Archive for: November, 2006

Is Open Government A Good Thing?

Nov 26 2006 Published by under Miscellany

Micah Sifry over at Personal Democracy Forum covered the remarks of Tony Blair’s strategist Matt Taylor. In his post, he makes mention of Zephyr Teachout’s column on open politics and the Net. Both take the same position – the Net can open politics to greater citizen participation and involvement in politics – but is it correct?

There seems to be an unspoken assumption – widely accepted by many – that more involvement by more people in determining the course of our nation is a good thing. The theory assumes that the net can create a virtual polis where the citizens complete online polls to voice their support for various policies.

The trouble with this assumption is there is little to no evidence that the “people” are very good at steering this particular ship. The “people” were overwhelmingly in favor of going to Iraq and are now overwhelmingly against being there. The Democrats make the ridiculous claim that the people were misled, but they, like everyone else, made the best decision based on the information available at the time.

That’s the problem with open government. Government, by nature, contains secrets the same way companies do. Call it competitive intelligence if you will, but nation’s need to keep secrets. Open government assumes the leaders will talk openly about issues with the people, but the people inherently come to the discussion with less information, and incorrect assumptions and perceptions because they don’t know all the variables, and shouldn’t.

The people make decisions based on their immediate beliefs, rather than long term thinking. They listen to persuasive arguments and by into policy positions that are untenable because they are given only limited information. Those who have the information use it selectively to move others.

The recent leak of the National Intelligence Estimate is a prime example. The leaked portions heavily favored the Democrat position. The report in total was much more neutral, but the public perception, based on what was leaked and promoted first, is that the estimate was damaging to the administration. The total number of people who actually read the full report is exceedingly small compared to the number who read the excerpts or the coverage it received in the media.

Do we really want “the people” making suggestions for policies and making decisions for the country based on what they heard in the media? Or worse, what they heard Jon Stewart say on the Daily Show?

The movie Men in Black, for all its cheesy glory, contains a brilliant line that is applicable to this discussion. Will Smith asks Tommy Lee Jones why they don’t simply level with “the people” because they’re smart enough to handle it. Jones replies, “A person is smart. People are dumb panicky animals and you know it… A thousand years ago people knew that the earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, they knew it was flat.”

Do we really want “the people” making decisions based on what they know now?

2 responses so far

Michael Moore and Predictions

Nov 17 2006 Published by under Congress, Democrats, Government, Politics, Republicans

Michael Moore has penned a lengthy editorial for the LA Times that may be just about the dumbest thing I have ever read. It does, however, afford me an opportunity, for posterity, to make some predictions about the newly elected Democrat majority based on his pledge.

What I don’t want is for you to drop into the deep funk we liberals have been in for two-plus decades. Yes, your Republican revolution is over, but hang in there. And do not despair. I, and the millions who voted for Democrats, have no interest in revenge for the last 12 years. In fact, let me make 12 promises as to how we will treat you, the minority, in the coming years.

Thus, here is “A Liberal’s Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives”:

1) We will always respect you. We will never, ever, call you “unpatriotic” simply because you disagree with us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us.

They encourage such dissent as long as you agree with their conclusion, but differ on how to get there. As evidenced by a college professor calling students racist and comparing them to Hitler because they believe we need tougher immigration laws.

3) We will not spend your grandchildren’s money on our personal whims or to enrich our friends. It’s your checkbook too, and we will balance it for you.

Sure, because history has clearly demonstrated the fiscal restraint of the Democrats when they have majority status. After pronouncing all of Reagan’s budgets “Dead on Arrival”, the Democrats in Congress pushed through massive spending increases and then blamed the ensuing budget deficit on Reagan (who, last I recall, never cast a single vote in Congress between 1981 and 1988).

4) When we soon bring our sons and daughters home from Iraq, we will bring your sons and daughters home too. We promise never to send your kids off to war based on some amateur Power Point presentation cooked up by men who have never been to war.

Instead, Democrats will engage in half-cocked attempts at social justice “nation-building” in places like Darfur, put a temporary end to violence until we take a few casualties, withdraw our troops at the first sign of impending violence, and create power vacuums all over the world where anti-American sentiment can fester among those who suffer at the hands of retaliation for America’s involvement.

5) When we make America the last Western democracy to have universal health coverage, and all Americans are able to get help when they fall ill, we promise that you too will be able to see a doctor, regardless of your ability to pay. And when stem cell research delivers treatments and cures for diseases that afflict you and your loved ones, we’ll make sure those advances are available to you and your family too.

Universal health care will, of course, guarantee that we have the same third-world health care system that every other nation has, you have to wait in line for days to see that doctor they’ve guaranteed you, and all of our drug companies will flee for a second-tier nation that is more interested in economic benefit than in socialized medicine. They will become the world leader in drug research and sell us back the medicines we should have developed here. That would include fetal stem cell research…

7) Should a mass murderer ever kill 3,000 people on our soil, we will devote every single resource to tracking him down and bringing him to justice. Immediately. We will protect you.

Wow! That’s great. So in the event that 3,000 of my fellow Americans are killed, we’ll pursue the same pansy foreign policy that led to 3,000 being killed the last time and spend tens of millions of dollars to bring him to justice under a system that was unable to convict O.J. Simpson; let an admitted pedophile loose simply because they couldn’t convict him of killing a girl he never knew, met, or saw; runs rough-shod over a university lacrosse team based on the allegations of a woman, who by all accounts, is little more than a crack-whore; and yet finds time to persecute school districts for the heinous crime of including “under God” in the pledge of Allegiance.

8) We will never stick our nose in your bedroom or your womb. What you do there as consenting adults is your business…

Unless of course you are in there smoking tobacco products… in which case it’s fuqing on… You’ll be ticketed, arrested and sent to tobacco re-education facilities for forced detox.

9) We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren’t much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, take up another sport. In the meantime, we will arm the deer to make it a fairer fight.

So we’ll object to the violation of your constitutional right to privacy and demand protections for terrorists planning to kill you, but not think twice about violating your constitutional right to bear arms.

12) We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and break the law. And we promise you we will go after the corrupt politicians on our side first.

Right after we make every attempt to promote the most corrupt amongst us to leadership positions in the House and successfully promote the most corrupt amongst us to the highest position in the Senate, right Mike?

In response to his generous pledge, I make one simple promise to Michael Moore. I will spend every waking moment of my life working to overturn the results of this election and to elect principled fiscal conservatives to Congress. Count on it.

No responses yet

Hoyer Whoops Ass

Nov 16 2006 Published by under Congress, Craziness, Democrats, Elections, Politics

After claiming he had the votes to win, John Murtha got his ass handed to him by the more moderate Hoyer who is a full century or more younger than the Pennsylvanian. In the end, old age and treachery lost to youth and charisma.

When asked for comment, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “”I was proud to support (Murtha) for majority leader, because I thought that would be the best way to bring an end to the war in Iraq.”

While nobody within earshot of that nonsensical rambling could figure out how the two were related, Pelosi accepted the first humiliating defeat of her fledgling regime.

Having pledged the most ethical Congress in history, Pelosi and her cohorts set a sterling example for America’s youth and celebrated the loss of the #2 spot by exchanging hits off a crack pipe, selling their country to the highest bidder and stealing social security checks from little old ladies.

No responses yet

Oxymoron: Congressional Ethics

Nov 16 2006 Published by under Craziness, Crime, Democrats, Government, Politics, Republicans

With the Democrats coming to power, and all the chatter about “corruption” as the defining issue of 2006, Congressional ethics and reform of the Ethics committee process has become the latest cause c√©l√®bre for republicans and Democrats alike. John Boehner, in a column aimed at Republicans looking to regroup, touches on the need for a serious approach to ethics.

The existing ethics committee process must be faster, and we need to give it teeth. More to the point, I simply will not tolerate ethical misconduct in our Conference. Clear likelihood of serious transgressions will lead to suspension from important committee posts; guilt will lead to immediate and severe consequences.

Unfortunately, the one clear message coming from the Mark Foley scandal (and others) is that those with information about Congressional wrongdoing are generally afraid to come forward. If I have evidence that a congressman is dirty, and one of his closest friends is the ranking member of the ethics committee, what motivates me to blow the whistle?

The problem with the current ethics committee is not that it lacks teeth, it is the fact that the committee is made up of fellow members who are inclined to ignore the ethical lapses of their buddies. For evidence of this look no further than Nancy Pelosi’s endorsement of, and campaign on behalf of, John Murtha. Murtha is widely recognized as one of the dirtiest of the dirty, yet she has pushed him – HARD – for the number two post.

Asking a fox to investigate another fox for harassing the chickens is not a reasonable approach.

What we need, instead of a committee of congressmen investigating corruption, is a nonpartisan panel of citizens to act as ombudsmen. This panel would accept information, coordinate the investigation with staff, and independently issue penalties. The Congressman being investigated – and their friends – should have no role in the policing of their members.

Real ethics reform requires a step that Democrats and Republicans alike are unwilling to take – removing themselves from the process and allowing real, independent investigation into their actions.

No responses yet

Buying Your Own BS…

Nov 13 2006 Published by under Craziness, Democrats, Elections, Politics, Republicans

The worst thing that can happen in politics is to begin believing your own spin. Apparently the latest victim to fall guilty of that is the New Mexico GOP.

“Comparatively, we did quite well next to other Republicans across the nation,” said Chris Atencio, political director of the Republican Party of New Mexico. “Even with Richardson’s millions and the national mood, local Democrats were unable to change the makeup of our state.”

To put this in perspective, the state of New Mexico has been under Democrat control for about 80 years. They control damn near everything. Governor Richardson won 32 of 33 counties last week. The few bright spots in the state for Republicans are the 28 seats we hold in the state House (out of 70), the 18 seats we hold in the State Senate (out of 42) two Members of the US House, one Senator, and the state land commissioner who was just reelected despite the party’s best efforts.

Let’s further define some terms. The 28 and 18 are pretty much a mathematical certainty that has more to do with the way the districts are drawn and the number of Republicans in the state. It would be possible to have less, but very difficult.

The land commissioner was actually a gift from the Democrats. The Democrats gave us that race when they nominated a guy who was so liberal that Clinton fired him from his Interior Secretary post. He was also a disaster as the Mayor of Albuquerque.

As an example, Baca turned a four lane bridge that took thirty years to build into a two lane bridge and two lane pedestrian foot path. He actually cordoned off one lane for foot traffic going each way and left the other lanes for vehicle traffic at 35 miles per hour. Not surprisingly, few pedestrians were willing to share the road with cars and trucks moving that fast, so the pedestrian side stayed empty until Mayor Chavez was re-elected.

Pat Lyons, the incumbent Republican land commissioner, had to run his own campaign without help from the state party. The state GOP bought billboards for and sent mail on behalf of every other Republican candidate for statewide office, but did nothing for Pat. Pat won in spite of the state GOP, not because of it.

Heather Wilson’s win, similarly, was due to the Democrats’ empty suit Congressional candidate who imploded in the week before the election, not to the NM GOP.

Given all of this, the only possible way the Democrats could have “changed the makeup of our state” would be to actively campaign for and elect Republicans. That may be a bit much to hope for.

No responses yet

« Newer posts Older posts »