5 ms·

(Copy and Pasted from) Obama's Ethics Agenda (2008)...in his own words. Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and ab

(Copy and Pasted from) Obama's Ethics Agenda (2008)...in his own words. Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process.

graycat 13y ago
Yup, he said (wrote, had his staff publish, whatever) that. It sounded good, didn't it? Yup, it sounded good. So, in part with such things he got elected. Now, guess what, he isn't following what he said. We have to guess that maybe what he said was a deliberate lie. But it appears so far that he has 'read' the voters correctly: People will vote based on such promises but then, later, during the term of office, nearly completely forget about such promises. Uh, maybe Obama would have a better memory if more voters did! One reason in the past to forget was that, for tens of millions of voters, it was a bit clumsy to clip the original statement from a newspaper, file it, and then find it later. And, even if did find it, tough to do anything with it, e.g., get enough publicity about it to cause the politician start to make good on the promise. Of course now we have easy ways to find all such promises and publicize, if only on blogs and fora, that a promise is not being followed. But, apparently, still nearly all the voters are like they used to be and not really paying attention. If a voter was wise, then during the election they likely assumed that nearly everything the candidates said were lies, only had two candidates to vote for, picked one, but never expected that the winner would honor the promises. Net, really, especially now with the Internet, what government we get is up to the voters; when 60% of the voters are up on their hind legs yelling and screaming about the government tracking mud over the Fourth Amendment, then we will get some big changes quickly. The good news is that all we need is the 60%. The bad news is that getting the 60% on a 'technical' or 'detailed' issue that does not yet directly affect the daily lives of the citizens is tough to do. An old remark is that in a democracy the voters get the government they deserve. So far, by making promises that are lies and then forgetting about the promises, Obama is just giving the voters what in effect they want. That's part of why he won election twice.
- tnorthcutt 13y ago
  FYI, your writing would be more legible if you inserted spaces between all words.
gnuvince 13y ago
Has he been asked about this statement by a journalist? It seems like his position on Snowden is the complete opposite of what his Protect Whistleblowers promise was.
sergiosgc 13y ago
I don't know if he was asked about this text, by any journalist. However, read the text from Obama's perspective, and you'll easily find the answer he'd give: Snowden did not use the official channels for whistleblowing. Snowden commited a crime, and should be handled as a criminal. That text can be read as having the intention to neuter whistleblowers by providing a sanctioned escape valve as much as the interpretation you're giving it (that of general protection of whistleblowers).
- jasonkolb 13y ago
  The proper channel is the press. That's why we have free speech. What Bradley Manning did is much more questionable, Snowden gave the information over to the Fourth Estate and let professional journalists sound the whistle. You would rather have him blow the whistle to the same people who are benefiting from The Way Things Are? What incentive do they have to do anything about it?
- mpyne 13y ago
  Obama also mentioned that he signed an E.O. giving IC members whistleblower protections for the first time in history, protections which Snowden declined to pursue. I still don't really think that the debate we're having would have occurred in quite that same way, but Obama certainly took steps to comply with that 2008 policy paper.

graycat 13y ago

Yup, he said (wrote, had his staff publish, whatever) that. It sounded good, didn't it? Yup, it sounded good. So, in part with such things he got elected. Now, guess what, he isn't following what he said. We have to guess that maybe what he said was a deliberate lie. But it appears so far that he has 'read' the voters correctly: People will vote based on such promises but then, later, during the term of office, nearly completely forget about such promises. Uh, maybe Obama would have a better memory if more voters did! One reason in the past to forget was that, for tens of millions of voters, it was a bit clumsy to clip the original statement from a newspaper, file it, and then find it later. And, even if did find it, tough to do anything with it, e.g., get enough publicity about it to cause the politician start to make good on the promise. Of course now we have easy ways to find all such promises and publicize, if only on blogs and fora, that a promise is not being followed. But, apparently, still nearly all the voters are like they used to be and not really paying attention. If a voter was wise, then during the election they likely assumed that nearly everything the candidates said were lies, only had two candidates to vote for, picked one, but never expected that the winner would honor the promises. Net, really, especially now with the Internet, what government we get is up to the voters; when 60% of the voters are up on their hind legs yelling and screaming about the government tracking mud over the Fourth Amendment, then we will get some big changes quickly. The good news is that all we need is the 60%. The bad news is that getting the 60% on a 'technical' or 'detailed' issue that does not yet directly affect the daily lives of the citizens is tough to do. An old remark is that in a democracy the voters get the government they deserve. So far, by making promises that are lies and then forgetting about the promises, Obama is just giving the voters what in effect they want. That's part of why he won election twice.

tnorthcutt 13y ago
FYI, your writing would be more legible if you inserted spaces between all words.

gnuvince 13y ago

Has he been asked about this statement by a journalist? It seems like his position on Snowden is the complete opposite of what his Protect Whistleblowers promise was.

sergiosgc 13y ago

I don't know if he was asked about this text, by any journalist. However, read the text from Obama's perspective, and you'll easily find the answer he'd give: Snowden did not use the official channels for whistleblowing. Snowden commited a crime, and should be handled as a criminal. That text can be read as having the intention to neuter whistleblowers by providing a sanctioned escape valve as much as the interpretation you're giving it (that of general protection of whistleblowers).

jasonkolb 13y ago
The proper channel is the press. That's why we have free speech. What Bradley Manning did is much more questionable, Snowden gave the information over to the Fourth Estate and let professional journalists sound the whistle. You would rather have him blow the whistle to the same people who are benefiting from The Way Things Are? What incentive do they have to do anything about it?
mpyne 13y ago
Obama also mentioned that he signed an E.O. giving IC members whistleblower protections for the first time in history, protections which Snowden declined to pursue. I still don't really think that the debate we're having would have occurred in quite that same way, but Obama certainly took steps to comply with that 2008 policy paper.