Tag: public service

Confusing the Point

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

Image by: DonkeyHotey

This may be the most obtuse argument I’ve read regarding Edward Snowden. I don’t want to be too hard on Jay Evensen but the logic he uses here is terrible. A conspiracy theorist could come up with many sinister motives for such a poor argument against Snowden but I’m sure it’s something much more mundane like trying to meet a publishing deadline.

Let’s break it down.

First we have an attempt to discredit Snowden based on his connection with Russia.

{Snowden} chose exile {in Russia} because he faces charges of espionage in the United States for revealing things he felt were so egregious he no longer could keep quiet about them. And yet neither he nor his friend, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, seem concerned enough about the blatant abuses in Russia or other countries to dig deeper and expose more.
…
But it’s no longer convincing, or even noble, to claim a sort of relativistic neutrality while hiding in Russia.

There are two parts to this. The first is that Snowden had a choice of where he took exile. This argument requires that we ignore the fact that while Snowden chose exile because of the charges of espionage in the U.S. he was unable to fly to any of the other locations that offered him exile. Russia was functionally his only option. The second is that Snowden should be exposing Russian digital espionage. This argument relies on ignoring the fact that Snowden’s revelations about the NSA are not based on some super hacker skill on Snowden’s part. Snowden’s information was based on him holding a position of privileged access within the NSA which he would never have within Russian intelligence.

Then we have an effort to defend the NSA by saying it does necessary work.

The U.S. government spies on people. We get it. The NSA is a huge agency with the resources to build a profile on just about anybody it chooses. We get that, too.

But why does the NSA do it? Could there be noble reasons, even if the methods aren’t the best?

Does Snowden care at all about the security of the nation he fled? Does he think the NSA should stop spying altogether, or can he imagine a reason why a spy agency might be important in a dangerous world? What would he consider proper spying?

Again this comes in two parts. The questions for Snowden can’t be asked sincerely unless you have only listened to the non-Snowden side of the story. He has been very clear that he recognizes the necessity of espionage activities and that the reasons behind his actions were the systemic abuses whereby the agency overstepped their constitutional authority (which someone might argue is occasionally necessary) and hid their actions not only from the American public at large (which is certainly necessary to some degree where espionage is concerned) but also from the very congressional committees with oversight over their actions (which is a red flag of the first order in all cases).

Using “Could there be noble reasons, even if the methods aren’t the best?” as an argument here would be like saying of the John Swallow case that raising money is necessary to run a campaign so even if he got money from payday lenders it really shouldn’t be a big deal. That argument completely misses the point of the outrage which isn’t that Swallow got money from payday lenders and that the NSA was spying. The reason for people to be upset in both cases is the way John Swallow and the NSA both went to great lengths to hide their activities from the very people they were supposed to be working for and the organizations that were authorized to provide oversight for their operations.

It occurred to me as I reviewed the article that the point Mr. Evensen wanted to make was that Russia was a greater threat to liberty than the NSA. If so, this was not the way to try making that argument.

Tags Deseret News, Edward Snowden, Jay Evensen, NSA, public service, Russia

General

Why John Swallow Should Resign Even If He Did Nothing Illegal

Post author By David
Post date May 15, 2013
1 Comment on Why John Swallow Should Resign Even If He Did Nothing Illegal

If a call for for Attorney General John Swallow to resign is based on a presumption of his guilt then Mr. Swallow is right that that we should wait until the investigations into the various allegations against him are completed. I think it is time to make the argument for why he should resign despite the assumption that he is innocent. By choosing not to resign the Attorney General is proving beyond any doubt that he is less interested in what’s good for the people of Utah than he is in his own benefit. If felt it was time to make this argument publicly after hearing Mr. Swallow on the radio talking about how he and the others in the Attorney General’s office are getting up and going to work every day despite all the allegations against him. I absolutely believe that to be true but it illustrates why John Swallow has no business in public office – he is clearly not interested in what is best for the people he is supposed to be serving.

John Swallow essentially admits this in this article from the Deseret News.

“I’m a little handicapped right now because of the situation I’m in. I get that. People say, ‘That’s not fair. You ought to leave.’ I can’t control the situation I’m in, and if I felt I did something that wrong, I would leave,” Swallow said. “But I’m not about to walk out of this office because people make allegations that aren’t true.”

As evidenced in that statement, Mr. Swallow is making his decisions based on his personal interests. The only reason that he would resign is if he were convicted of illegal activity. Mr. Swallow contends that he has done nothing illegal and I make no pretense that I know otherwise. The way I see it there are two reasons for him to step down even if he is innocent. Either of them should be sufficient cause for a true statesman to step down from office – at least temporarily.

There are a number of statements that Mr. Swallow is known to have made – such as in his now infamous campaign telephone call – that he defends as being legal and yet clearly display judgement not worthy of a good public servant. Having shown such blatant poor judgement, a statesman would step aside and take the time to reestablish the credibility of his judgement before trying to take on a high-profile public office.
No matter how hard he and his deputies work, the sheer volume of complaints against Mr. Swallow – and especially the fact that those complaints have resulting in multiple ongoing investigations by various official organizations – siphons off much of the time, energy, and efficacy of his office such that the people of Utah are not getting the kind of representation they deserve out of the Attorney General’s office. Again, a statesman would step aside – regardless of whether he did anything wrong – when the allegations against him were distracting and diluting his ability to serve effectively.

If Mr. Swallow were making his decisions based on the interests of the people of Utah his statement would have looked a lot more like this:

“I’m a little handicapped right now because of the situation I’m in. I get that. I and my deputies get up every day and work hard for the people of Utah but I recognize that the allegations made against me limit the effectiveness of all our work. The people of Utah and those working in the Attorney General’s office deserve an unencumbered chief legal officer therefore I have decided to step down as Attorney General.

“I sincerely hope that after the investigations are complete and my innocence has been established I will have another opportunity to serve the people of this great state.”

The real reason why he is not resigning is that whether he is innocent or guilty John Swallow will not materially benefit from resigning. If he were interested in the good of the people he was elected to serve he would resign because it is abundantly clear that regardless of his innocence or guilt the people of Utah would be better off with a new Attorney General.

Tags ethics, John Swallow, public service

culture National technology

I Pledge

With all the uproar over the showing of this video to elementary students I have been asked to weigh in on the video and whether it was appropriate to show it to the students. Of course others will have their own opinions and you are free to view the video yourself and let me know if you agree with me, or why you disagree with me. (I have no doubt that different people will disagree with me for very different reasons.)

Let me say right off that I don’t believe that the video should have been shown to children without informing their parents in advance. Parents are always the primary decision-makers with regard to what their children should be exposed to in matters of values and this video was definitely a matter of values. Having said that, I don’t believe that this was a particularly devious or pernicious video (regardless of what Gayle Ruzika believes).

Some who are opposed to the showing of this video believe that it is an attempt to brainwash the children. I doubt this is the case. The message is actually addressed to the President as a show of support. Distributing it among children was meant to encourage them to pledge to do some good of their own choosing.

If the makers of the video intended children as their audience then they have no idea how to go about it. The fast scrolling words and constant movement at the beginning of the video will fail to get any massage to such an audience. On top of that, the pledges in the video will either make no impression or they will confuse a younger audience. If it is as harmless as I am suggesting why would I object to showing it to children who will be either confused or unaffected by it? Because at best it is a waste of school time. Why should my taxes and my childrens time be spent watching something that has no positive value for their education? At worst showing the video opens the door for teachers to take over a parental role in discussing the various pledges as they try to reduce them to a level that could be understood by a 5 or 7 year-old. Again, why should my taxes support that?

If the target audience was for older youth (teenagers and college students) then the video is well made (meaning it would connect with that audience). It still has the problem of promoting some dangerous biases of the creators (confusing service to the president with respect for the president as one example), but it will always be necessary to compensate for the biases of those who are promoting ideas because the promotion of ideas is a values issue by definition – which again is an area where the parents are always primarily responsible until their children reach adulthood.

So here’s my pledge.

I pledge to continue to believe in the good intentions of others, whether they be elected officials or simply socially and politically active individuals and groups, even when I fundamentally disagree with what they are trying to do. I pledge to be civil no matter how passionately I disagree with anyone and to treat other people with respect and decency in all my interactions. I pledge to fight for what I value and seek to make my country, state, community, and neighborhood a better place. I pledge that no matter how much I may want something I will not make promises that my grandchildren will have to keep in order to achieve it, nor will I ask other to do so.

And I don’t have to go to usaservice.org (which is actually serve.gov) to make or keep that pledge.

Tags civic participation, discourse, media, public service, reactions

General State

Public Office and Freedom of Expression

Post author By David
Post date February 20, 2009
4 Comments on Public Office and Freedom of Expression

I could not begin to cover the latest situation with Chris Buttars but there is an important issue there. Everyone has a responsibility to refrain from yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, but public officials have even more reason to be judicious in what they choose to say. As far as I’m concerned that’s a choice you make when you run for office. I have not read what he said (nor do I intend to). I have not paid attention to the particulars of the reprimand that he received but I have read a variety of opinions on what should have happened. I thought I would throw in my two bits about these kinds of situations.

I consider it perfectly reasonable that the state senate should have the power to discipline and reprimand its members when they act in a way that detracts from the office they hold. Obviously in criminal cases they should be free to remove the offending senator. This is not a criminal case. Public officials have as much right to fre expression as any other citizen even if they bear a heavier responsibility for their use of that right. Because this is not a criminal case I believe it is up to the voters in the 10th district to decide if they want him to represent them in the senate. Personally, even if I agreed with his politics all the time (which I don’t) I would not want him serving as my representative because of the distraction he brings all too regularly.

Tags government, liberty, public service

culture

Public Journalism

After an entire book showing the disappointing aspects of what effects we are seeing in our society from journalism it was bittsweet to read about the push toward a more constructive approach to journalism called public journalism. (The bitter being that this was written in the mid 1990’s and things seem no better – if not worse – now than they were then.) The essence of public journalism is encapsulated in the idea that the media organizations embrace the reality that they are not imply observers and reporters in society, but also participants. It is the admission that what they do matters and makes a difference. The controversy come through differing views on what it means to participate positively. Those who misunderstand the idea of public journalism might easily interpret that proactive stance as meddling by the media. On the other hand, defenders of the idea view this approach as the best form of journalism because the approach is no longer apathetic about the effects that come from the reporting that they do.

