Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How Is Obama Doing On Open Government?

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the answer-redacted-because-mmmppphfhf dept.

Government 285

An anonymous reader writes "OMB Watch today published an in-depth analysis of the Obama administration's progress on a wide-ranging set of open government recommendations. Key findings of the report include strong and consistent leadership from the White House on government openness and meaningful utilization of e-government and Web 2.0 technologies. But there has been no high-level effort to improve electronic records management and preservation, and the implementation of improved Freedom of Information Act policies has lagged."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

HAHA, oh wow (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35537956)

That's a trick question, right? Like asking if you've stopped beating your wife?

Re:HAHA, oh wow (0)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538010)

No, it's a perfectly valid question.

Yes I have. Now she beats me.

Re:HAHA, oh wow (3, Funny)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538060)

you've stopped beating your wife?

We don't have the time to play Settlers of Catan these days, so yes.

Well....he certainly talks a good game (5, Insightful)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 3 years ago | (#35537964)

"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank. " - Barack Obama, October 27, 2007

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr9ywEFRQkQ [youtube.com]

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (0, Troll)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538054)

Bait and switch. But, were it possible for a President to initiate and enable change, the office would be eliminated.

Barack Obama appears to spring, fully-formed, from the head of Zeus, at the 2004 DNC. That's a sure sign of someone who has been crafted, behind the scenes.

He was always Lieberman's protege. When it was very-well understood that Hillary would not win an election as president, the crypto-corporate DLC folks used a fake-fight for primaries to set-up the insertion of Hillary as SoS. There, she is completely responsible for the management of Foreign Policy - or should it be more appropriately named as Imperial Adventure.

You Americans have been so gamed, for so long, you think it is in your own interest to manage world affairs! I assure you, it is not.

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (2)

msauve (701917) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538248)

By modern "law," as Commander-in-Chief, he has full control of the military. In most other things, it's a figurehead position. Congress can stop military actions by eliminating funding, but as long as they leave funding in place, they really can't do anything. The war powers clause has simply been ignored (not that the current majority would shut down current military actions). There's no example of the converse, where Congress declared war, and the Executive failed to act.

All that said, since Congress hasn't declared war, the Executive has complete authority to shut down any military actions.

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538636)

Congress can stop military actions by eliminating funding, but as long as they leave funding in place, they really can't do anything.

Congress will never shut down any military action by eliminating funding. There's too much profit to be made by the people who pay their bills.

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538740)

Congress can stop military actions by eliminating funding, but as long as they leave funding in place, they really can't do anything.

Congress will never shut down any military action by eliminating funding. There's too much profit to be made by the people who pay their bills.

No. It's because any congressman that voted to leave our military men and women overseas in a hostile zone without beans, bandaids or bullets would be skewered in the next election.

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35539052)

Actually it would be the president's fault for leaving them there. If there's no funding he's obligated to bring them home post haste, or face the consequences.

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35538692)

No, but there is an example where the Congress has funded a military effort planned in advance but the executive stopped it from execution: Bay of Pigs.

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (5, Interesting)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 3 years ago | (#35539038)

William Safire, before he was a New York Times columnist, worked as a speechwriter for Nixon. He wrote a book called Before the Fall [amazon.com] about the pre-Watergate Nixon White House, and it's a pretty interesting set of stories about the man. One particularly informative anecdote is the story of Nixon trying to tear down a "temporary" building that had been erected on Pennsylvania Ave during WW2 as an office building (for the Navy, IIRC), on the grounds that it was unnecessary and architecturally inappropriate for the setting. It took the full might of the Presidency two years to get it torn down - much of which was spent fighting not Congress, but the Federal bureaucracy.

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (3, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538320)

...you think it is in your own interest to manage world affairs! I assure you, it is not.

Maybe if the rest of the world would step in to help rather than cower in the face of adversity, we (Americans) wouldn't have to be all that involved. At least France has the balls to stand up to Muammar Gaddafi. Which is more than I can say for our current administration.

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (3, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538658)

At least France has the balls to stand up to Muammar Gaddafi.

By "stand up to" do you mean "shake their finger at him"? France has plenty military assets to put up a no-fly zone all on their own if they wanted to. So do the Arab states. So do a lot of countries.

