Humpty-Dumpty and all the King's horses by SignyM

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Humpty-Dumpty and all the King's horses

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Friday, February 24, 2006 12:47
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1816
PAGE 2 of 2

Friday, February 24, 2006 10:20 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Ahem:
With a free and active media just champing at the bit to pull down anyone they can in the name of ratings, and sunshine laws enacted in the past 30 or so years, we know quite a bit more than ever before about the workings of the government.- Geezer

First of all, I reject the descritpion of a "free and active media". But since I don't have a lot of time on my hands right now, I'm not ging to address that at length.

As for "sunshine laws" I suppose you mean the FOIA. So- how do you feel about Ashcroft's directive to thwart FOIA at every opportunity, a directive followed to this day? How do you feel about Bush refusing to release Presidential records, even those that had been authorized for release by the President in question? How do you feel about Bush's initial rejection of a 9-11 Commission and his refusal to testify under oath? This Administration obstructs release of information and evades oversight at every turn, possibly to an illegal degree. So how do we know that the Administration is following the Constitution and other laws? I suppose because they tell us so.

Quote:
Whether the Bush administration broke the law and "snooped" on citizens illegally is a matter of some importance.- Signy

Important enough that we just bypass the protections you mentioned above and just throw the whole lot in jail without the formality of law?- Geezer

You know Geezer, this is one your stupider habits: putting arguments in other people's mouths. And since I didn't say anything even remotely along those lines, I see no reason to respond except to point out your annoying rhetoric.

Quote:
Where the system works, it's thanks to people like me and not you, Geezer. I actually defend civil liberties through all legal means at my disposal, and try to hold the government accountable. What about you? "Lackadaisical" is too active a description. Even "passive" doesn't seem to capture the right tone. "Obstructive" might be more accurate.- Signy

True, I don't support lynch-law, or assume a person is guilty until proven innocent. I don't even know what's "right" with 100% certainty at all times. Tell me, what's it like to be God?- Geezer

Um... did I claim to be God? Nope! All I claim to be is a citizen actively concerned with civil liberties- a claim that you apparently feel so uncomfortable with that you feel it is necessary to disparage. Thank you.

EDITED TO ADD: Where democracy works, its because people take an active part in their government and hold it accountable. Congress, the political parties, and the Administration would become insular and self-serving insitutions without pressure from the bottom to do otherwise. That pressure is more than what happens at the voting booth. It can be in the form of communication with our Congressmen and the White House. It can be letters to the editor. Contributions to various parties and causes. On-line discussions, such as this one, demonstrations, bumper stickers, paid advertising, lawsuits, and many other venues of political involvement. I can't discount or disparage any mode, and I encourage ALL modes. Although it sometimes takes inordinate pressure, government does respond. Our environmental laws are one result of geniune citizen concern.

---------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 24, 2006 11:57 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
First of all, I reject the descritpion of a "free and active media". But since I don't have a lot of time on my hands right now, I'm not ging to address that at length.

I should invoke the "tin-foil hat" rule right here, but...

Quote:
As for "sunshine laws" I suppose you mean the FOIA. So- how do you feel about Ashcroft's directive to thwart FOIA at every opportunity, a directive followed to this day?

This memo?
http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/2001foiapost19.htm
Read cold, it looks like Ashcroft wanted to remind office heads that government officials have the attorney/client privilege like everyone else. Not sure where it says "thwart FOIA at every opportunity". I suppose if you had already made up your mind that everyting Bush & co. did was evil, illegal, or fattening, you could construe it to say most anything.

Quote:
How do you feel about Bush refusing to release Presidential records, even those that had been authorized for release by the President in question?

Is there a law that requires him to release them? If so, someone should sue for their release. If not, they're his records to do with as he pleases.

Quote:
How do you feel about Bush's initial rejection of a 9-11 Commission and his refusal to testify under oath?

Not much one way or the other. A commission was formed and folks testified. Politics was played. Nothing much resulted.
Skipping the usual insults...

Quote:
Um... did I claim to be God?

Not really, just some of Her attributes, such as omniscience(sp? Dictionary's too far away to reach).

Quote:
EDITED TO ADD: Where democracy works, its because people take an active part in their government and hold it accountable. Congress, the political parties, and the Administration would become insular and self-serving insitutions without pressure from the bottom to do otherwise. That pressure is more than what happens at the voting booth. It can be in the form of communication with our Congressmen and the White House. It can be letters to the editor. Contributions to various parties and causes. On-line discussions, such as this one, demonstrations, bumper stickers, paid advertising, lawsuits, and many other venues of political involvement. I can't discount or disparage any mode, and I encourage ALL modes. Although it sometimes takes inordinate pressure, government does respond. Our environmental laws are one result of geniune citizen concern.

I agree. I've done this stuff too. Because I don't agree with you about some things doesn't mean I don't get involved in things I care about.

BTW. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me the link between Ports World and Al Qaeda. Any time now.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 24, 2006 12:47 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I agree. I've done this stuff too. Because I don't agree with you about some things doesn't mean I don't get involved in things I care about.

And it's your apparent lack of concern about open and accountable government that I was referring to. You seem to agree that citizen action can move a government, but are apparently uninterested in actually moving the government to reveal what it's doing. While allowing the government to conceal information up to the letter of the law (and possibly beyond), you apparently take no interest in revising, refining, and enforcing the law to promote the greatest release of information consistent with security.

So-
Do you agree informed citizens make better decisions? What would be a good reason (BESIDES national security) to w/hold information form the public? Does release of information promote freedom?

Quote:
BTW. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me the link between Ports World and Al Qaeda. Any time now.

Wrong thread.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE