human interest video from Pelosi: http://youtube.com/watch?v=wtOW1CxHvNY [youtube.com]
That one's good but even better is this video on equal rights for women from Senator John:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfLAv3JHRwY [youtube.com]
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
OMG. I wish I had mod points. I thought that was fake (somebody just pretending to be Pelosi), but there it is linked from the House's YouTube channel, so it's legit (unless the account was hacked). Kudos to her for that video.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wasn't it a few years ago that some lady senator got into a fight with a guard and started hitting him? I think it caused her not to get re-elected.
Stuff like that would be fun to have on Youtube...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Some people care about parts of our government. CSPAN doesn't get watched because you have to watch all the parts you don't care about just to get to the parts you do care about.
At least now, I can search the videos for the stuff I care about. Like legalizing retroactive abortion...
Yep. CSPAN gets extremely boring. That's why I'm glad there are sites like CSPAN Junkie [cspanjunkie.org].
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:oh goodie (Score:4, Informative)
Why let something as silly as a little TOS stop you, when it's so utterly pointless and stupid given the ease of acquiring a copy of the video. No one is going to begrudge you for trying to be a better citizen. Except for the politicians perhaps.
For those curious about how to download videos from youtube, this site [blogspot.com] will give you an easy method of doing so.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Although your link notes that his method yeilds a higher-quality video than coping from cache.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Who has time to sit there while not being paid and watch someone else all day doing their job? I sure as hell don't. Not to mention it's boring as all hell about 70% of the time because they'll be going over stuff you don't necessarily care about at every minute of the day.
A much better way to get people involved, in my opinion, is to have the channels like they have, but then have links during the channels going to the written legislation they are talking about with summaries and notes fro
Re: (Score:2)
Which is unfortunate but true. Most people do not care about their government.
A slight exaggeration. We care, but we cannot follow along with it all day long, down to detailed minutia and throwing Filibuster Parties, complete with chips and dip. This ignores what they do when not in session, where the real wheeling and dealing is done. Everyone has an important part to contribute to society, for us, it's our day jobs. We need to supervise the government and ensure that the right trade-offs are being made.
We
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the reason for the United Stated Democratic-Republic. Is the fact that most people don't have time for full involvement in the government. While network neutrality may be a big issue for you for others they will take it or leave it. As for all the stuff that goes on.
What I find more annoying is the people who we hire to take care of our government is not there to vote for every bill that goes across, and it is widely accepted that they don't.
Re:oh goodie (Score:4, Insightful)
Part of the reason for the United Stated Democratic-Republic. Is the fact that most people don't have time for full involvement in the government. While network neutrality may be a big issue for you for others they will take it or leave it. As for all the stuff that goes on. What I find more annoying is the people who we hire to take care of our government is not there to vote for every bill that goes across, and it is widely accepted that they don't.
What bothers me is that in Congress, the senators and representatives routinely vote on bills that they have not even read. They rely far too heavily on their staff to process and condense this information for them, which is flawed because we voted for and elected the representative, not his assistant.
Not only do I think they should be required to read every bill on which they vote, I also think that each year they should be forced to copy down the entire tax code, by hand, before they are allowed to take any other action (I wish I could remember where I heard this idea). When that proves impossible perhaps we would see some improvements to the way things are done.
Parent
Re:oh goodie (Score:4, Insightful)
I also think that each year they should be forced to copy down the entire tax code, by hand, before they are allowed to take any other action (I wish I could remember where I heard this idea). When that proves impossible perhaps we would see some improvements to the way things are done.
The first improvement would be removing the "Write the tax code by hand" requirement.
Parent
Re:oh goodie (Score:4, Interesting)
The first improvement would be removing the "Write the tax code by hand" requirement.
Why? Maybe it would give them an idea of just how ridicious the tax code really is. According to this [usnews.com] the Federal tax code consists of 3.7 million words. By contrast, all seven Harry Potter novels [answers.com] only clock in at around 1.1 million words.
What's wrong with that picture? It really requires that much complexity to fund the Federal Government?
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What I believe would be a good idea would be a mandatory maximum lifetime for any law. Say 10 years max. After that, if they are not reinstated, they fall away. Problem being is nobody would agree on a lifetime, nor would that want to let any not that important laws go away. Spending too much time keeping up with all the laws etc when it should be getting easier.
Re:oh goodie (Score:5, Informative)
There is a bill being aggressively pushed by DownsizeDC, the Read The Bills Act [downsizedc.org], which requires not just that the congressmen read the bill, but requires each bill to be read aloud in session before it can be voted on. This ensures that all congressmen voting on the bill will have heard its text, and it will also do a lot to cut the size of these monstrosities.
In addition, the bill must be posted online 7 days in advance, and no changes may be made without resetting that 7-day period, ensuring that the public can see and react to exactly what will be passed.
Everyone whose heard of this thing (and is not in the political class) is for it, and there's been enough pressure that the House Minority Leader requested the 7-day full-text posting of Obama's stimulus package. It's a great step, and it shows that the pressure from the electorate's phone calls and messages is working, but there's no reason that it should only be applied to a single bill.
The other bill they're pushing for, which I'll mention here because it also represents another process to improve our quality of legislation, is the One Subject at a Time Act [downsizedc.org]. It's pretty self-explanatory, and would end the use of "riders" - sneaking unpopular chunks of legislation (or pork) into other popular or necessary bills.
