Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   :Lobo Santo (profile), Sep 2nd, 2010 @ 12:50pm

   
   

   Trust:

   Trust is knowing what you can trust somebody/something to do.
   
   I trust the USTR to give lip service to the idea of transparency.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   

   designerfx (profile), Sep 2nd, 2010 @ 1:24pm

   
   

   Re: Trust:

   yes but trust isn't real transparency, we should be able to have both, and we don't thanks to lobbying.
   
   Really, why haven't we overturned that ruling that let corporations influence lobbying? It seems to be the biggest core of all of this

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   

   Qyiet (profile), Sep 2nd, 2010 @ 1:29pm

   
   

   Fire them

   Sounds like the administration as told them do A, they have done the opposite of A.
   
   Just apologise to the other members of ACTA, then fire everyone even tertiarly related to the whole mess. It would make the point to the public, and the other groups dragging their feet that when asked to do A by the administration, you should in fact do A.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   

   Nick Dynice (profile), Sep 2nd, 2010 @ 2:06pm

   
   

   The one calling the shots at the USTR is Ron Kirk who has a trail of scandals in his past as the mayor of Dallas and Secretary of State of Texas. Check it out on Wikipedia.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Sep 2nd, 2010 @ 2:13pm

   
   

   Re:

   Figures. It seems like these political positions can never be filled with honest people because dishonest people never stop pursuing political careers.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   

   PrometheeFeu (profile), Sep 2nd, 2010 @ 9:15pm

   
   

   While the Obama administration has been better than the Bush administration about transparency, it's not as though that's saying much. They use NSLs like it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, they keep on fighting the release of various documents Obama promised to release. Really overall, anyone who voted for him because they thought he would follow through on his promises has been had. And the worst part is some don't even realize it. I campaigned for him with my eyes open, but you can't help but have a bit of the idealism rub off on you. Too bad it's a disappointment as usual. The next election, I'm staying home.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   

   abc gum, Sep 2nd, 2010 @ 9:29pm

   
   

   Re:

   "The next election, I'm staying home"
   
   Mail in ballots are a very nice convenience and from what I've read result in a larger turnout.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Sep 2nd, 2010 @ 10:28pm

   
   

   Re: Fire them

   Agreed. The politicians need to realize that when some public servant is told to do A, then does the opposite, that is known as insubordination. The correct response to insubordination is to consider, "Does this public servant have some overwhelmingly good public policy reason for committing insubordination?" If the answer to that question is no, then a sacking should follow in short order.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   

   ethorad (profile), Sep 3rd, 2010 @ 5:19am

   
   

   Re: Re:

   Agreed - and being caught seems to be a minor blip to the worst of them. Case in point - Peter Mandelson in the UK was forced to resign from office twice (1998 and 2001) he kept coming back to influential posts.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Sep 3rd, 2010 @ 7:43am

    
    

    I'd take an anonymously-sourced non-quote from an interested party with a grain of salt. But the transparency issue, and which part(s) of which countries' government are opposing it, is worthy of some investigation. Why do you/we assume that it's USTR making the decision not to release?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    

    Pete Braven (profile), Sep 3rd, 2010 @ 10:04am

    
    

    Re: Trust:

    Hang on, you are using the word 'trust' in a sentence that include a government department, this is a prime example of an 'oxymoron'.
    Anyone who understands politicians knows that political 'transparency' is akin the the glass used for welding masks, photon blasts and solar observations!

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12.  

    

    vivaelamor (profile), Sep 3rd, 2010 @ 3:09pm

    
    

    Re:

    "But the transparency issue, and which part(s) of which countries' government are opposing it, is worthy of some investigation. Why do you/we assume that it's USTR making the decision not to release?"
    
    The US were one of the countries in a leaked document listing those countries who hadn't spoken up in favour of transparency. Since then all of those countries except three, including the US, have changed their position on transparency. Out of the three countries that are left, the US is the country that introduced ACTA and it is, I believe, entirely US companies and organisations that have been party to the negotiations under NDAs. The US administration have also denied FOI requests, claiming that the documents are state secrets.
    
    It's news to me if South Korea and Singapore are influential enough to veto the whole European Union on an issue such as this.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment