Afraid of sunshine
My column for the Daily News is online. It’s called, “Afraid of sunshine.” It’s about vampires.
Team Owen!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 10, 2010 at 0751 hrs
Just another example of the disconnect between the government class and we commoners.
“You want what documents? This must be a joke, do you know who I am?”
There is an awful lot of evidence out there, that the Obama administration is doing the same sort of stonewalling on the national front. I read that the current administration is already denying more open records requests than the Bush administration did, despite their promises of transparency.
“Agencies under the Obama administration cite security provisions to withhold information more often than they did under the Bush administration. For example, the ‘deliberative process’ exemption of the Freedom of Information Act was used 70,779 times in 2009, up from the 47,395 of 2008. Amusingly, the Associated Press has been waiting three months for the government to deliver records on its own Open Government Directive.”
Associated Press, March 2010.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 10, 2010 at 0948 hrs
Full Article:http://www.newschannel5.com/global/story.asp?s=12147380
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 10, 2010 at 0952 hrs
Yet Scott Walker can drag his feet for two months on a request, fail to release actual documents, issue only a four-page summary, and charge a requester $2,700, but that doesn’t merit a mention along with Miller and Doyle.
I agree with your argument in principle, but your one-sidedness in choosing examples is why it often seems like you’re more interested in shallow partisanship than the actual issues you’re discussing; that this column isn’t really about open records but you finding an excuse to crap on Democrats.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on August 10, 2010 at 1038 hrs
Yet Scott Walker can drag his feet for two months on a request, fail to release actual documents, issue only a four-page summary, and charge a requester $2,700, but that doesn’t merit a mention along with Miller and Doyle.
Totally unacceptable as well.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 10, 2010 at 1049 hrs
{Deleted for violating terms of service.}
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 10, 2010 at 1059 hrs
I realize that open records requests are laid directly at the feet of bureaucrats, and that nothing within a bureaucracy can be completed efficiently, but for some requests, often for single documents take weeks or months it is totally unacceptable.
Also, the attitude displayed by these people when they basically dump off a box with 1000 pages in it, along with a bill for a thousand or two thousand dollars, just to discourage the next guy is despicable.
Even understanding that Walker is no doubt getting a ton of fishing expeditions from campaign opponents and media types looking for a bomb to drop…. The records should be released as fast as possible, and at as little cost as is possible.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 10, 2010 at 1059 hrs
I agree with your argument in principle, but your one-sidedness in choosing examples is why it often seems like you’re more interested in shallow partisanship than the actual issues you’re discussing; that this column isn’t really about open records but you finding an excuse to crap on Democrats.
You missed the premise of his article. It was about delaying and blocking tactics on legitimate Open Records Requests. Weishan’s fishing expedition is not what I consider legit. Unfortunately, both sides of the aisle are doing this now at all levels. It’s a disgusting waste of our money, just to try and find some speck of dirt on an opponent.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 10, 2010 at 1101 hrs
My understanding was that Scott Walkers office had to go through gigabytes of information, and the IT folks there spent dozens of hours on the project. That takes time…. or would you have them simply put aside the county business to chase after every idiotic and poorly thought out open records request?
A 4 page summary? Would you have them print out every URL and cookie on paper and then deliver the results by tractor trailer? I don’t suspect that the salary of a county supervisor would cover the paper and printing costs in that case. One gigabyte of text would cover roughly 125,000 pages of paper. We are talking about 30 gigs of data here, or about 7500 reams of paper.
If Walker had done that, then I suspect folks like you would be whining that he was trying to hide the truth in plain sight…. sort of like all the hidden taxes and regulation they stuck in Stimulus and Obamacare.
Trying to blow smoke about Whiny Weishan’s failed fishing trip does not cover up for the obstructionist lying crap weasels that now inhabit the state capitol.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 10, 2010 at 1108 hrs
Always making excuses for why Reps shouldn’t have to live up to the same standards as Dems…it gets old.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 10, 2010 at 1142 hrs
Always making excuses for why Reps shouldn’t have to live up to the same standards as Dems…it gets old.
Always shining the light of truth onto the lies that Democrats tell themselves and others in order to provide a smoke screen for the scumbag politicians they support… it gets tiring, but it’s necessary
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 10, 2010 at 1232 hrs
ALL government information should be made available online with only a few exceptions. Any organization or business that receives government money (even tax breaks) should also have to account for every penny and any correspondence related to that money.
1. Personal information of private citizens should be redacted.
2. Any information about undercover cops/spys or confidential informants should be kept secret
3. Any information about troop activity in times of DECLARED WAR. But that information should be released after the war
4. I’m sure there are more instances where private citizens could be negatively impacted or where people’s lifes could be in danger but i’m not going to name them all here.I’m very big on government accountability and getting rid of corruption and waste. By putting every single piece of paper and electronic communication online into a searchable database, it would go along way to fighting corruption and waste.
Almost everything done by the government ends up in electronic form anyways. Would be very simple to automatically upload it to a database that the public has access too. There would be a sizable expenditure upfront for servers and software, but I think the waste that could be eradicated by this practice would offset this price.
I believe that government transparency and accountability is the best and only way to effectively run a republic like ours. With some database software and the internet, we have finally reached a point in history where this can happen.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 10, 2010 at 1321 hrs
Any organization or business that receives government money (even tax breaks) should also have to account for every penny and any correspondence related to that money.
You lost me already. Tax breaks are not receiving government money. Taxes don’t belong to the government, they are taken by the government.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 10, 2010 at 1325 hrs
because you don’t like on part of a plan, the whole plan is not worth discussing?