Personally I can see the objections to the idea of active meddling but I feel that objection is misplaced. Even the best reporters and news organizations will have biases in what they cover and how they cover things. Most observers can see this easily, but anyone who is serious about using the news will be better able to compensate for those biases when those biases are not hidden by an exaggerated guise of objectivity. The best in journalism would acknowledge the perspective that the reporter or organization subscribes to but would also report facts that disagree with their perspective. Not only that, but they would seek to develop their perspectives in accordance with the facts that they are able to find. If they are actively seeking to make a positive impact in their community they would find it beneficial to go beyond the easy reporting and dig into the facts that are not so easily obtained.

I found the description of the efforts of various papers around the country to actively engage citizens in the process of developing public policy and exploring social issues in their areas to be encouraging. Sadly I see no evidence that those efforts have continued to develop inthe years since this was written. Perhaps that is a result of where I am, or perhaps the movement has lost its momentum. I hope it is only the first option.

Tags civic participation, discourse, media, public service

State

Reason To Be Anti-Incumbent

Post author By David
Post date October 16, 2008
4 Comments on Reason To Be Anti-Incumbent

I found this little exchange to be insightful from Congressman Bishop:

. . . the two 1st District candidates snapped at each other, with Bowen accusing Bishop of taking $26,000 in the past four months from the radioactive-waste-storage company.

"I did not take $26,000, I took $28,000," Bishop fired back. "And that’s not company money, I can’t take that. It’s from individuals who work for EnergySolutions. And it’s not my biggest source of revenue."

Only someone who is comfortable in Washington D.C. could swallow the idea that dozens of individuals from EnergySolutions contributing $28,000 to the campaign is not a significant endorsement from the company as a whole or that they would do so without believing that the Congressman was working in the interests of the company that pays them.

I wondered who the biggest source of revenue was for Rep. Bishop and I found this list at OpenSecrets. It has Energy Solutions as the top source of revenue although it lists under $17,000 so it must not be current.

I wish I had all the facts, but I have enough to choose. If Rep. Bishop believes what he said then he’s not the kind of man I want representing me. If he does not believe what he said, then the fact that he said it means he is not the kind of man I want representing me.

I am definitely voting for Morgan Bowen – worst case scenario is that I’ll want to replace him in 2010. I’d say there’s more than a 50% chance that I’ll still want him in 2010.

Tags 2008, change congress, Morgan Bowen, public service, Rob Bishop, Salt Lake Tribune

Local

Followup on City Council Pay

Post author By David
Post date August 6, 2008
No Comments on Followup on City Council Pay

Back in May I asked a question about attitudes regarding compensation for elected officials at the city level. I promised to write my conclusions in a followup and now I find that I never did that. My conclusion was that the issue deserved study in Lehi as the city grows so fast, that it should be done with lots of public input, and that the original request seemed very generous, especially for the mayor. Today I read in the Daily Herald:

Lehi officials are looking for public input on a proposal to increase their own salaries as much as several hundred dollars a month.

In May, Mayor Howard Johnson asked the council to triple his salary to a total of $51,000 a year, and to give themselves a raise too. At that time Council members instructed staff to form a committee of former council members to give a recommendation on salaries.

On Tuesday, Lehi city attorney Ken Rushton said the committee had met and had recommended raising Council salaries from $750 to $1,000 a month, and the mayor’s salary from $1,000 a month to $1,500.

In addition, the committee felt Council members should receive another $200 a month as a travel expense stipend, and the mayor an additional $500 per month.

So far I think the council has done a good job of addressing this issue. They have avoided any attempt to push for the large increases that the mayor suggested and in fact there is at least one council member who even believes that they should be reimbursed for travel rather than having stipends. (I would go one step further and have reimbursements with a cap – per trip and/or per month or year.) They have also done a good job so far of making the process open and inviting public input.

Tags city council, Lehi, money, public service

Local

Increasing City Council Pay

Post author By David
Post date May 19, 2008
6 Comments on Increasing City Council Pay

The news that our mayor asked city council to raise his pay and theirs got me thinking about this issue more closely than I’ve ever thought about it before. It makes sense that it would be a sensitive issue, but even in the private sector I’m a bit leery of giving someone the power to set their own level of compensation with money from other people. Congress is a good example of the abuse of this power as they have set a system of automatic pay increases (every year as I recall) unless they take action to prevent the pay increase.

I’m not accusing our city council of anything even remotely like that but I wanted to see if anyone had any thoughts or experience with this type of issue that might help shape my position. I’m trying to balance fair compensation with maintaining the integrity of the public service aspect of serving in city government as an elected officer. I’ll share my position after I firm it up a bit. I plan to be talking with Johnny Revill (a member of our city council) about the issue since he lives near me.

Tags city council, Lehi, money, public service