But then I heard Obama say, ‘I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess’…

What?! Do Presidents get to demand silence? I mean, that’s the funny thing about democracies. They’re not supposed to be silent. Healthy democracies are argumentative, boisterous, and a bit in your face. Silence is a characteristic of brutal dictatorships.

It reminds me of some old Simon and Garfunkel lyrics:

And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening
People writing songs that voices never share
And no one dared
Disturb the sound of silence

Hey, just imagine for one second if Bush had said this about national security after 9/11. Just imagine the outcry. Remember all the “King George” comments?

I can see that website/blogs would be public statements (per Kurt) but aren’t emails considered private correspondances? just curious

It turns out, even asking for citizens to report on each other may be illegal. According to the Department of Justice, “the purpose of the Privacy Act is to balance the government’s need to maintain information about individuals with the rights of individuals to be protected against unwarranted invasions of their privacy stemming from federal agencies’ collection, maintenance, use, and disclosure of personal information about them.”

Further, anything is considered a “personal record” if it identifies an individual (an e-mail address would qualify), and “federal agency” specifically includes “the Executive Office of the President.”

Also, 5 US Code §552a(e)(7) commands that any Federal agency: “maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity;”

I’m no lawyer, but it sure sounds like the White House is violating the law by asking people to snitch on their friends and neighbors for engaging in “fishy” political speech or anything that runs counter to what the White House wants you to think.

The White House is seeking to correct false information. Its asking for people to report on fishy information, not fishy citizens. Calm down. You are not being sent to the re-education camps.

If the conservatives are leninist, what do you call the Obama administration’s latest move:

Appearing on the White House blog creatively titled “The Blog” two days was apost that said the following(EXCERPTS):

“Scary chain emails and videos are starting to percolate on the internet, breathlessly claiming, for example, to “uncover” the truth about the President’s health insurance reform positions….
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it toflag@whitehouse.gov.”

Huh?

I can understand the desire on the part of people in the White House to keep a handle on the claims and arguments being used in a policy debate, but . . . isn’t it theirjob to keep track of those?

But the White House seems concerned that it doesn’t have the resources to monitor everything that goes on in America “below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.” So they’re asking citizens to report “fishy” statements made by other American citizens to the White House.
Color me skeptical, but creating a program to “flag” e-mails and web sites that take a contrary position to the White House’s–a program that relies on citizens reporting their fellow citizens when they send or post something that “seems fishy” (meaning: contrary to the message the White House wants to get out)–strikes me as a bit orweillian.

“My comment about Dobbs was to underscore the point that Sullivan also engaged in a (contemptible) call for a birth certificate.”

I was never on board with his “Trig” pursuit. Seemed rather strange to me. Nothing I would have done. I noticed he has tried to defend his stand by appealing to unfolding events, but it still seems strained.

More critically, I opposed his views going into Iraq. I thought he was unaware of the strategic implications of where we were headed. He has since been humbled by his naivete.

The bottom line: Andrew Sullivan is one of the best bloggers on the scene. He rarely makes asinine statements, and usually has insightful views. I’ve read his books and they are top notch, whether one is inclined to agree or not. They are well-reasoned, philosophically and empirically. There are few commentators — no matter the affiliation — that I would say that about.

I am aware you were not defending Malkin. Perhaps I was a little quick with my comment. It’s just that I’m so disgusted with the level of dialogue that I’ve lost patience with the lot.

I appreciate the exchange.

I used to read Sullivan all the time. I used to like him. (I don’t now, although I still hear him in the media a lot.) If you notice, I never tried to defend Malkin, by the way. My comment about Dobbs was to underscore the point that Sullivan also engaged in a (contemptible) call for a birth certificate.

Don’t know what you are talking about here.

Are you referring to Lou Dobbs? I can’t find any reference to him in my comments. If there is, it’s certainly not laudatory. He’s of the same ilk as Michelle Malkin?