Willravel

There are times when a government simply can't be totally honest. There are military things like troop locations and troop movement, intelligence things like what we know about whom, and if these were to get out then the defense of the country would be put in jeopardy. Lives could be lost. I'm reminded of when Geraldo was demonstrating on international TV the movements of the troops he was accompanying, giving away information that theoretically could have put them in real danger.

On the other side, there are times when the government isn't honest. Recently it's been in the news that the Vice President tried to link Iraq to one of the hijackers on 9/11 via a forged letter. If it weren't for someone stepping forward and breaking the silence or someone seeking out the hidden information, things like this would never be uncovered by the public. And it seems that the less transparent a government, the more they can get away with.

What can and can't be said? Where is the line between responsible secrecy and lies of omission? Do you believe that your government (that goes not just for citizens of the US, but all our TFP international crowd) is too secretive? Do you believe they should be more secretive?

I, personally, am a bit concerned about the US government recently. The lead up to the Iraq war seems to be littered with problems, and had the American people and Congress known more about those problems at the time it's possible that the war wouldn't have been approved. It seems that as the information slowly leaks out now that things were done under the protection of secrecy that betrayed a lot of people's trust.

---

-+-{Important TFP Staff Message}-+- Pretend that we are at a pub, having this discussion. You wouldn't bring your books or magazines with you, just your brains, experiences, and opinions. The goal is to foster a conversation with varying points of view. Please do not quote articles here. If you want to reference a book or article that is fine, but don't quote it. If members find it intriguing, they will pursue that on their own. If you pulled out a book and started reading it to someone at a pub, they'd ask you to leave. At this pub, if you paste articles, they will be deleted. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and I hope these will be insightful, interesting discussions for all.

dksuddeth

The 'non-transparency' in government goes way back before the Bush administrations. I believe you can probably track the illicit secrecy, or call it the attempt to hide stuff from the people, to at least Nixon, and maybe even before then. The responsibility for not keeping it in check falls right in to the laps of congress at that point. They are the only ones capable of bringing charges against a sitting president or VP. Their failure to do so, whether it's to protect the partisanship or the totally invalid excuse of protecting the country, is only further incentive to continue it. After that, the fault lies directly with us, the people. We continue to elect people of the same parties who promulgate the lies and secrecy.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Sun Tzu

When you say honest it becomes a comparison to truth doesnt it? Do you mean there are times the government can't divulge classified information? I agree with you military movements should always remain classified even in peace time operations. I can't think of anything else that should. I think the secrecy goes way back, but (sorry . . .little paranoia statement here) JFK is the first step in it getting much worse. A statement "we cant comment on that for security reasons" seems acceptable compared to a straightforward lie. I think our elected reps have forgotten what and who they are serving. In the end, who do we have to blame?

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

Bill O'Rights

I just wanna know what's really in "Hangar 18" at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

Willravel

There is, but it's just a really big food court. The Baskin Robbins in there is just tops.

Can you imagine if the American people and Congress had an opportunity to read the Patriot Act from cover to cover before it was voted on? It wasn't classified, it just simply wasn't made available.

Cynthetiq

The challenge with transparency in any organization is that it doesn't give people enough time to deal with the communications that come up. Instead of spending time working on the work that needs to be done, there is effort that has to be put into communications to fend off criticism, disagreement of how things are currently proceeding.

My statement comes from being a member of a board of directors where shareholders believe that it is their right for transparancy since it is where they live. Many have misguided thinking that they have rights to board of directors meeting minutes and more communication. The reality is the business corporate law doesn't require it. As a shareholder in stocks, I don't want transparancey to the point where I'm going to question and send off emails and letters. I want them to do what they are required to do, and then if there is wrong doing to be held accountable for doing so. I believe that access after the fact is enough to prevent people from wrongdoing up front.

