There are too many ideas here, too many redundancies, too many postings often irrelevant to establishing what the president is trying to do. Brainstorming is one thing, shotgunning is another. The further out the pellets go the further away from the target they get.
In order to help focus a little better, maybe NAPH should post openness/transparency success stories. What do we know about what works and what doesn't. Not that what has worked (and hasn't worked) in the past necessarily will work in the future, but at least it will give some useful 'fundamentals of implementation' to the thinking about that future. Cite by agency, DOD, NIH, NSA, WH, DOS, NSC, etc. Why did what they did that worked work. Why were there failures? Where did the public benefit the most and the least - how does one measure success?
This NAPH/Schmidt type of exercise generates many wonderful thoughtful ideas and clearly this technological methodology of scouring the country side for those ideas is extremely valuable, but my concern is that too much effort generating ideas and shifting them and playing with them technically could result in too much process and not enough implementation. And to those who think that we have to spend a lot of time on the front end, I suggest that after the WH establishes broad managerial and openness goals, you may find that we learn a lot more about how to proceed as new opportunities and obstacles reveal themselves) once the implementation ship is well launched than we do in the pre-implementation planning stages.
Comments (28)
Pardon, but are you smoking something? This site needs a lot of things that are not that difficult to implement in order to better categorize and order it without trampling Free Speech.
People are SPEAKING UP in the best way they can hear and trying to get their message across without having their rights stripped by Big Brother.
Pardon, but might it be that you are partaking in some mood altering substances? This site would be fine with a few tweaks such as better categorization and organization. The People are SPEAKING. Big Brother is filtering.
If Big Brother is filtering, then filter this: UP YOURS!
What success stories would you have people post, when there are no success stories? I wouldn't call no shovel ready jobs and 9.4% unemployment success stories, would you?
Socialism ALWAYS leads to tyranny. Groveling before terrorists always ends in death.
What else is there to discuss?
This is a great idea! You can tell by the time it took to get negative votes...
It's too bad that it is falling mainly on the deaf ears of those who believe that the only issue worth discussing begins and ends with a birth certificate.
You make an important point, though, to the rest of us that are interested in a rational conversation about government transparency and addressing the issue of ways to process that information.
Actual unemployment up over 15%. Whoo Hoo, Go Obama! O-ba-ma! O-ba-ma! O-ba-ma!
wemo.mike, there will be no government transparency, they will all take just the 5th amendment approach!
tsiya- you assume they are on trial or that transparency means personal accountability... I think the real thrust of the site is about AGENCY transparency- figuring out a way for us to monitor the policies that are being developed and watch where our money is being spent. The idea is about informing us on the operations of government not giving us an outlet to wage personal or political attack.
The Constitution has already been violated enough to warrant charges of treasom, what else do you need to know?
tsiya- how does that have anything to do with this post? Keep it on topic.
Oh Mike, since when isn't Obama's birth certificate an issue that is related to government transparency? If he's not a US citizen, then he should not be president. It's logical. All he has to do is become transparent, and show it to everyone. Let everyone see the long form for themselves. What is so hard about that? You were probably required to show your birth certificate before you took this job as chief censor. Transparency starts from the top down, not the bottom up.
magik- read my post to tsiya.
I'm beginning to suspect that certain people have multiple e-mail addresses and are using them to spam here.
Some of the ideas around here sound like they were taken from Chairman Mao's Little Red Book. This was one of them!
You think it's a communist idea to identify and learn from your successes?
It's a communist idea to make up slogans to cover everything. Our problems were created by liberalism, and could be solved by a return to traditional values and constitutional law!
Where are there any slogans in this post?
Jumping on the opportunity of a public forum for purposes of giving the public a personal moral lecture is not a likable behavior.
My opinion is as good as anyone else's. Why do you assume that anyone cares whether you like them or not? I don't live on Sesame Street, go along to get along just isn't in my book!
Your opinion is indeed as good as anyone else's.
So's mine. Personally, I don't like moral lectures.
Tough, you don't seem to have a problem speaking your mind, neither do I.
Oh, lighten up. I'm not exactly likable either.
Go along to get along isn't my way.
I just have had my fill of moral lectures.
So tough back at you.
LOL
I'd personally like to see some more lectures and social moray's pointing us back to traditional values and moral law. America has gone mad.
I disagree. I think it is a fallacy that morality was more present in the past than currently. It is similar to the common belief that crime is more dominant now than in the past. That one is dangerous.
The reason it feels like it is comes from media exposure to what past generations never knew took place. We are pounded in the face with it on a daily basis. It feels more intense.
I personally do not think that human kind has changed that dramatically over the course of a hundred years, and I take exception to the idea that I am somehow in want of moral education.
I am adequately ethical, thank you.
I've had my fill of liberals who have no morals at all.
The idea that one can assess morality from what category one tosses the person in is, in my opinion, morally repugnant.
It is no different than assigning a character assessment based on race.
If I decide to identify someone as liberal, then assign moral failure stemming from that identity, and finally condemn them, I have committed what is called a non-sequitor.
It is a failure of logic that means, it does not follow.
All cats are green
My dog is green
My dog is a cat
I'd have to disagree that people aren't any worse than 100 years ago and far more morally bankrupt today. Crime statistics and the horrendous nature of crimes should say something. BTW - 17-year old male just raped and killed an 8-month old baby boy. http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=4067 That goes to our respect for life these days.
I'm middle-aged and I see people doing things and behaving in ways that I could never have imagined when I was much younger. And my 84-year old Grandmother seems in shock about the world today. She always tells me about the way it used to be in her day.
We count crime today. We didn't used to.
I'm sorry you feel that the world is worse. I'm 54. I'm not a young idealist by any means.
Our culture has changed, but I don't think the same as you.
It isn't that I have such an abiding belief in the goodness of humanity, it is because from my reading, I have decided that we are no worse. LOL