»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
What Obama meant...
| The Alley |
|
What Obama meant... |
|
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648
|
When he said that his administration would be the most transparent he didn't mean transparency from his government (silly us), but rather to his government.  http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=107086 |
||
| © Copyright 2009 Denise - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Denise, I'm not sure how to break this to you but most of the sites you keep visiting and linking to use cookies. In fact PIP uses cookies. They're a legitimate and common tool, normally used to enhance your web browsing experience. Trust me, if your government wanted to trace your web usage for nefarious reasons using cookies isn't the best way to do it - in fact it's probably the worst way to do it. You can spot the evidence, prove they did it and stop them doing it in about 10 seconds flat. The article is simply a scare story written by people who aren't very good at making up conspiracy theories.  |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
A ban was placed on their use on the White House site in 2000, and Obama wants to lift the ban. Why? Does he want to enhance our web browsing experience? I don't think that rises to the "compelling need", undefined, by the way, by the White House Office of Management and Budget. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Denise, There are lots of things they might want to do using cookies, and I'm sure all of them are legal and quite harmless. If you're really concerned though why don't you post your suggestions regarding how cookies could be used but controlled or the possible alternative methods that could be employed. Here's the site where the government has been accepting and discussing comments regarding the issues. http://blog.ostp.gov/2009/07/24/cookiepolicy/ |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I think I'll avoid the .gov sites for the time being, Grinch. But have you found anything that rises to a 'compelling need'? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
This site features a picture of a blond in a Tee shirt which reads "I'd Rather Be Waterboarding." I am unclear why a person would in fact need to use their computer to be in touch with the white house, should they be nervous about having "cookies' attached to their communications. U.S. Mail doesn't require a return address in communications with the White house as far as I am aware. The sort of message one would wish to send to the white house without return address is something of a puzzle to me, unless you wish to communicate something you are ashamed to have your name connected with. The point of sending that sort of message evades me. Threatening messages directed at government officials may well be illegal anyway, and being upset that one cannot send them without impunity seems to have something of the same sense to it as does the resentment at not being able to do other illegal activities without consequences. Being critical of the government or of governmental activities, of course, is a freedom we cherish. The fear of Homeland Security following up on one's messages to the government is very real. I would point out that Homeland Security and The PATRIOT ACT and the various pieces of legislation that have helped make the threat of the Security State more real were pushed through over the past eight years. While I wish these things were purely Republican creations, I am ashamed to say that this is not the case, and that many parts of The PATRIOT ACT were encouraged by Democrats, and that Democrats certainly helped pass that bill. I too worry about the various possible consequences that that legislation exposes the public to, and I believe that it is not President Obama we need to worry about here, but the very existence of these laws themselves. They created paranoia during the Bush administration among Democrats and they help create paranoia among Republicans in the current Democratic administration. Action must be taken against the laws themselves. They must be repealed so that the partisan fears that they create may diminish, and a reasonable climate of political trust can establish itself. Otherwise, I don't care how lovely the blond may be, as long as there's somebody who gives the impression that they'd rather be waterboarding, there are going to be other folks around who are going to be reasonably certain that they may be the people that the blond wants to get her practice hours completed on. And such situations do not many a happy camper make. Yours, Bob K. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
There you have it, Denise...it's all Bush and the Patriot Act once again. What a surprise, no? Companies and organizations place cookies on you for a reason. Since Obama lifted a ban that has been there for 9 years, at the same time he is asking citizens to turn in anyone speaking badly about his policies, he must have a reason also, but then it's just Bush's fault anyway. "The past eight years"....number 22 and still counting, Bob |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Keep counting, Mike. Do you think that noticing the number of times the Republican mistakes of THE PAST EIGHT YEARS have come back to haunt you makes them more bearable? You actually may. But to expect me to stop calling attention to the connection of the mistakes of this last Bush administration and the way you are made uncomfortable by any attention being focused on how the economic woes of today are connected to the mismanagement of THE PAST EIGHT YEARS doesn't make THE PAST EIGHT YEARS any more savory, does it? You might note that I pretty much confine myself to the mention of those PAST EIGHT YEARS, their significance and the truly appalling governmental errors made during that period without attempting to call President Bush any catchy if nasty and demeaning nicknames. None of this "Slick Willie" business. You might also notice that I don't try to make things up like "death panels." You should consider that I am not trying to make a rhetorical point but that I actually believe what I say when I speak about the last eight years as a particular low point in the history of the nation. You should understand that I believe that President Bush was following up on the Republican plans that David Stockman spoke about in his post Reagan era memoir on what it had been like to be Reagan's Treasury Secretary. You should understand that to me it actually appears that President Bush, who has professed to idealize President Reagan (unlike his somewhat wiser father), actually has attempted to put the Reagan plans into effect and to essentially bankrupt the country (as Stockman said) to put an end to entitlements and to government aid to the disadvantaged. I am not and have not been talking about this stuff to score debating points, Mike. If you think I have been, you are very much mistaken. I believe that the very radical right has put its ideological interests ahead of the welfare of the country and has actually created an economic disaster in this country to serve its own ideological ends. It has put the country into something very close to a depression to do so. It has wrecked the good reputation of the country to do so, and it may well have come close to dooming humanity to do so. It is the very least of my worries that you would like to make me feel foolish for calling attention to the idiocies of THE LAST EIGHT YEARS. My feelings count essentially for zip compared to the effects those idiocies have had on the country and the world. Besides, I would have sworn that the count was 22 many posts back. There may be so much methane in the air that you've lost your ability to count at about the same rate that I've been losing my sense of humor. Have you had a chance to look at that Chris Moony Book, yet — The Republican War on Science? It gives the Democrats a bit of a hard time as well, though nowhere near as hard a time as The Republicans. The reason I bring it up is because it gives a fair account of the discussion over the environmental debate that you and I have had and how it was played out during the Bush administration, and how politics and science butted heads. You may disagree with the conclusions or not, but I think the facts are laid out fairly and with reasonable objectivity and are worth a look. Yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: No. But then again I haven't found any evidence to suggest that the OMB has said there is a compelling need. If you supply me with a link I'll be happy to give you my opinion. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
According to Obama "technology czar" Vivek Kundra, the "compelling need" driving this major policy reversal is the administration's desire to create "more open" government and to "enhance citizen participation in government." http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=107086 It was cited in the article. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I read that too Denise. You'll have to forgive my scepticism but I didn't believe it. So I tried to find some evidence that Vivek Kundra actually said it but I failed. There may be some evidence that I missed, to tell you the truth I only did a couple of searches, but I think it's more likely that someone just made it up. I've noticed there's a lot of that going on. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I can't find a direct link to a transcript of her remarks to Congress. Weird. I gave up after a couple of pages of listings when I ran a search. Search Engines aren't what they used to be, or maybe I might be doing something wrong. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