Willravel

Transparency isn't about getting in your way, though, it's about accountability. It's so when someone actually does do something wrong, there's evidence... and that prevents people from doing something wrong. Accountability and responsibility are good things in business or government, even though they're somewhat rare. It's not about following the law, it's about doing what's best for the company or government.

Using your business example, look at it from a market perspective. Short of giving away vital strategies that competitors might want, there's a lot of good that can come from allowing stock holders access to what's going on with the suits. They can make more informed decisions and the market can be more healthy. If McDonalds has a new CEO, and no one is really sure how well the CEO will do, wouldn't it be good to see him or her speak in a meeting and get a better idea of how capable he or she will be? I would think so. Secrecy often leads to fear, and fear is why so many markets are plagued by inaccurate speculation.

Likewise, governmental secrecy leads to fear, and rightly so considering the behavior of this administration and many before it. The president and congress are both polling around 20% approval right now, and it's because the transparency we're getting is into the past. We aren't finding out about all of these horrible decisions until the consequences are upon us because there's not enough transparency.

Cynthetiq

your first paragraph you and I are in agreement.

Your second, shareholders do get opporutnities to hear the CEO speak, interviews, speaker engagements to name a few. Note, the CEO is NOT on the Board of Directors. He answers to the BoD. The BoD makes decisions and directives for the CEO based on what the CEO brings to the board and what the board brings to the CEO.

Also, for public stocks there are shareholder meetings, you can call in and listen to all the people speak from the President of the BoD to the CEO. Every year the company files a 10K which lists what the company has done, what they are doing. Speculation is just that, it's gambling in more syllables.

The third paragraph, there is lots of publicly available information. Many resources that many do not utilize. Again, we agree on the accountabilty factor and trail. For me that is good enough. I have enough on my plate to worry about day to day. I elect representatives to deal with it for me in regards to public policy and government action. If they fail me, I vote for someone else.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

roachboy

a) the state is not a private corporation.
the stakes involved with transparency are basically different.

b) am i wrong, cyn, or is your argument, at bottom, kinda like george bernard shaw's "critique" of socialism, which was that it'd be nice if it didn't take up so many evenings and weekends?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

The professor has a point: private companies and the government are different in ways that might hinder the overall discussion. The CEO/COO is usually chosen by the board and not the shareholders, a corporation doesn't see managerial changes every 4 years, and, unless you're Blackwater, a corporation can't really declare war. Maybe the corporation illustration should be put on the back burner for the time being.

Cynthetiq

I didn't talk more about corporations, I only responded agreement and some correction to perception.

No, I've only stated that my experience with transparency invovled 1637 families, some of which want transparency to see all the mechanics and mechanisms of the day day, month to month activities. To these people it involves their home, which is tied to economic value and retirements. Some people paid $12,000 for their home which can be valued today at $700,000. There are others who paid $700,000. Each has distinct notions of how their value needs to be kept.

rb, I've not stated any argument. I've stated my opinion.

As far what it means in Shaw's critique? I don't know I've not read it nor even heard about it. What I can say is that you have CSPAN, CSPAN2, CSPAN3, you have THOMAS.GOV, and many other poilitical oriented media outlets, and you don't get the same levels of engagement interest as you do with Harry Potter or Hannah Montana.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

roachboy

but the perception your agreeing with and/or correcting presupposes that you can move from a governmental organization to a private corporation seamlessly---i think that is an error. it think that error is politically motivated as well--not necessarily on your part individually, cyn--but ideologically it is of a piece with any number of other conservative memes---the model for government in the political sense is a public and political institution, not a private corporation, not a co-op. if you want to make the argument that the organization of work is *political* then that's different--but going that way would involve questions of the division of intellectual labor, hierarchy, information relay systems and protocols---in which case i'd be arguing for worker councils against the idea that a capitalist-style corporate body is a good model for any kind of equitable social regulation. we can have these arguments, too---the only move that seems to me inadmissable is pretending that these are not problems.