But since we're constantly being told "we're broke" by the majority in the House of Representatives (from whom all funding comes) how are we Americans supposed to do anything about Gaddafi if we can't afford the fuel for our planes to get over there?

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#35539090)

But since we're constantly being told "we're broke" by the majority in the House of Representatives (from whom all funding comes) how are we Americans supposed to do anything about Gaddafi if we can't afford the fuel for our planes to get over there?

A country doesn't go "broke" like a person does. The US is about to lose its fiscal credibility. For example, after the recent announcement of the "no-fly zone" ruling, German bonds bounced up more than US bonds did. I see that as meaning that German bonds are collectively considered more secure than US bonds are. Several huge fund managers (PIMCO, Vangard) have announced a complete divestment from US bonds. China's US bond holdings are starting to drop.

So why is the US considered to be so unreliable? Its recent huge deficits (an avalanche of debt on top of the terrible spending of the past administration), its inability to control spending, poor recovery from a deep recession, and a leadership that has sullenly undermined the US economy at a time of great need. None of those can be blamed on the current Republican House.

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (2)

darjen (879890) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538690)

Ridiculous. We (Americans) most certainly don't have to be "involved". And by involved, I'm assuming you mean police the world and occupy it militarily. Fuck that shit.

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35539184)

We wish you didn't. You're experts in Pyrrhic victories.

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538624)

That's a sure sign of someone who has been crafted, behind the scenes.

If he had been 'crafted' I'm pretty sure they'd have made him the proper color.

You Americans have been so gamed, for so long, you think it is in your own interest to manage world affairs! I assure you, it is not.

That is absolutely true. But make sure the people you think are doing the "gaming" actually have the resources and motive to do so. You're looking in the wrong direction, friend.

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 3 years ago | (#35539016)

He is the proper color. (Although I don't think he's been crafted. The fit and finish would be much more impressive if he were. He's just made some very lucky choices in his life.)

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (4, Interesting)

revscat (35618) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538126)

Reality: Recent history seems to show that there are two things no President has the power to affect: the Pentagon and Wall Street. Presidents can only begin new actions. They cannot end or meaningfully decrease existing ones where boots are on the ground.

We'll see what happens with Libya. If it turns into a Serbian-style air campaign, then we will be in and out relatively quickly. But if the Marines or Army get involved, we will be there indefinitely.

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538670)

If it turns into a Serbian-style air campaign

If it turns into a "Serbian-style" conflict, then we'll be helping the wrong side yet again.

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (2)

erstazi (1304229) | more than 3 years ago | (#35539182)

In and out with the Serbian-style air campaign? The U.S. still has troops on the ground in Kosovo and Bosnia. They have been there since that Serbian-style air campaign. And no, they are not wearing blue helmets.

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538136)

" You can take that to the bank." ... But only one the government owns.

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (1)

revscat (35618) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538254)

I think you have that backwards. The banks own the government.

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (3, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538312)

There seem to be people that think the government is taking over everything and there are those that think the corporations are taking over. Sorry, but people that see the government "taking over" are delusional. There is plenty of evidence, on the other hand, that the corporations are at best APPROVING everything that is the government is doing (especially in congress) and at worst DICTATING everything that is happening. I find the threat of a country run solely at the whims of what the corporate elite want MUCH more frighting than some non-existent fear the the government is going to take over everything. (Oddly, the same people complaining about government getting involved in everything are for restricting access to abortions. Try to figure that one out...)

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35538566)

I'm sorry, simpleton - perhaps you think corporations and the government both growing to take over everything are somehow mutually exclusive? Even in the supposed case of the evil giant company taking over everything - do you think companies should be able to snuff out competitors using anti-competetive practices? Do you think the government might be complicit in allowing companies to merge and grow to the point that they become "too big to fail" and require taxpayer bailouts when their mismanagement becomes too large to ignore?

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35538702)

(Oddly, the same people complaining about government getting involved in everything are for restricting access to abortions. Try to figure that one out...)

I'm not. Dis-proven in one.

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (2, Interesting)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538860)

There seem to be people that think the government is taking over everything and there are those that think the corporations are taking over. Sorry, but people that see the government "taking over" are delusional. There is plenty of evidence, on the other hand, that the corporations are at best APPROVING everything that is the government is doing (especially in congress) and at worst DICTATING everything that is happening. I find the threat of a country run solely at the whims of what the corporate elite want MUCH more frighting than some non-existent fear the the government is going to take over everything. (Oddly, the same people complaining about government getting involved in everything are for restricting access to abortions. Try to figure that one out...)