But let me explain my thinking on tax break. Ill use an example.
Currently, the government gives people money to buy a Chevy Volt. I believe its $7500. The way I look at it, the government is subsidising the company who built the electric car by giving a tax break to its customers.
I think that company should have to prove that they are not wasting that $7500 we are giving them. Tax payers are basically paying for 20% of someone’s car. I think the tax payers have a right to know what their money is being spent on. Are the Chevy bigwigs throwing lavish parties at taxpayer expense? And if they don’t want to have to release that information, don’t take our money.I don’t look at across the board “tax cuts” as the same thing. If the government is going to reduce the amount of taxes EVERY business pays, that to me is a cut and not a break.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 10, 2010 at 1426 hrs
That $7500 goes to the consumer, not GM…. I’m pretty sure. I would tend to look at that tax break from the opposite direction anyway though. It is the government subsidizing vehicles for their own company, stifling competition.
I am not sure if the breaks are the same for the Prius, Fusion, or Leaf.
As far as I can see it is obscene that the government should be taking money from me, an avid anti GM guy, and giving it to someone who has plenty of other less expensive options in that category.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 10, 2010 at 1513 hrs
As far as I can see it is obscene that the government should be taking money from me, an avid anti GM guy, and giving it to someone who has plenty of other less expensive options in that category.
Jonah Goldberg covered that topic in his column which appeared in today’s Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
At $41,000, about as much as the average American makes in a year, this is no people’s car. GM, owned by the government and the labor unions, is pitching it to affluent hipsters who don’t need a lot of space for a family. Deloitte Consulting says that the demand for such cars is from “young, very high income individuals” from households that make more than $200,000 a year, which is why the Volt will be rolled out in upscale, trendy urban markets
This is the consumer purchase subsidy:
Because the Volt’s sticker price might be too high for even that crowd, the government is offering a federal subsidy of up to $7,500 (Californians have a state subsidy, too), which means that working-class people will be helping to pay for playthings for upper-income people.
Alack, what about the subsidies to the manufacturer and the true cost of the Volt?:
“Like the EV1 that GM tried to peddle in the California market,” Kenneth Green, an environmental scientist at the American Enterprise Institute, says, “the Volt is a vanity car for the well-off that will be subsidized by less well-off taxpayers at all stages, from R&D to sales and to the construction of charging stations.”
Indeed, the Volt’s price is $41,000, but the cost is much higher. “Government Motors” is already selling the car at a loss. According to the blogger Doctor Zero, if you apply the subsidies that have gone directly into the car to just the first 10,000 vehicles, the cost is more like $81,000 per car.
Of course, there is an answer for that:
Of course, electric-car boosters say this sort of thing is necessary to get the industry up and running. (Green responds: “Supporters claim that electric cars need subsidies because they’re still in their infancy. Electric cars have been around for over 100 years. That’s some infancy.”)
If anyone is interested, follow the link to read about how the demand for more electricity will be met by burning more coal.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 10, 2010 at 1542 hrs
Ugh…these comments are so boring. Doesn’t anyone want to sell me some Ray-Ban sunglasses or Minola Blahniks?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 10, 2010 at 1607 hrs
because you don’t like on part of a plan, the whole plan is not worth discussing?
No, but that would be a big stumbling point for me. I like the idea of accountability, but I suspect that requiring it all to be online would open the door for the Pelosi-types to create some massive new IT bureaucracy that would cost us billions more and would never work any better than most of the stuff the government provides.
Currently, the government gives people money to buy a Chevy Volt. I believe its $7500.
Isn’t that a tax credit? That is the government giving you money by redistributing it from other sources… in that case it’s from the average guy to the wealthier elitist liberal green types that want to look down their noses at all the commoners in their earth killing SUV’s. A credit is quite different from a tax cut. Besides, that GM Volt was already partially built with tax money by a company that was purchased with tax money. We are up to our eyeballs in every Volt that rolls of the subsidized assembly line. They should have named it the Obamawagen… the peoples car for right (left?) minded Obama supporters.
an avid anti GM guy,
I’m with you there. The wife and I decided that we will never buy a car from a company that is owned or partially owned by the government. Ford and Toyota it is… I will miss my Jeep when it’s time to replace it next year… perhaps an FJ Cruiser instead?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 10, 2010 at 1635 hrs
I’ve got some Manolo Blahniks that I picked up last week from a commenter but they’re too wide. I’d be happy to trade them for a pair of Nike Shox.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on August 10, 2010 at 1635 hrs
The Volt is, as far as I’m concerned, an attractive car. If it were built by VW, had a turbodiesel instead of gas generator, and cost $15000.00 less with an electric range of 100 miles… I’d consider it.
Back on topic:
I do like the Idea of a searchable database, but it would be a tremendously expensive and burdensome undertaking. I feel like the way things are now is a bit, shall we say, opaque, but the billions that such a database would cost is a burden we should not try to bear in times like these.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 10, 2010 at 1657 hrs
I’m with you there. The wife and I decided that we will never buy a car from a company that is owned or partially owned by the government.
Hum, you won’t buy a car from a company that is owned or partially owned by the government but you are more than willing to be employed at a job that is tax payer supported.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 10, 2010 at 1747 hrs
Apparently Pat, you have no clear understanding of the difference between the government and the private sectors. Further discussion of the matter will require you to educate yourself sufficiently to avoid sounding like a complete jackwagon.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 10, 2010 at 2044 hrs
Total Entries: 19997
Total Comments: 134019
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 06:25 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 10:54 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 138
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 11:46 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).