I’m opposed to the national ID on the grounds that it enables new capabilities for citizen monitoring to the federal government when it has persistently abused and misused its existing capabilities.
I would support a national ID if it were introduced in conjunction with effective legislation to create additional congressional oversight of existing citizen-monitoring programs (eg, the anti-terrorist do-not-fly list) to require that these programs operate with increased transparency. Specifically, I would like this increased oversight and transparency to focus on increasing the accuracy and effectiveness of these programs, such as by publishing detailed reviews of all “false positives” created by the program and requiring that whatever flaw in the process that enabled that mistake be corrected.
However, given the current state of these programs, and their lack of oversight, accountability, and transparency, I feel that might be too much to ask at this point and thus instead simply oppose the introduction of a national ID at this time.
The problem that the national ID is meant to solve will only get easier over time, so I see no need to hurry.
With the old rates slated to return in 2011, it won't be long before the need for reform becomes urgent. The Senate leadership would be wise to not put off making a genuine stab at reform, as eventually it will become a consumer issue rather than just an irritant to small-business owners and the wealthy, warns Bass.
How will it eventually become a consumer issue, and when?
I entirely agree; it's almost impossibly difficult. But I'm eager to hear
your thoughts on this regardless.
I think it's especially important for those like yourself to attempt the
exercise, otherwise we just leave it to those not like yourself.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 8:20 PM
> To: David Barrett
> Subject: Re: U.S. choices in Iraq civil war
> Dear Mr. Barrett:
> Thanks for your message. I shall try to think of something along the
> lines you suggest. It is, however, very difficult to know what to do
> about this awful situation.
> Best regards,
> Mark N. Katz
> Professor of Government and Politics
> Department of Public and International Affairs
> MSN 3F4
> George Mason University
> Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
> (703) 993-1420
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David Barrett <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Date: Saturday, April 1, 2006 6:48 pm
> Subject: U.S. choices in Iraq civil war
> > http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1151761.php
> > Thank you for your excellent summary of options up on Monsters and
> > Critics.You do a wonderful job accentuating the delicate balance
> > the US must
> > maintain to succeed.
> > However, what you don't do is make any actual recommendations.
> > Perhaps you
> > believe it's not your place, but I ask: who is better qualified?
> > What I'd
> > really like to hear from you (and from others who have studied the
> > regionsuch as yourself) is clear advice to the government, a clear
> > proposal for
> > action.
> > Because the crowd of people who do sideline analyses is large
> > enough; we
> > need more people who leverage these analyses to actually put
> > forward their
> > own plans. Else we continue to defer planning to the same people, and
> > should only expect to get the same results.
> > -david
Thank you for your excellent summary of options up on Monsters and Critics.
You do a wonderful job accentuating the delicate balance the US must
maintain to succeed.
However, what you don't do is make any actual recommendations. Perhaps you
believe it's not your place, but I ask: who is better qualified? What I'd
really like to hear from you (and from others who have studied the region
such as yourself) is clear advice to the government, a clear proposal for
Because the crowd of people who do sideline analyses is large enough; we
need more people who leverage these analyses to actually put forward their
own plans. Else we continue to defer planning to the same people, and
should only expect to get the same results.
Thanks for your great article in the Guardian. I entirely agree that our leaders are at fault for manipulating intelligence to justify these wars, and then failing spectacularly in their execution.
However, that story is well understood. What investigations into the matter have mostly concluded, and there seems little interest in taking them back up. The “truth” might never be known, like in countless other episodes throughout history.
I can understand (and share) your frustration in this. But I don’t share your apparent willingness to rehash and re-vent this frustration endlessly.
I could understand (and would support) you calling for more investigation into these topics. I’d enthusiastically endorse holding the Blair and Bush administration responsible for their many abject failures. I’d eagerly welcome a plan to bring heretofore information to light and to gain insight into the murky debate that is fading ino obscurity.
But you’re calling for none of this. You’re not calling for *anything* (except maybe an apology from Bush and Blair, for whatever that’s worth). Rather, you’re just complaining.
Furthermore, you seem eager to draw energy *away* from the practical debate of what to do today (a debate in which you seem entirely disinterested) and focus it on... nothing that I can discern.
It’s great that you’re smart enough to see the big problem. But it’s sad that you’re not smart enough to do anything about it. There were thousands of people just like you who complained in the lead up to the war, who complained during the height of the war, and who now complain throughout the ongoing occupation. When will you learn that your complaints are meaningless without a call to act on some concrete alternative proposals?
In the meantime, you (and the countless others just like you) are a minor nuisance to Bush, but nothing more. If you ever got around to actually *doing* something, then maybe you’d matter. Because today you, and the myriad whiners like you, simply don’t.
> The point is Mark, we can win in PURPLE states. We can find a message
> that works in purple AND blue. And, to be frank, it is basically a
> negative message about the extremists that run the GOP. It is Lincoln
This is interesting -- I've been long complaining about a lack of
specific counter-proposals or clear message for the Democratic party.
And I've thought this is a weakness; I figured it was a necessary
characteristic for a leader to have a plan B if they disagree with plan A.
However, it seems you're proposing quite the opposite, that a necessary
and sufficient reason to be a Democrat is to simply not be a Republican.
Surely I'm over-simplifying things. I desperately hope I am. But I
don't see how. I'm no historian, so I don't know what your "Lincoln
1860" codeword means. But to me it sounds like your strategy is "if we
whine loud enough, they will come".
Is that what we've become? And is that the grandest to which you can
> A few weeks ago I skewered NRO's legal analyst Ed Whelan for trying
> to spin Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas as being "neutral" on the right
> to choose.
You "skewered" them? Is this your objective, unbiased view? Or your
self-promoting, overconfident view?
I know you think you're great; please try to leave it to the reader to
decide if they think so too. Otherwise you just sound lame, to your
supporters and detractors alike.
Again, I generally agree with your views. I just generally disagree
with how you communicate them.