Sorry, but I don't believe that the majority of corporations like many things this government is doing. For example:
Higher healthcare premiums.
Higher minimum wage.
Higher corporate taxes.
Skewering companies that send employees and management to "seminars" at hot vacations spots (Vegas hates him)
Backing unions over corporations 100% of the time.
Backing laws like "employees must pay union dues, even if they don't belong to the union."
Backing laws like "union votes will be open so that those hairy guys from Jersey with gold chains and jogging clothes pushing for the union who know where you live will know exactly how you voted (gotta keep it fair, you know).
Taking over various corporations and firing management.
Bailing out the competition.
Setting strict guidelines for accepting bailout money (like you must higher more minorities or use "green" tech)
Forcing companies that don't want bailout money to take bail out money ...

Need I go on?

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35539222)

Most of that stuff the "gov't" was doing was done a long time ago (see when union laws were passed for example). Higher healthcare premiums are a result of 3 things, the insurance industry, (read corporations) the insurance industry, and wall street (the insurance industry at its worst can be considered a stock market pyramid scheme. Higher minimum wage is meaningless to most corporations (they tend to pay more anyway, the true small businesses *single owner or partnership type businesses* are usually the ones that don't like minimum wage laws cause they make growth cost more).

Higher corporate taxes tend to appease the public, while the more and more creative loopholes make the corporations not give a crap (whatever various CEO's, PRT's, etc want to say for public consumption about why they are raising prices, laying off workers, not paying dividends, etc.).

Taking over various corporations and firing management might have pissed off the management, but the Board of Directors and probably various stockholders of things like say GM, BOA, etc have to absolutely thrilled especially since it let them get away without massively strenghthened regulatory controls that might OH have smacked them silly in light of the messes the public percieves them to have made (Not entirely unfairly IMO).

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35538274)

You need to vote for the oppressive health care bill in order to find out what's in it.
- death panels
- $100 billion funding hidden in bill
- unconstitutional, but ignore that
- more expensive than most existing plans
- covers less than most existing plans
- you don't pay, you go to ass rape jail
- unless you get on the exclude list, by being an Obama campaign supplier
- free mammograms, only costing $300 each

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538322)

See above. Delusional.

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (1, Flamebait)

darkpixel2k (623900) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538434)

See above. Delusional.

...yeah, about that. Work just notified me that due to the Obamacare bullshit the rate to cover my family jumped from about $600/mo to over $1,000/mo. Thanks Obamacare.

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35538580)

Wow. You really need to find another employer with benefits that don't suck. My rates went down a little and were only 2/3rd yours to begin with.

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538876)

Wow. You really need to find another employer with benefits that don't suck. My rates went down a little and were only 2/3rd yours to begin with.

You must live in Maine. [cnbc.com]

My health care costs nearly doubled from $160/mo to $300/mo with no change in benefits.

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35538668)

Work is lying to you. ObamaCare does nothing more than allow you to buy insurance from a private company. Any price increase after a year or so ago is just plain profiteering. This is why we need healthcare reform in this country not the weak watered down insurance reform bill.

gp needs to quit listening to Beck, Palin and other nut jobs and learn how to read.

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (3, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538950)

Work is lying to you. ObamaCare does nothing more than allow you to buy insurance from a private company. Any price increase after a year or so ago is just plain profiteering. This is why we need healthcare reform in this country not the weak watered down insurance reform bill.

gp needs to quit listening to Beck, Palin and other nut jobs and learn how to read.

Really. That's it? So if "ObamaCare does nothing more than allow you to buy insurance from a private company", why does it cost over a trillion dollars [cbsnews.com] ? And if "ObamaCare does nothing more than allow you to buy insurance from a private company.", why is it over 2000 pages long? You just wrote the whole thing in one sentence.

So, either you are incredibly gullible, woefully ignorant, or the government is much more inefficient that I could possibly imagine. Actually, I think someone is lying their ass off to this guy, but it's not his work.

Maybe you should listen to Beck and Palin more because whoever you are listening to has steered you horribly wrong. You actually believe that it costs a trillion dollars and over 2000 pages to pass a law that "does nothing more than allow you to buy insurance from a private company" and then you call Beck and Palin "nutjobs"? That's the funniest thing I've heard all day!