If you want to see these changes made, one of the best things you can do is to raise awareness of these bills, call your congressmen, and convince your friends and family to do the same.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Cspan and this is not meant to be popular. But government transparency. So you know there is a bill on something you feel strong about you can watch the debate, see who is for it who is against it. And not just go those damn republicans or damn democrats. But see who of those voted where, and if the opposition actually gave a good reason or not.
I doubt everyone will watch it like a TV show, but if something you feel important then you just may watch it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but when watching C-Span for the most part it's live house/senate coverage; you might watch for a week straight and never see your elected rep on camera. Super, ultra-mega boring. This allows you to keep an eye on your elected official and review if what he says is in line with your views or not, as opposed to what he says on the campaign trail. Plus, unlike the Obama videos, you can comment on them, so you can see what others are saying about him.
Coming Next: (Score:3, Funny)
United States Congress: After Dark
Re: (Score:2)
You don't wanna know.
Poor interns and pages.......
House Remixed (Score:2)
I'll be impressed (Score:5, Insightful)
When the federal budget is released in a well-documented, well-designed XML file format.
Re:I'll be impressed (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I'll be impressed (Score:5, Informative)
If that's what you're waiting for, than you might want to have a look at this article [theatlantic.com] about http://www.usaspending.gov/ [usaspending.gov]... It's an eye opener...
Parent
Re:I'll be impressed (Score:5, Funny)
<budget>
<available>$1000000000000.02<available>
<whatwewillspend>$10000000000000000000000.03</whatwewillspend>
</budget>
Parent
Re:I'll be impressed (Score:4, Funny)
Bravo!
Parent
Hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Ideally this will bring transparency to citizens and inform them of their senators & representatives positions and ideas.
+5 Funny.
I just saw one (Score:3, Insightful)
Check out the A bill to provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets for the purposes of providing stability to and preventing disruption in the economy and financial system and protecting taxpayers, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes remix featuring Bun B and Lil Wayne.
Killer!
Well, that's nice. (Score:2)
So I can watch my government officials with inserted annoying advertisements, with crappy video that's blocky and looks like an angry fruit salad, and I can't save it to my own computer or give it to my friends because it would violate the TOS. Wow. There's a token gesture to government accessibility if I ever saw one.
It's almost as bad as the signs at the county service center, where they print in 13 languages "Warning! Big guy with gun go smack smack if past this point you go." Ah, but all the other signs
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not sure what you're complaining about here. The first bit, I get -- YouTube looks like crap and its a pain to save. Got it. But is the second bit:
1. The signs have too many languages
2. The signs are written poorly
3. The card at the counter doesn't contain these other languages
or (and I suspect its this one)
4. The person at the counter only speaks English
If it is 4, I will pull up just short of saying, "Folks living in America really outta learn English," and instead I'll go with, "My tax dollars can
Re: (Score:2)
I think you missed my point. It's that the so-called "accessibility" to these services is a patchwork of inconsistencies that fail to accomplish its main purpose -- which is providing services to all of its citizens. If they're going to be multi-lingual, they should make a proper go of it. As it is now, we all have to search the giant displays for the 10-point sized english text buried somewhere in with a few dozen other languages in a half dozen fonts at different sizes, weights... These posters look more
there needs to be a "save" mechanism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, if they are produced by the US government, they have to be in the public domain, but why does Google need to change the features of its service if the government chooses to submit videos to the existing service with the existing features?
Re: (Score:2)
If youtube is going to start carrying government videos, presumably funded by taxpayers, the videos need to be public domain and youtube needs to have a built in mechanism to allow views to save the video. I know there are ways of saving the videos already, but youtube does not provide this functionality.
Google videos does, and it is still operational I believe. All it would take is for Google to mirror a copy of the YouTube video on the Google videos sites.
Plan B (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, Congress causes abortions?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wait, Congress causes abortions?
No the Supreme Court does.
What about 508 compliance? (Score:2)
Something wrong with hosting it themselves? (Score:2)
Any particular reason they can't host this content on a .gov server that I could possibly get to from work?
Sorry, just find it annoying to see yet another VERY large victim join the YouTube/MySpace/Facebook herd.
Of course, this also begs the question as to who will be the first to censor this type of content too, yet another issue with relying upon others to host your content.
Re:Something wrong with hosting it themselves? (Score:4, Insightful)
Having it hosted on YouTube doesn't cost the taxpayer anything for hosting and distribution, whereas hosting it on a .gov server would have a cost to the taxpayer.
Parent
Why hasn't anyone posted Pelosi's video? (Score:4, Interesting)
Translations... (Score:2)
Of course these videos won't make any sense until they are buffalaxed. [youtube.com]
All along watching you pumping my retard!
Yeah .... (Score:2)
" Ideally this will bring transparency to citizens and inform them of their senators' & representatives' positions and ideas."
Good Luck with that!
Makes sense to me. (Score:2)
It only seems fair that they allow us back stage when we're forced to allow them in our back doors.
limit all Congress speeches to 5 minutes? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
that would be the engrish version of the headline.
Re: (Score:2)
Now we can watch the Republicans sit in and try to resolve problems while the Democrats turn out the lights and go home!
Nothing amuses me more than to see our elected officials resolve disputes by acting like Eric Cartman. "Screw you guys, I'm going home!"