arguing from some perception on your individual part, based presumably on just what you think as pulled from beneath your hat, given the rules of engagement---which are not a problem (to be clear about that)----that therefore transparency is useless is not an argument at all. what you call "transparency" is a simply information stream. it is a top-down information stream as well--so there's no political content to it or around it--your idea of transparency seems to be a live video feed from an auditorium somewhere, maybe a bunch of them, like in the old days of cpan when it was routinely entertaining, showing hours of escalators running or men's room entrances and such--"you" are "in the room" and there's "information" about "what's going on"---so in the shallowest possible sense, you could say that's "transparency" i guess.

but that means what you're really doing is dodging the issue of what transparency could possibly be about. from what i can tell, tossing flyers out the window of an office building that say something about what's going in "is" transparency so far as you're concerned, and if folk who are concerned don't scurry about to pick up that "information" then obviously the problem lay with them.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dc_dux

Transparency and accountability in government is about ensuring that the abuses of the last eight years that severely limited and resricted the public's "right to know" (like no other time in my lifetime) do not continue in the future.

It it demanding a strong and enforceable Freedom of Information Act, including a process that holds future presidents accountable if agencies/departments within his administration refuse to comply.

It is demanding a law to require future presidents to provide a detailed justification to Congress (and the people) on all signing statements that alter the intent of laws enacted by Congress.

It is demanding a federal shield law that protects the media and sources within the government so that only justifiable national security issues are restricted and not issues of incompetence or malfeasance by a future president or agencies/departments within his administration.

It is demanding a law that if a future presidents classifies millions of documents with "national security" designations, he provide Congress with a detailed "national security" justification for those classifications.

It is demanding a process that will prevent future presidents from "mistakenly" destroying millions of White House e-mails.

It is having the federal judiciary issue a precedent setting ruling on executive privilege so that claims of executive privilege by future presidents cannot be used to subvert the legitimate Congressional oversight process.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Willravel

I'm buying DC a drink. That's exactly what I was hoping for.

Sun Tzu

Sorry will I didnt read the rules of PUB Discussion; putting a video in there is like lighting a cigarette in the non smoking section. (not trying to create more work for you Cynthetiq)

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

Willravel

Imagine you were pointing to something that was on that crappy little 13" tv in the corner.

jorgelito

There, fixed it for you. And yes, I agree with your post. Nicely done and well written.

__________________
"The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but
to the one that endures to the end."

"Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!"

- My recruiter

Cynthetiq

rb, simply stated, I hear from the shareholders that voted for me and other board members that "it's democracy, I voted for you." and "you need to tell us what's going on because you work for us" (Sorry, my brain is a bit toast after going over lots of figures and issues from a board meeting this evening.)

No, I explain to them that is about fiduciary responsibility only.

Again, as far as transparency is concerned, I'm happy with the transparency that's available to me now. I can see how my representatives vote, on the city, state, and federal level. I can see what the pending the bills are, and look at more information than what we previously available to me when I was growing up and more interested in politics.

Again, for me, I've got enough to worry about in my day to day and what affects my day. I'm not so concerned about lynching someone for a blowjob in the oval office or because they lied about starting a military action in some country with brown people in it.

IMO if dc_dux's items were brought forward, great. If they don't get brought forward, that's great too.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

I didn't have enough time to go through the Patriot Act before it was approved. Most of the Senate didn't, either. As a matter of fact, it took me months to sort through it. Sure, I don't have a law degree and I'm not a senator, but it was introduced October 1 and signed by the 26th. The first real opposition didn't appear until 2002, if I'm remembering correctly. I appreciate that a lot is transparent, but if only the unimportant stuff is transparent can we really call that reasonable?
This is why RB brought up the Shaw quote.
I dunno, in this thread alone it was presented by a Democrat and understood and accepted by an independent and a conservative. There aren't a lot of people left in the country who agree with what's happened recently, and the group that's left is shrinking. It's not a mandate from the people, but it's kinda heading in that direction.

