Categories
National politics

Rhetoric Overshadows Facts

The well titled post, The World Is Not Going To End This Weekend, illustrates how easily an issue can be skewed simply by blurring the facts. Quoting from a post at the Politico which contains the rhetoric surrounding the debate about extending the Protect America Act Timothy Lee goes on to show the truth:

. . .” a measure to extend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as the deadline approaches. The measure, which failed 191 to 229, would have extended the bill an additional three weeks”. . .

FISA is not expiring this weekend. FISA was passed in 1978 and isn’t slated to expire ever. What’s going to expire this weekend is the Protect America Act, which gave the president some additional spying powers beyond those he enjoyed under FISA. And in fact, even that is misleading, because all that’s really going to expire is the ability to authorize new surveillance activities. The PAA allowed the government to authorize surveillance programs for a year, which means that any surveillance programs that have already been approved will continue to be authorized until August at the earliest.

What this means is that the only real effect of the PAA’s expiration is that if a new terrorist suspect comes to the government’s attention, and he makes a phone call or sends an email that passes through the United States, then the government would need to fill out the extra paperwork required to get a FISA warrant in order to surveil that call. This paperwork can be filled out after the interception begins, so we’re not talking about the NSA missing any important phone calls, we’re just talking about [a bit more paperwork].

This same kind of fudging happens from activists on both sides of most issues. It’s no wonder that the average voter who only knows what they see in the media has such a hard time seeing any debate completely clearly. Their views are almost always being skewed based on the news they receive.

In the midst of all our government social engineering maybe we could make a law to outlaw such abstraction in our news – but I guess that would be counterproductive every time a politician wants to make an emotional appeal to the country.

Categories
politics State

Face to Face

I was privileged to attend a meeting with our Lieutenant Governor this morning and I enjoyed meeting a few of those who have provided ideas to blog about as well as valuable feedback. It was quite enjoyable.

While we were talking with Lieutenant Governor Herbert (is there any legitimate way to shorten that title?) I came to appreciate even more the crucial need to keep the lines of communication open between government officials and voters. One thing that I really liked the sound of is a program called Be Ready Utah. The whole premise of the program is to be prepared to address emergency situations effectively at the ground level before larger levels of government (county, state, federal) are able to organize and lend a hand. I like that idea – in fact that should be the basic premise behind most of the functions that we expect of the government (think education).

What disappointed me was that I had never heard of this valuable program. I even went to website of the state government and discovered that there are no apparent links to the program (I found it by searching for the title of the program and close wasn’t good enough). Other issues we discussed, such as transportation and education, illustrated how we can suffer from poor communication between government and citizens (think back to the voucher debate).

I think that serious bloggers (meaning those who are blogging about serious topics of public interest) have the potential to enhance those lines of communication at every level of government – especially if we can come together in promoting a robust discussion of the important issues being addressed by our civic leaders.

Categories
politics

Civic Communication 101

I went to a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting last night and learned a whole lot about communication between government and citizens. I also found it interesting this morning to see that some similar lessons were learned by a Tyler who attended a Truth in Taxation hearing in Davis County last night. The lessons that Tyler talks about are good for citizens and officials. I would like to list some other lessons that I learned – which may be a result of the fact that the meeting I attended was really a different type of meeting than the hearing he attended.

Citizens: Take yourself seriously

There was a group of neighborhood residents who came to present their concerns with elements of a specific development near them. Unfortunately many of those residents were attired in shorts, sandals, and baseball hats. While I accept the fact that we live in a very laid-back society these residents combined their casual dress with with a casual and subtly belligerent attitude which left them looking sophomoric when contrasted with the professionalism of the developer as he addressed their concerns. His professionalism is almost certainly the kind of professionalism that most of them display in their places of work. I don’t know if they really did not expect to accomplish anything or if they really did not understand that their cocksure demeanor would make it less likely that their concerns would be fairly considered.

Officials: Make meeting format flexible

The basic meeting format was to have an overview of the issue, any comments by the proposing party, and then public comment followed by response by the proposing party concluding with committee action. This format was adequate for most items, but there were two items where I noticed myself and others of the public who might have comments come to mind based on the response of the proposing party or the committee after the committee or proposing party responds to the initial public comments. The format of the meeting should be flexible enough to allow the committee to open up a second period of brief public comment as appropriate prior to committee action.

Citizens: Come prepared

The same group of residents who had been too casual had appointed a spokesperson (who was more appropriately attired) and had done their homework before the meeting. They knew their concerns and made sure that they got a say. Others who came for various issues were not so well prepared. When questioned by the committee they were left saying “I think . . .” or “I’ll have to get back to you on that” which could only result in their requests being tabled or else ignored. Certainly you cannot be prepared for every contingency that might arise, but doing your homework will make a big difference.

Officials: Make it possible for us to prepare

I think that officials do a lot of work to make this happen most of the time but on an issue of a new zoning category being proposed there was a resident who had concerns but who was unable to prepare adequately for the meeting because the committee had not made the text of the proposed ordinance available for review. Citizens do not need to have everything available to them that the committee members have to prepare for a meeting, but on a proposed ordinance they should have access to the proposed content of the ordinance even if it will undergo revision before it is passed. A one sentence description on the agenda is not usually sufficient for that kind of issue.

I sincerely believe that most involved citizens and most public officials are trying to work together in a positive way. This is not meant to be a criticizm against those efforts, but merely an effort to add my insights into the process.