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35539086)

Question: How does Obama's cock taste? I only ask, because you seem like one of his hive-mind droids who would give their left nut for the chance to gobble your nigger messiah's cock.

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538886)

See above. Delusional.

Oh wow! You are so right.

The way you didn't challenge any of his arguments at all has completely convinced me.

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (2)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35539232)

He didn't make any arguments, he stated a bunch of statements. It's him who should prove them true.

all not true and covers stuff vs we will not pay y (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35538334)

all not true and covers stuff vs we will not pay your on own of the old plan.

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (1)

darkpixel2k (623900) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538422)

"You can take that to the bank. "

...and we see how well the banks are doing these days...

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (1)

micheas (231635) | more than 3 years ago | (#35539218)

Most banks had near record profits in 2010.

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (1, Interesting)

Wiarumas (919682) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538502)

And then he got intel fit for a President and reversed his position. He must have good reason - ultimately I trust the man's judgment. I'm sure I would reverse my stance as well if I heard some compelling evidence to do so.

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (3, Interesting)

atriusofbricia (686672) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538694)

And then he got intel fit for a President and reversed his position. He must have good reason - ultimately I trust the man's judgment. I'm sure I would reverse my stance as well if I heard some compelling evidence to do so.

Or he's a stuffed shirt politician who could give any other politician a run for their money in the area of saying what is needed to get elected.

Even if he did start his campaign for President virtually 10 minutes after becoming one, he was a Senator on the Foreign Relations committee. Do you suppose that might have included access to some of that special President intel? hmmm?

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (2, Insightful)

Wiarumas (919682) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538880)

No, I do not believe that a Senator on the Foreign Relations committee has the same intelligence as the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces who has multiple meetings daily with Pentagon staff. Don't get me wrong, I believe all politicians lie to get elected, but in the case of war, there are many things that are not leaked to the general public. Can you honestly say that any individual would stay at war with no justifiable cause - as if he is doing a maniacal laugh in the Oval Office for the suckers who voted for him? Maybe I'm just optimistic, but I'd like to think that he doesn't want to be at war, but has rationalized it to the point of being more beneficial for the American voters who voted for him to stay at war.

Re:Well....he certainly talks a good game (1)

atriusofbricia (686672) | more than 3 years ago | (#35539092)

No, I do not believe that a Senator on the Foreign Relations committee has the same intelligence as the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces who has multiple meetings daily with Pentagon staff. Don't get me wrong, I believe all politicians lie to get elected, but in the case of war, there are many things that are not leaked to the general public. Can you honestly say that any individual would stay at war with no justifiable cause - as if he is doing a maniacal laugh in the Oval Office for the suckers who voted for him? Maybe I'm just optimistic, but I'd like to think that he doesn't want to be at war, but has rationalized it to the point of being more beneficial for the American voters who voted for him to stay at war.

He may, or may not, have had access to a substantial amount of the intelligence that he does as President. Of course, neither of us really know. Much like I said to someone else in this thread, he couldn't just wave a magic wand and sprinkle some unicorn dust and make it happen. Sure, he probably would like to withdraw and for whatever reason hasn't been able to do so. The only point I was trying to make was that he most likely knew it wouldn't be that easy when he said it. I know, silly to actually hope for some form of honesty out of any politician, no? :)

Speaking of games... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35538928)

Thank God Obama had time to give us his Final Four pics. I thought he might have been too busy to follow college basketball at this particular moment, what with our Middle East puppets dropping like flies and the world's 3rd largest economy being crippled by an earthquake. I was honestly VERY concerned that Obama wouldn't be able to find the time to give us his 4 teams. For a man that hates conservatism so much, he sure went conservative on those picks, though.

Okay... (1, Interesting)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35537978)

Then where's the openness when it comes to Bradley Manning?

Re:Okay... (2)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35537986)

Thats the DoD, the President isn't going to push on them over a Private.

Manning is done, he was done the second he sent files to a third party.

Re:Okay... (4, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538082)

You don't do this over a private.
You do it over rule of law, rules of evidence, and principles that were established as the fundamental basis of legitimate government - in tradition and precedent that goes back to at least the thirteenth century.

Again, you forgot to use the word "allegedly", to modify the second verb in your final sentence.