Cynthetiq

You guys can keep referencing something that I've explained without explaining it and that I don't understand how it applies. Great! That's wonderful!

I'll say it again so that you guys can say it again. I have other things to do than have to have the burden of having to check, double check, triple check, all the information that was available via transparency to me.

I want it to be transparent to those that are available for the system of checks and balances. That's the way that I understand the creation of the Constitution of the seperation of powers, and the idea of representative government. Many of the founding fathers understood that people had to do other things besides mind the government reasons like having to deal with other things to basic ignorance and lack of education.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

No one's asking you to do it, Cynth. We're asking that those of us who want to do it will have the resources available so that we can. Rushing something through the House and Senate before even Senators could read it, let alone regular Joes, means that there would not, could not be a national debate until it was too late. And it's okay if you don't want to be in that debate. The nice thing about a republic like ours is you can completely ignore politics and no one will lock you up (unless you're a "terrorist"). I want to be in the debate. A lot of people did and do. In order for that debate to be fruitful, we need as many of the facts as possible and at least a little time to educate ourselves. That requires some transparency and some effort at honesty.

jorgelito

There is another element of this too. Like Cynth, I don't know if I have the time or inclination to pore through every page of the Patriot Act. But I do like the fact that I have the right and I can if I want to.

Plus, in many ways, we have Fourth Estate or watch dog who is supposed to be scrutinizing things like this. In theory at least.

__________________
"The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but
to the one that endures to the end."

"Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!"

- My recruiter

Cynthetiq

I don't know if you're asking me or not since I still don't know what the Shaw reference means. So maybe you are asking that of me, I don't know.

My experience with that kind of element of information gathering to the masses has lead me to see analysis paralysis a majority of the time. I personally have no interest in stagnating government to that point.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

roachboy

o...the shaw reference meant what it said---socialism, which he understood as a system in which the citizenry would exercise more power by being more closely involved in the workings of government (in some variants they would organize themselves into councils that would be government), would take too much time. there's not more to it. it's one of those dismissive quips. i think he said it to or about one of the webbs.

transparency is a mechanism that reduces the hiddenness of government. you might choose to emphasize that at the top of the governmental food chain in the states is someone that you elect, but if you think about it most of government is bureaucrats and most power is exercised through administrative routines. more information=>more control in principle.

but more information is not the same as more transparency.
you don't seem to make that distinction, cyn.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Cynthetiq

I thought that I had made the distinction. You're stating more information brings more control in principle. I agree to a point. No matter how much information I have about my elected officials, doings and musings, I cannot push their hand or make them vote in any particular way. No matter how much information I have about illicit or illegal activities, I cannot do more than make a request for investigation. If the group of people that are elected address the issue, decide that it's not worth investigating, then what? My only recourse left is to vote someone out of office at my next go round. They too find no majority or ability to convince others to investigate. I vote them out next too?

When it comes to the transparency that dc_dux makes, I believe that the
seperation of powers is the checks and balances, and anything that is/has/going, to erode the ability for those checks and balances is about transparency for the ability to achieve that. But again, if no one wishes to act upon such things, as Congress/SCOTUS has failed to check and balance the past 8 years, no more transparency will assist it. Having the all the options in the world doesn't change the fact that there has been no action taken.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

roachboy

what "actions" would you have preferred to see happen over the past 8 years and who should have carried them out?

i don't see your argument as having a way to even start to address the problems created by the bush administration, particularly in its first term. what it seems your argument would lead to is basically "o well..."

secondly, it seems that you're working with a circular logic on this question: because "something" hasn't happened, and because the "information"---undefined, since it seems that we are not going to agree about the type of quality of information required if the notion of "transparency" is to be taken at all seriously (and with the limitations that you have to keep in mind as well, given that no institution---not even that of the individual subject---is transparent to itself)----because "information" is available, somehow, and nothing has happened, then it does not matter that the information exists.
then you go a step further and imply that this information is also a burden, somehow.

so you prefer secretive authoritarian actions undertaken without requirements of deliberation because they generate less information which leaves you to go about your daily life with fewer things to be concerned about not keeping track of?

is that accurate as a synposis?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Cynthetiq

no, you spend too much time parsing and trying to figure out what I mean and how my life is lead.

