The question was "Who gets to decide what’s good and what’s not good?"
I jumped to something like "morality experts, presumably good ones" but I would be willing to hear who we think should be in charge of deciding what's good.
I can understand the argument that the status quo is preferable to letting Trump be President and letting Elon audit the government. I can!
But the argument that the government should only change if Good People are in charge of it is one that makes a lot of assumptions that, among other things, fail to take into account the reality on the ground (the reality, of course, includes the whole "50%+1 of people seem to have voted for exactly this" thing).
I absolutely agree with that. And as someone who supported Afghanistan and argued that Iraq was important because the government wouldn't lie to us about WMDs, I now look back at those beliefs and do a mixture of cringing and kicking myself.
So now I am willing to look at the spending and, at the very least!, bring sunlight to what is being done.
There's a simple heuristic that strikes me as reasonable:
If this particular spending came to light, would I rather be defending it?
So to grab an example that is easy: Social Security payments to a 68 year old plumber who retired last year.
Yes. I would easily prefer to defend that.
A government payment to an NGO that has 78% overhead costs?
No. I would easily prefer to have someone else defend it while I attacked it.
Between those two absurd extremes there is a grey area someplace and I would love to find it, so long as we agree that the stuff on the bad side of the gray area can be cut.
And if that is *NOT* something that is acceptable to the opposition, I will then shrug and sit back down.
Sometimes you need significant pruning and removal of the dead wood.
"So you just want it all burned down."
"No, that's actually what I'm trying to *PREVENT*."
California's wilderness husbandry in recent years demonstrates what can happen when there is a catastrophic failure.
If you want to prevent that sort of thing, you have to actively cut some stuff away and remove stuff.
If you'd like to complain that that won't be as pleasant as pretending that there isn't going to be a fire someday, you're right. Pretending that there isn't going to be a fire someday is much more pleasant than removing dead wood.
Who likes Google Trends? I know I do. If you check Google Trends for "Criminal Defense Lawyer", you'll see that Warshington DC has 3 times as many googles for it as the next closest region in the country (which is... Nebraska? What the hell, Nebraska...).
If I had to guess, I'd say that he really wanted to write about the French Revolution for the rest of his life BUT NOT THE THIRD ONE JEEZ LOUISE NOT THE THIRD ONE
Kuznicki has abandoned Libertarianism entirely, if his Bluesky timeline is anything to go by. He's gone Democratic.
I'm sure that Hanley has done the same.
Each party doing everything it could to give Team Good the power it needed to improve the world and then, of course, handing it over to Literally Voldemort.
The NYC DSA is running an ad on behalf of Zohran Mamdani that addresses some of the issues raised by Chuck Schumer and the new head of the DNC, Ken Martin.
Nah, I'm good. If you can easily imagine stuff like "yeah, he's going to come up with an example... what examples might he come up with... yeah, that one", I'm good.
And I still don't know whether you've seen the phrase "malicious compliance" before.
Yeah, the tweet that I saw that said that Politico had a payroll problem was on Tuesday.
What was (possibly) canceled, or least frozen, a few days _before_ the problem was USAID’s subscriptions, which totaled $42,000. We don’t actually know this happened, incidentally. USAID had doors locked and stuff and supposedly money was frozen, but it is unclear exactly what was frozen and what sort of automated payments continued.
Again, I'm 100% down with saying that the timing was 100% coincidental.
Pretending that it is possible that ‘things that are happening in the government’ and the technical glitch that Politico had with payment are even _slightly_ related is insane gibberish, conspiratorial nonsense of the highest level.
Again, I am 100% down with the glitch happening at the worst possible time.
Hey. I'm looking for a database that contains all of the various subscriptions that the government pays for.
Is this something that exists?
Claude said: In the U.S., there isn't a single comprehensive database of all government subscriptions, but there are a few ways to find this information:
USASpending.gov provides detailed federal spending data, including many subscription services, though they may be categorized under different contract types.
The Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) contains contract information that would include subscription services.
Individual agency procurement records and budgets often list their major subscriptions and services.
SAM.gov (System for Award Management) contains contract award information that includes subscription services.