If this criticism seems irrelevant or incomprehensible to you? Then it is no wonder you have a nation falle to such a sorry state.

Re:Okay... or the specious Rule of Law arg(0) (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538156)

"You do it over rule of law, rules of evidence, and principles..."

This is America. We exist only for the Citizens who are Corporations.

Everyone else is a serf.

If you don't like it, you shouldn't have elected a right-of-center President like Obama.

Re:Okay... or the specious Rule of Law arg(0) (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538340)

Obama is ALMOST as bad as GW Bush on this... and that's really sad. I voted for him because I believed he would move us away from the corptocracy and BOY was I wrong.

Re:Okay... or the specious Rule of Law arg(0) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35538764)

No kidding... look at how many people Goldman Sachs has in, or connected to, the WH...

Re:Okay... or the specious Rule of Law arg(0) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35538766)

The fact that Obama is pro-military adventurism does not make him right-of-center. All known Communist regimes are heavily militarized. He can be pro-military and a committed Communist. I am not saying that he is, btw. But I am underlining a glaring logic flaw in your argument.

Re:Okay... or the specious Rule of Law arg(0) (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538966)

"You do it over rule of law, rules of evidence, and principles..."

This is America. We exist only for the Citizens who are Corporations.

Everyone else is a serf.

If you don't like it, you shouldn't have elected a right-of-center President like Obama.

Obama is only "right of center" if you are left of Marx!

Re:Okay... (no, it's not!) (1)

Kosi (589267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538084)

There is no proof that he really did that until now! And, doesn't your constitution include something like "everyone is to be considered innocent until proven guilty"?

I strongly suggest him for the next Nobel prize for freedom, if he really did what he's accused of.

Re:Okay... (1)

Zackbass (457384) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538086)

You might not have noticed, but we've got this thing called the US Constitution. It says that the President is the Commander In Chief of the US Armed Forces. He answers to nobody on Manning's treatment. Say what you will about Manning's choice to cede his rights upon joining the armed forces, it's still terribly unbecoming for a nation that professes due process to allow this situation to happen. If it's all sensationalist lies about his treatment then it wouldn't do any harm to show that they're false either.

You're suggesting that the President doesn't have adequate control over the military. If that's the case, I'd say he's doing a pretty bad job. If he can't stand up for a Private how can he wrangle bigger issues?

Re:Okay... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35538770)

"You might not have noticed, but we've got this thing called the US Constitution"

Oh, you mean that old, just a piece of paper that congress and the president(s) have been undermining for the last ten years. Based on the laws written, we have very few rights left.

Funny, my captcha was detains.

Re:Okay... (2)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538828)

It would be a violation of Private Manning's rights for the military to reveal enough about the way it is treating him to disprove the allegations. This sort of thing happens frequently. Someone makes an allegation of mistreatment against an organization that is forbidden by statute from commenting on the situation, then people say, "Well, if the allegations are baseless, why don't they tell us what is really going on?". The answer to that question is that the law specifically forbids them from doing so.

Re:Okay... (2, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 3 years ago | (#35539034)

Manning is a fucking traitor, nothing less. What else do you call someone who steals secret documents and gives to someone who is not supposed to have them?

And don't give me that bullshit about how he wanted to release data that shouldn't have been secret. Thousands of documents were released and I can promise you that Manning did not read them all.

Re:Okay... (1)

Kosi (589267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538160)

It shouldn't matter what rank Manning has or had, and Obama is the fucking president, the DoD has to do what he says, period.

Innocent until proven guilty? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35538208)

I guess that goes away when it is inconvenient huh?

Re:Okay... (5, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538930)

Well -- I haven't seen a coherent argument that he should not be prosecuted, given what he's supposed to have done. I'm open to persuasion, but it seems to me that as long as he's given a fair chance to defend himself (including being detained under reasonable conditions), he *should* face trial.

Right off the bat I'll grant you the "Collateral Murder" video. I don't think Wikileak's spin on those tapes is fair or accurate, but I'll grant that atrocities *do* happen and that a reasonable person looking at the video might conclude that's what it showed. It's at least defensible to go public with that tape, given the assumption that the Army has no safe and effective mechanism for dealing with these matters.

