What should Obama do to make for a completely transparent government?

Since some are for complete transparency in government... I say, fuck it, let's really go for it.

One person's transparent government could be another person's fascist one.

... can't wank off to a new set of torture pix.

It's like reading about some guy fucking his secretary (as in the torture memos) vs. seeing the old bastard sticking his Charlie in her Charlene in a photo or two, or a dozen. Shit, where does it end? How many fucking torture photos do people need ot see to get their jollies off?

That should stop the data mining in it's tracks.

Dude, I think we's be on to sumptin'.

:hi:

That'd be reality tv I could actually sit through.
:evilgrin:

Take all the filters off.

Why?

So what are you hiding?

People who are for government transparency at all costs shouldn't have a fucking problem with the government being completely transparent! Not half... not a third... not a sixteenth... people who are for government transparency should completely be for the government to not only share citizen data, but also make sure that everyone is complying with sharing the information and thus allowing everyone to be able to access it at any time.

Right? If you are TRULY for government transparency, what the hell is the problem?

it's been common knowledge for a long time that nations have to decide what information they release and what information they protect, and why. What are the benefits, and what are the costs, and what are the principles we use to try and sort out the difference.

Don't you agree?

For instance, we allow the government to have certain information about us, so that it can do its job. In return, we expect that the govt keeps that information private, so that (for example) criminals do not use it against us. In this case, the govt is acting to protect the weak (us) against the strong (criminals).

Now, since we're obviously talking about releasing torture photos, I would observe that in this case, releasing the photos is about protecting the weak (the people we tortured) against the strong (the motherfuckers who used the power of our govt to torture people).

To wit: does hiding these photos protect the weak, or the strong? I think it clearly protects the strong, at the expense of the weak.

Such as...

Release all information about people with questionable credit ratings (already been done)
Release all information about people who have AIDS, STDs or other sicknesses
Release all information on people who have been divorced (I believe this has already been done as well)
Release all information on people who have been divorced
Go through the secret wiretapping evidence and release all records made so far
Release all information about people's human resource reports from their jobs
Make people be forced to have GPS implants in order to find out where they are at all times
Release all information regarding people's web addresses they have visited
Release all information regarding people's files they have downloaded

eta: No "None of the above" option?

This poll was not really thought out, was it?

Yeah, the poll is a bit sarcastic... as if...

And yes, some of the stuff is available...

... but the point i that people seem to forget the slippery slope on issues like "making government transparent" and furthermore seem a tad too obsessed with wanting to peruse by candle light wacko pictures of people in various stages of bloodied tortured existence for my tastes.

Alright, I have to walk my puppy now. She's got to take a shit. And so do I.

That's transparency, baby!

The second paragraph of this cut and paste may help you form a more interesting argument.

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Slippery%20slope">Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate

Slippery slope. A slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy. A slippery slope fallacy is an argument that says adopting one policy or taking one action will lead to a series of other policies or actions also being taken, without showing a causal connection between the advocated policy and the consequent policies. A popular example of the slippery slope fallacy is, "If we legalize marijuana, the next thing you know we'll legalize heroin, LSD, and crack cocaine." This slippery slope is a form of non sequitur, because no reason has been provided for why legalization of one thing leads to legalization of another. Tobacco and alcohol are currently legal, and yet other drugs have somehow remained illegal.

There are a variety of ways to turn a slippery slope fallacy into a valid (or at least plausible) argument. All you need to do is provide some reason why the adoption of one policy will lead to the adoption of another. For example, you could argue that legalizing marijuana would cause more people to consider the use of mind-altering drugs acceptable, and those people will support more permissive drug policies across the board. An alternative to the slippery slope argument is simply to point out that the principles espoused by your opposition imply the acceptability of certain other policies, so if we don't like those other policies, we should question whether we really buy those principles. For instance, if the proposing team argued for legalizing marijuana by saying, "individuals should be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies," the opposition could point out that that principle would also justify legalizing a variety of other drugs -- so if we don't support legalizing other drugs, then maybe we don't really believe in that principle.

and how it does it. That does not mean that it should disclose confidential information about private citizens, it means it should fully disclose how it is collecting that information and why.

The exceptions for national security must exist, but they need to actually be for national security, and must have an explicit and irrevocable expiration date for their secret status.

We need to stop trusting that our government knows best. It doesn't. It is a corrupt and incompetent dysfunctional mess in thrall to a clique of banksters and MIC goons.

Damn, I owe you a beer, brother.

That was funny!

Complete transparency means complete transparency...

penny (as they are required to do by law BUT LARGELY DO NOT)

great idea

:spray:

:thumbsup:

Now that would stick to your ribs, matey!

At this point they seem to be the ones giving us the biggest problems. With them around we will always have secrets and destroyed, missing, or lost evidence.

and stop trying to obstruct justice.