Mandatory monitoring? How could the Liberty Watch...

2009-08-19T12:26:03.103-05:00

Mandatory monitoring? How could the Liberty Watchman be in favor of that?

I wonder if the 'gotcha' industry would be blunted by the very volume of on-the-record statements. A 1-in-200 or even 1-in-50 mistake seems more defensible than mistakes on the meager public record today.

Imagine the effect this would have on lobbyists if they knew their every word was on-the-record.

My proposal, like any new idea, has potential pitfalls. And the law of unintended consequences has not been repealed. But I'd still like to see someone try this.

I think the proposal to log and record all convers...

2009-08-19T08:06:20.155-05:00

I think the proposal to log and record all conversations would just lead to even more political theatrics than we already have, which is already egregiously in excess.

Few people, darned few, maybe as few as zero, can go for two years without making a comment that either they genuinely regret, or that one side or the other in a policy war can't seize upon to exaggerate or distort a position.

I think the primary result from actualizing a proposal like this would be to create a cottage industry of "Gotcha!" miners. (Hey, maybe that would help drive down unemployment.)

The basic problem with the suggestion, however, is that it would seem to rely on something that we want to take for granted anyway: the honesty of the politician.

In other words, how could I possibly trust the output from a person I didn't trust in the first place? It wouldn't be difficult at all to stage "good" conversations, and then turn the mike off at other times.

Non-voluntary, or monitored? Sounds a bit Orwellian to me.

I think I'd leave it for now that I'd prefer to be electing someone who would always behave as though whatever he or she said was going to be publicly broadcast.

Ah, the stuff of dreams.

BTW, I'll have to see that video a third or fourth time, I guess. I didn't find anything particularly disturbing so far. In fact, it seems like Massa was being goaded near the end of the video by someone off camera (the cameraman or someone who knew the scene was being recorded?), apparently trying to get him to say very clearly and repeatedly that he wouldn't change his vote regardless of the percentage opinion "in the room". That person kept upping the percentage, and seemed shocked that Massa continued to maintain that he wouldn't allow the percentage opinion in a town hall meeting sway him.

And of course, a town hall meeting is never going to be a representative sample of constituent opinion. The unhappy tend to show up, and the contented usually can't be bothered. Always been that way; probably always will be.

Even an election is not necessarily a reliable sample of constituent opinion. But it's the one that counts, and probably the best we can do without making voting obligatory.

The problem with transparency is that there is no ...

2009-08-18T21:17:30.894-05:00

The problem with transparency is that there is no one who has the guts to be transparent. They all run on that promise, but it never happens.

Comments on Liberty Watchman: Really Open Meetings

Mandatory monitoring? How could the Liberty Watch...

I think the proposal to log and record all convers...

The problem with transparency is that there is no ...