The diplomatic cables and the Afghan war documents are a different matter. I don't think these turned out to be as damaging as Manning's more hysterical detractors claim, but I still think Manning did something wrong. He took a huge body of data, more than he could possibly have understood in detail himself, then he sent him to somebody he didn't actually know so that person could go on a fishing expedition. That was grossly irresponsible.

If he had a piece of information in his hands that he was familiar with and he thought it was something that the public ought to know, then I'd call him a whistle-blower and I'd support him. But teams of expert reporters took months to comb through the mountains of random stuff he leaked, just to figure what was there. Manning could not possibly have known what he setting in motion, and he must have known that. Until I learn otherwise, I'd call him a chaos-monger, not a whistle-blower.

The question isn't whether good things happened as the result of what Manning did, although I do think some good things have happened. And to my knowledge there's no documented evidence of any serious, irreparable harm resulting. But Manning's actions were unconscionably reckless, and a violation of a professional trust. I believe the Manning case shows we probably can afford to be a lot more open with information than we are, and that's a positive outcome. But a serious potential for harm to innocent third parties was there and Manning took no steps to prevent that. Even where some parties deserve exposure for being, as Assange calls them, "collaborators", the same principle of justice applies to them as to Manning. They deserve a fair chance to defend themselves before they are punished.

All those nice fancy "strengths" (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538026)

Still waiting for them to be implemented... Hmmm

Meanwhile the beat goes on..

Re:All those nice fancy "strengths" (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538236)

The only thing I've seen the government do is blow tens of millions of dollars on Drupal websites that should have cost a few thousand dollars, to present half-broken interfaces that supposedly expose all sorts of government data, spearheaded by that Vivek Kundra moron who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, based on all the idiotic statements he's made that sound like a marketing guy trying to talk-up a technology he's only briefly read about in a pamphlet.

Is he open? (4, Interesting)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538028)

I'm not sure. Let me ask him whether or not the NSA ran a warrantless-wiretapping operation at AT&T, and whether or not the CIA ferried people to other countries for torture. Someone dedicated to openness would undoubtedly answer that question clearly and unambiguously, right?

Summary (3)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538066)

Big on words, implementation "lagging"

Re:Summary (1, Insightful)

atriusofbricia (686672) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538754)

Big on words, implementation "lagging"

And that would be Obama in a nut shell. Makes excellent speeches (as long as he doesn't have to talk off the cuff), and does things that only some people want, totally fails on the ones everyone would like.

barley half meeting FOIA goals (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35538068)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/barely-half-of-agencies-meeting-obamas-foia-request-goals-study-says/2011/03/11/ABImgsT_story.html [washingtonpost.com]

Though 49(of 90) agencies and departments complied with the study’s authors, 17 others — including the Transportation Department and U.S. Postal Service — provided no documents and two withheld information. Another 17 agencies — including the departments of Commerce, Energy, Justice and State — provided no final response, and four smaller agencies never acknowledged receipt of the FOIA request. The figures have improved significantly from last year, when just 13 of 90 agencies complied.

“At this rate, it’ll be the end of his term before the agencies do what Obama asked them to do on the first day,” said Thomas S. Blanton, director of the National Security Archive.

If Obama was smart (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35538092)

He would give WikiLeaks access to all government computers. Then they wouldn't be able to point fingers and scream about government not being open and cover-ups etc... As a plus, as soon as they reveal any dangerous information (ie. anything that truly endangers people), they would lose all popular support, and could be considered a clear and present danger, allowing the authorities to pursue them without restraint.

Bang-up job... (5, Funny)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538098)

Gitmo is still open so that counts right?

How Is Obama Doing On Open Government? (3, Insightful)

the-matt-mobile (621817) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538108)

How Is Obama Doing On Open Government? - About like he's doing on all his other promises - bringing the troops home, closing Gitmo, etc. etc. Why we ever elected a hope-peddling amateur and expected any different I'll never know. Especially during such a precarious time in our nation's history. Maybe I'm wrong and Wall Street, Egypt, Japan and Lybia really do need their own 'community organizers' to solve their woes.

Re:How Is Obama Doing On Open Government? (2, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538326)

Because the only alternative was Grandpa Nutcase and his sidekick Princess Know Nothing.

Had McCain run like he did in 2000 he would have won. Instead he sold out to the far right nutbags in his party and lost for it.

Re:How Is Obama Doing On Open Government? (1)

the-matt-mobile (621817) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538394)

Um... that's what primaries are for. Both sides screwed up big time on that one.

Re:How Is Obama Doing On Open Government? (1)

XLR8DST8 (994744) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538536)

would mod you if i could. ron paul could have had a chance but the republicans didn't want him. during the primaries, the democrat races were open, but one had to be registered as a republican to vote for the republican primaries, which is what ruined ron paul's chances. political parties are corrupt in this manner down to defining separate rules for their own primaries. they should be abolished.

Re:How Is Obama Doing On Open Government? (1)

witherstaff (713820) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538674)

It matters by the state. I'm in Michigan and you don't have to register in a party to vote in the primary. What really helped ruin the old guard Republicans not liking libertarians. In Nevada to stop Paul from winning some delegates at the state convention they turned off the lights and walked out the door. Now that's professional.

Re:How Is Obama Doing On Open Government? (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538896)

Ron Paul did not have a chance. He spent too much of his life where the only people that would listen to him were completely off their rocker. As a result of that, he either started to subscribe to some crazy ideas or he said he subscribed to some crazy ideas because that was what his audience wanted to hear. I suspect it was the former. When the only people around who will listen to your sensible ideas, also believe some crazy stuff, over time, you start to think that some of the crazy stuff they believe isn't so crazy.

Re:How Is Obama Doing On Open Government? (1)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538400)

Oh, really?? I thought there were a bunch of different options, except the brainwashed unwashed seem to be blind to them. Keep voting for the two main parties and the two main parties is what you get.

Re:How Is Obama Doing On Open Government? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538476)

I did vote for a third party. I did that knowing they could never win. So don't blame me for this mess.

Re:How Is Obama Doing On Open Government? (1)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538576)

Acknowledged. I wish more people did that.

Re:How Is Obama Doing On Open Government? (1)

XLR8DST8 (994744) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538522)

wish i had mod points for this!!! mccain WAS a moderate. maybe he still is. in 2000 it was clear. in the last election it was almost like he was paid to throw the election by fucking it up royally. he's a moderate but came off like bob dole! republicans are so stupid in this manner. they had him as bob dole, and palin, to 'fire up their base'. which is asinine. their base wasn't going to vote for obama. as far as getting them out to vote? obama was taking care of that. it's like when they pander to the religious nutjobs. they throw away more votes than they pick up. alienating more voters than they attract.

Did you really expect anyhting else? (2)

Kosi (589267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538138)

Obama did not realize even one of his important promises - Guantanamo still exists, health service is not better, not even the tax gifts to the super-rich from Bush were taken back, next to all the other things. That man is just a living disappointment, despite being the lesser of the possible evils.

Re:Did you really expect anyhting else? (1)

Nocturnal Deviant (974688) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538430)

by lesser im guessing you mean young and black....pretty sure those are the only differences between him and dubyah.

Re:Did you really expect anyhting else? (1)

Kosi (589267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35539116)

I see some more differences here, mostly in the IQ. :) While dubya clearly only was a puppet of people like Cheney, Obama seemed less dependent in his decisions. But maybe that's only my view from far away (being a German who's never been to the US, and surely will not unless I can do that without giving my fingerprints)

Re:Did you really expect anyhting else? (1)

Nocturnal Deviant (974688) | more than 3 years ago | (#35539170)

public speaking ability =/= IQ unfortunately...or else obama would be better by orders of magnitude.

Re:Did you really expect anyhting else? (1)

XLR8DST8 (994744) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538562)

first of all, letting people keep money they earned on their own is not a gift. second of all, $250k/yr is not even rich, let alone super rich. third, the tax rates under the bush-obama tax cuts are only going from 38.6% to 35%. people are arguing over less than 4%. furthermore, if one makes 250k a year they're still paying $99,000 a year in taxes. that's a lot of money to work very hard for only to be taken away & given to others who did not earn it.

Re:Did you really expect anyhting else? (1)

Kosi (589267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35539036)

"On their own", LMAO! "On others' backs" is the right term here!

Re:Did you really expect anyhting else? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35539134)

First of all, they couldn't earn even a tenth of that amount without the government's investments in American infrastructure. It absolutely is a giveaway when you say "Oh, you're so rich, you shouldn't HAVE TO pay your fair share."

Second, anything over $100k/yr is rich by my standards -- and my salary is well over the "median income" line in this country.