Are you looking for any particular type of subscription or specific agency? That might help narrow down where to look. Some common government subscriptions include things like:
Professional databases (LexisNexis, Westlaw)
Scientific journals and research databases
Software licenses
News services
Data services
So I asked Let's say Politico for either news service or data services.
For Politico specifically, you can find some of this information through:
USASpending.gov - Search for "POLITICO" or "CAPITOL NEWS COMPANY" (Politico's parent company). This will show you contracts for subscriptions and services.
Individual agency procurement records - Many agencies are required to publish their contracts over certain dollar amounts. For example, you might find records of Politico Pro subscriptions in agency contracting databases.
I can help you look through these sources if you'd like. Are you interested in a specific agency's subscription to Politico, or are you looking to understand the total government spend on Politico subscriptions?
Also, keep in mind that some agencies might subscribe through intermediary news service providers rather than directly through Politico, which can make tracking the full scope more complex.
I'm looking to understand the total government spend on Politico subscriptions.
I'll help you find this through USASpending.gov, as it's the most comprehensive source. You'll want to:
Go to USASpending.gov
Use "Advanced Search"
Search for both "POLITICO" and "CAPITOL NEWS COMPANY LLC"
Filter for "Contract" spending type
Look specifically for Product Service Codes (PSC) like:
D304 (IT and Telecom - Internet)
D399 (IT and Telecom - Other)
Y1DA (News Clipping Services)
Y1DZ (Other Administrative Support Services)
One thing to note: The total spend might be understated because:
Some subscriptions might be bundled under larger contracts
Some agencies might purchase through resellers
Smaller purchases might fall under simplified acquisition thresholds
Some subscriptions might be purchased through government purchase cards (which aren't always itemized in public databases)
Would you like me to explain how to dig deeper into specific agencies' contracts once you find them in USASpending.gov?
Now let's say that I want to search for something like a right-wing Politico. What should I look for?
I aim to be direct and objective in explaining government spending data. Some prominent conservative-leaning news services that have government contracts include:
Washington Examiner
Daily Caller
The Washington Times
National Review
Bloomberg Government (which has some conservative coverage but is more business-focused)
You can search for these publications on USASpending.gov using similar methods as with Politico. I'd suggest:
Search for the parent company names rather than just publication names
Use the same PSC codes mentioned earlier
Look for terms like "news service," "subscription," "media monitoring"
Would you like me to explain how to look up any specific one of these publications? I can help you understand their corporate structures to ensure you're finding all relevant contracts.
Out of curiosity, it seems to me that "The Resistance" is less deft this time around. 2025 seems to be fumbling and flailing about compared to what was possible in 2017.
1. Choosing neither (or third party) and being accused of trying to be "above it all" (another way to say "principled" but, like, negatively)
2. Choosing one of the two "real" parties
I agree that we should be using the Constitution to decide stuff!
But a game where Team Evil has to follow the Constitution and Team Good can keep explaining that the Constitution "doesn't mean that" and asking whether I care about higher principles than those of DWMs is going to be a game where appeals to the Constitution no longer work when Team Evil finds itself in power.
As a matter of fact, this strikes me as so freakin' obvious that I'd be willing to be a jerk about it for years and years at a time suspecting that, someday, the tables will turn and Team Evil will find itself at the helm.
On “Deficits, Debt, and DOGE”
The question was "Who gets to decide what’s good and what’s not good?"
I jumped to something like "morality experts, presumably good ones" but I would be willing to hear who we think should be in charge of deciding what's good.
Philosophy majors? We've been trained...
"
Maybe we should ask the Republicans to go back to Mitt Romney and Democrats will support him this time and there won't be *ANY* Hitler comparisons.
"Can we go back to the deal we rejected a decade ago?"
"
It seems like we're in a place between:
1. Status Quo
2. Changing Things
I can understand the argument that the status quo is preferable to letting Trump be President and letting Elon audit the government. I can!
But the argument that the government should only change if Good People are in charge of it is one that makes a lot of assumptions that, among other things, fail to take into account the reality on the ground (the reality, of course, includes the whole "50%+1 of people seem to have voted for exactly this" thing).
"
I absolutely agree with that. And as someone who supported Afghanistan and argued that Iraq was important because the government wouldn't lie to us about WMDs, I now look back at those beliefs and do a mixture of cringing and kicking myself.
So now I am willing to look at the spending and, at the very least!, bring sunlight to what is being done.
There's a simple heuristic that strikes me as reasonable:
If this particular spending came to light, would I rather be defending it?
So to grab an example that is easy: Social Security payments to a 68 year old plumber who retired last year.
Yes. I would easily prefer to defend that.
A government payment to an NGO that has 78% overhead costs?
No. I would easily prefer to have someone else defend it while I attacked it.
Between those two absurd extremes there is a grey area someplace and I would love to find it, so long as we agree that the stuff on the bad side of the gray area can be cut.
And if that is *NOT* something that is acceptable to the opposition, I will then shrug and sit back down.
"
Is it even possible to distinguish between things?
"
The suggestion that we should spend money on good things and not spend it on bad things is risible.
We need to maintain the status quo at all costs.
This is what "progressive" means.
"
The World Trade Center got attacked?
"
Imagine that the government is like a forest.
Sometimes you need significant pruning and removal of the dead wood.
"So you just want it all burned down."
"No, that's actually what I'm trying to *PREVENT*."
California's wilderness husbandry in recent years demonstrates what can happen when there is a catastrophic failure.
If you want to prevent that sort of thing, you have to actively cut some stuff away and remove stuff.
If you'd like to complain that that won't be as pleasant as pretending that there isn't going to be a fire someday, you're right. Pretending that there isn't going to be a fire someday is much more pleasant than removing dead wood.
On “Open Mic for the week of 2/10/2025”
Who likes Google Trends? I know I do. If you check Google Trends for "Criminal Defense Lawyer", you'll see that Warshington DC has 3 times as many googles for it as the next closest region in the country (which is... Nebraska? What the hell, Nebraska...).
"
Say what you will about Joe Biden, he didn't need help.
On “The USAID Fight Is About Power, Not Spending”
If I had to guess, I'd say that he really wanted to write about the French Revolution for the rest of his life BUT NOT THE THIRD ONE JEEZ LOUISE NOT THE THIRD ONE
"
https://bsky.app/profile/jkuznicki.bsky.social
He writes somewhat longish threads when the mood strikes him.
"
Kuznicki has abandoned Libertarianism entirely, if his Bluesky timeline is anything to go by. He's gone Democratic.
I'm sure that Hanley has done the same.
Each party doing everything it could to give Team Good the power it needed to improve the world and then, of course, handing it over to Literally Voldemort.
It's enough to make a guy Libertarian.
"
Victory has defeated the libertarians.
The only people left after the weedheads and the gay marriage folks wandered away are the Ron Paul r3OVLutionaries.
Oh, wait. Elon asked if Ron wanted to audit the Fed...
On “Open Mic for the week of 2/10/2025”
The NYC DSA is running an ad on behalf of Zohran Mamdani that addresses some of the issues raised by Chuck Schumer and the new head of the DNC, Ken Martin.
On “The USAID Fight Is About Power, Not Spending”
Nah, I'm good. If you can easily imagine stuff like "yeah, he's going to come up with an example... what examples might he come up with... yeah, that one", I'm good.
And I still don't know whether you've seen the phrase "malicious compliance" before.
"
Yeah, the tweet that I saw that said that Politico had a payroll problem was on Tuesday.
Again, I'm 100% down with saying that the timing was 100% coincidental.
Pretending that it is possible that ‘things that are happening in the government’ and the technical glitch that Politico had with payment are even _slightly_ related is insane gibberish, conspiratorial nonsense of the highest level.
Again, I am 100% down with the glitch happening at the worst possible time.
Coincidences happen all the time.
"
I went to Claude.
Hey. I'm looking for a database that contains all of the various subscriptions that the government pays for.
Is this something that exists?
Claude said:
In the U.S., there isn't a single comprehensive database of all government subscriptions, but there are a few ways to find this information:
USASpending.gov provides detailed federal spending data, including many subscription services, though they may be categorized under different contract types.
The Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) contains contract information that would include subscription services.
Individual agency procurement records and budgets often list their major subscriptions and services.
SAM.gov (System for Award Management) contains contract award information that includes subscription services.
Are you looking for any particular type of subscription or specific agency? That might help narrow down where to look. Some common government subscriptions include things like:
Professional databases (LexisNexis, Westlaw)
Scientific journals and research databases
Software licenses
News services
Data services
So I asked Let's say Politico for either news service or data services.
For Politico specifically, you can find some of this information through:
USASpending.gov - Search for "POLITICO" or "CAPITOL NEWS COMPANY" (Politico's parent company). This will show you contracts for subscriptions and services.
Individual agency procurement records - Many agencies are required to publish their contracts over certain dollar amounts. For example, you might find records of Politico Pro subscriptions in agency contracting databases.
I can help you look through these sources if you'd like. Are you interested in a specific agency's subscription to Politico, or are you looking to understand the total government spend on Politico subscriptions?
Also, keep in mind that some agencies might subscribe through intermediary news service providers rather than directly through Politico, which can make tracking the full scope more complex.
I'm looking to understand the total government spend on Politico subscriptions.
I'll help you find this through USASpending.gov, as it's the most comprehensive source. You'll want to:
Go to USASpending.gov
Use "Advanced Search"
Search for both "POLITICO" and "CAPITOL NEWS COMPANY LLC"
Filter for "Contract" spending type
Look specifically for Product Service Codes (PSC) like:
D304 (IT and Telecom - Internet)
D399 (IT and Telecom - Other)
Y1DA (News Clipping Services)
Y1DZ (Other Administrative Support Services)
One thing to note: The total spend might be understated because:
Some subscriptions might be bundled under larger contracts
Some agencies might purchase through resellers
Smaller purchases might fall under simplified acquisition thresholds
Some subscriptions might be purchased through government purchase cards (which aren't always itemized in public databases)
Would you like me to explain how to dig deeper into specific agencies' contracts once you find them in USASpending.gov?
Now let's say that I want to search for something like a right-wing Politico. What should I look for?
I aim to be direct and objective in explaining government spending data. Some prominent conservative-leaning news services that have government contracts include:
Washington Examiner
Daily Caller
The Washington Times
National Review
Bloomberg Government (which has some conservative coverage but is more business-focused)
You can search for these publications on USASpending.gov using similar methods as with Politico. I'd suggest:
Search for the parent company names rather than just publication names
Use the same PSC codes mentioned earlier
Look for terms like "news service," "subscription," "media monitoring"
Would you like me to explain how to look up any specific one of these publications? I can help you understand their corporate structures to ensure you're finding all relevant contracts.
So there's the starting point: USASpending.gov.
Sadly, you can't search for left vs. right kinda stuff.
On “Open Mic for the week of 2/10/2025”
Out of curiosity, it seems to me that "The Resistance" is less deft this time around. 2025 seems to be fumbling and flailing about compared to what was possible in 2017.
Anybody else seeing this?
On “The USAID Fight Is About Power, Not Spending”
I'm not disagreeing that the funds were going to Politico.
Indeed, it is my position that the funds were going there.
"
You have two options:
1. Choosing neither (or third party) and being accused of trying to be "above it all" (another way to say "principled" but, like, negatively)
2. Choosing one of the two "real" parties
Which way, Slade?
"
I appreciate the appeals to principle! I do!
I agree that we should be using the Constitution to decide stuff!
But a game where Team Evil has to follow the Constitution and Team Good can keep explaining that the Constitution "doesn't mean that" and asking whether I care about higher principles than those of DWMs is going to be a game where appeals to the Constitution no longer work when Team Evil finds itself in power.
As a matter of fact, this strikes me as so freakin' obvious that I'd be willing to be a jerk about it for years and years at a time suspecting that, someday, the tables will turn and Team Evil will find itself at the helm.
On “Open Mic for the week of 2/10/2025”
The four employees include Mary Comans, the CFO of FEMA.
On “The USAID Fight Is About Power, Not Spending”
You know what they call "BSDI" in a court of law?
"Precedent".
It's actually something kinda important.
On “Open Mic for the week of 2/10/2025”
Well, if we agree that the constitution has inkblots all over it, we don't have a problem at all.