Well, that was unusual of me

[godix]

I rarely contact my elected representatives. I'm not rich enough that they'd listen to me, so why waste my time? However the White House has requested that they be sent any 'fishy' emails that make false claims about the health care system (source). Now some call this an enemies list like Nixon had. I don't know why, they need to trust Obama. The

Comments

[dwchang]

Haha this amused me when I got to the final line of the e-mail :P.

[godix]

I guessing selling addresses to spammers is one way for health care reform to remain 'revenue neutral'.

Not sure what to think of that blog post, actually

[ext_119048]

On one hand, it can be taken as a sign of an administration that's more aware of public reaction. On the other, it's the United States government, and I can't think of a situation in which they've collected identifying information for reasons that don't involve fucking you over.

Re: Not sure what to think of that blog post, actually

[godix]

If the President was still George Bush and the issue was the Iraq war would you still be torn about the idea?

Personally, the idea a President is asking his faithful to send him info on his enemies just comes too close to brown shirt territory. Godwin and all I know, but I'm not saying Obama will send out jackbooted thugs. Just the fact he could if he were inclined to is enough to make me pause. I'd rather politicians not have the resources to do it at all rather than them being able to and hoping their morality prevents it. I doubt Obama's administration will do much with this info actually, but I don't want to see the precedent set. What if Dick Cheney was elected President in 2012, do you really want this tactic to be an acceptable established practice then?

Re: Not sure what to think of that blog post, actually

[ext_119048]

If the President was still George Bush and the issue was the Iraq war would you still be torn about the idea?

Well, it's easy to say "sure, why not?", but truthfully I think I'd really be thinking the same. From my perspective, the problem with the Bush administration wasn't that they were locking up those that spoke out against them, it was their stubbornness and the secrecy of their policies.

As I wrote above, I don't like this sort of data collection; I don't think this sort of data collection is the right way to achieve a more transparent government. One right way to do that would be to hold public meetings, where such misconceptions (from the government's point-of-view) could be addressed.

The reason why I think this is an honest attempt at a more "in-touch" government is that it very well may be one; it certainly sounds like one. As I wrote above, it's a bad way to do it, but that's to be expected from human decisions. Pretty much nobody hits the optimal solution the first time

Re: Not sure what to think of that blog post, actually

[godix]

How many people do you know who care about higher authorities spying on them, provided that they suffer no negative effects? I don't know that many.

How many people threw a fit about the Patriot Act?