Third, a 4% tax holiday that we can't afford is just as worth arguing about as a 20% tax holiday we can't afford.

You have a point about the taxed income being a lot of money to work hard for only to be taken away and given to people who didn't earn it. Like the CEOs of Halliburton, BP, AIG, and Goldman Sachs. It burns me up to know that those wretches are living in the lap of luxury on the basis of subsidies from my tax dollars.

Re:Did you really expect anyhting else? (1)

atriusofbricia (686672) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538806)

Obama did not realize even one of his important promises - Guantanamo still exists, health service is not better, not even the tax gifts to the super-rich from Bush were taken back, next to all the other things. That man is just a living disappointment, despite being the lesser of the possible evils.

To play devil's advocate for a moment on the health thing, what did you expect was going to happen? He'd seize direct control over the health care industry, wave a magic wand, sprinkle a spot of unicorn dust and make it free? Don't worry, if you get what you seem to want we'll all be paying 50%+ income tax like in the utopia that is Europe. Oh, how are they doing financially these days anyway?

Side note.. if you really think anyone making more than X where X isn't followed by at least six places is "super rich" then you clearly don't understand the scale of things. Also, what exactly do you think is to gain by raising taxes on such people anyway?

Re:Did you really expect anyhting else? (1)

Kosi (589267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35539024)

It's not about "raising" taxes for them, it's about making them pay their part of the share. People with a monthly income greater than other people's income in their whole life should pay at least the same percentage in taxes of that income that normal people do!

Re:Did you really expect anyhting else? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35539076)

It would be nice if we could move "up to" a flat tax from the horrifically regressive situation we have now -- much less a progressive situation where the people who suffer because they have to wait a whole year before they can afford to buy their second yacht pay a larger percent of their income in taxes than the poor who can only afford two meals a day.

This is a joke, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35538294)

As an outside observer sitting on the other side of the pond, I can't help but observe that Obama and his administration are doing a pathetic job keeping any promises. I keep hearing stuff like them dodging FOIA requests, making corporations people, letting corporations make unlimited 'donations' to politicians, extending the Patriot Act, allow unchecked wiretapping, insist on IP expansionism, label whistleblowers terrorists, let ICE run the country like the fucking Stasi, etc etc etc, all the while failing to withdraw any troops from anywhere or even close an effing torture facility in his back yard.

How far removed all that is from being "Open Government" I don't have a way of telling, but it's pretty damn far if you ask me. Seriously Americans, is this really a president and government that represents you and your interests? Bloody hell, you people.

tsar (2)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538346)

So, what are all those tsars doing anyway?

Wtf (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35538416)

We're trying but we can't get any goddamn budget. Make up your minds, do you want forward progress or budget cuts?

Open? ... not on his watch (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35538486)

Obama never had any intention of delivering on his campaign promises. Listen to his "victory" speech from the night of the 2008 election and you will see him playing down his own presidency. Listening to him is no different than listening to dubya ... all words.

Change (1)

gearloos (816828) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538532)

The only change I want has to do with him and the presidency

How is Obama doing on Open Government? (1)

Nov8tr (2007392) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538534)

FAIL.

Open Government? Your kidding right? (1)

redkcir (1431605) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538544)

My guess is that this OMB Watch report is from another time-line or dimension. It certainly isn't from this one. This administration would make any suppressive government proud of it's polices.

Re:Open Government? Your kidding right? (0)

atriusofbricia (686672) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538834)

My guess is that this OMB Watch report is from another time-line or dimension. It certainly isn't from this one. This administration would make any suppressive government proud of it's polices.

Sorry, you seem to be new here. Let me correct you. Clearly you meant to say that this administration is as open as it can be and that any hint of it not being wide open is all George Bush's fault. I'm sure you also meant to call for higher taxes on the "rich" and.. hmm... oh yeah, free health care. :)

After all, on Slashdot in 2011 everything is the fault of A) Corporations, B) The Rich, C) George Bush, D) the fact the US isn't doing X the same way they do X in Europe, or some combination of all of those.

Summary is too long (2)

mykos (1627575) | more than 3 years ago | (#35538700)

implementation of improved Freedom of Information Act policies has lagged

That's all we needed to know.

Doing Great!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35539046)

Of course he's doing great on open government! I mean, he really put himself out there with his NCAA picks!!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?