I vote for representatives. I vote for Presidents. I expect them to do their jobs. If they don't do their jobs I vote them out of office.

I personally don't see any benefit to getting more information or transparency for me. For other people, great! Have at it. I have other things that interest me more and concern me more. My quality of life is not diminished, nor do I see yours being diminished.

As far as this being about Bush, it's not since all this transparency has to encompass ALL government from beginning to end right? Otherwise, it's a hunt about a sitting president and being shortsighted in only addressing what is in front of you.

As far as the past 8 years, I don't know, some people think differently and thus congress or SCOTUS are who should have been the check and balance to the president. They were not. I don't really care much again, because it's not within my realm of expertise nor direct influence.

Again, I'll point that we don't live in a lifetime government, our government changes several times in our lifetimes. Sometimes it is radical shifts and sometimes it doesn't appear to change at all. So all this backwater underhanded scheming conspiracy thoughts (and some may even be true,) don't make much sense to me.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

roachboy

you put up sentences and i read them. parsing is part of reading. it's just like that.
what possible reason would there be for a conversation, let along a debate, if parsing what another person says was not part of it?

so the way i see your position, it's really an anti-position.
your argument comes down to: i don't care about this.

in which case, why make the argument?
are you saying by way of "i don't care about this" that no-one should care about this?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Cynthetiq

ahahaha, i mean you are reading too much into what I'm saying or how I'm saying it.

No, I didn't say that I don't care about this. I have said for me and my day to day I don't care about having access to this transparency or information. I'd like for those that are supposed to be the checks and balances have the ability for the transparency and access of information since they are the ones that have direct influence to acting up on the information.

A wise person told me once, when your responsibility exceeds your authority, you will always fail. I see having the responsibilty here a fail for me because I cannot excercise any more authority than my ability to vote.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

roachboy

huh.
well, one of the things that make pub conversations what they are is the possibility that one can find oneself in a conversation for a long time, it can get a bit edgy and all this with no-one remembering what the conversation's actually about or being able to figure out exactly when the disagreement started or even if there is a disagreement and not just a momentum.

so if you'd be kind enough to pass me the pretzels....

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

I received a memo from the office of redundancy department the other day that had that very title. Odd.
You can write them, too. You can vote on popularity polls. You can write op-eds in your local paper. You can even run against them. Voting is not the only tool at a citizen's disposal.

Regardless, how will you vote for the right guy if you don't know when the wrong guy screws up?

Cynthetiq

I include all of that as part of being a citizen, except for running against them. I personally have no interest and neither do a majority of people.

This puts me back to where I was with the coop. While you'll say that it's not the same, I submit that the human ability and the dynamic is the same, just not to the scale or impact to the world at large.

I didn't like how they were not notify people of the coop with financial information or communications. I ran for a seat on the board that very reason because the rest of it didn't seem to do much esle.

and here's where it all falls apart...

No matter how much I want to communicate what is going on, I'm bound by keeping things unspoken until they are voted upon. Even then I'm not able do do as I please and post and announce things as I have to be concerned about the liablilty to the corporation and the directors and officers of the board. I also cannot just create things or do what I feel is best. I have to do what the majority vote is, even when I disagree with what is happening. If there's even a deferment of discussion, I have to wait. I cannot explain to you how slow it has taken to do things that should be completed in 1 weeks time but because the board requires this or that, it takes months upon months.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

roachboy

i too got a memo from the department of redundancies department to that that general effect.
but since transparency is a kind of misleading term term, it seemed useful to qualify the sense in which it made sense to use it.
just saying in a manner of speaking, reflecting a mental thought process that is taking place in the mind.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite