The Big Picture - Macro Perspective on the Capital Markets, Economy, Technology, and Digital Media

10 Responses to “Data.gov”

1. DeDude Says:
   June 22nd, 2009 at 1:11 pm

   As much as you want to put a W in between the new presidents first and last name, I think this show a fundamental difference in how the two want to govern. One preferred ignorance the other prefer enlightenment. One want’s data to create policy the other wanted to use data to justify policy. I may not agree with all of the decisions of BO but they are still like different as apples and oranges.

2. DMR Says:
   June 22nd, 2009 at 1:40 pm

   @DeDude, this looks like a cool extension of the “Enterprise Architecture” program that W put in pace. A lot of that data wouldn’t have been available without the SOA underpinnings required. If particular technologies start becoming Blue and Red, I wouldn’t be able to take it anymore. I’ll have to move to Bangalore

3. DeDude Says:
   June 22nd, 2009 at 2:18 pm

   I am not talking about who created the software or box-diagrams. The question is whether you use up the “top-secret” stamp and “cannot afford” to publish information, or hand over the raw data to the public. Its a whole different philosophy regarding facts and policy making.

4. Mark E Hoffer Says:
   June 22nd, 2009 at 10:46 pm

   DeD,

   the FTC called, they suggested that, in order to comply with the spirit of “Truth in Labeling” statutes, yo may considered changing your nom de’ weblog to “DeLusional”..

   see: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/70383.html

   if think that there is any, substantive, difference between 44’s M.O. and that of 43’s record, you should find some new Echo Chambers to hang out in.

   http://clusty.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&query=secrecy+of+Obama+white+house

5. DeDude Says:
   June 23rd, 2009 at 9:28 am

   Mark

   Try to turn off Fox and turn on reality.

   You are rationalizing like a classic neocon. To hell with the observable facts, if your ideology tells you that there are no substantive differences between the MO of 44 and 43, then you will state that with great conviction and ridicule those who don’t follow your delusions. Yes BO is not as good as I wish he would be with respect to open government. However, he is a hell of a lot better than 43, and data.gov is a clear indication of a different philosophy. The world does not operate in black and white (although 43 was as close to black as you could get) it operates in shades of grey, and this country has lightened up considerably to anybody that has not choosen to close his eyes.

6. Mark E Hoffer Says:
   June 23rd, 2009 at 9:59 am

   DeD,

   see: http://clusty.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&query=obama+continues+bush%27s+extra-constitutional+powers

   http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/10/718416/-Judges,-Experts:-ObamaBush…….Gibbs:-State-Secrets-Good

   sorry, Murdoch can keep his Swill, WSJ included..

7. DeDude Says:
   June 23rd, 2009 at 10:11 am

   You are still using the Fox playbook. Cherry picking and presenting individual cases of “similarities” does not prove that there are “no substantial differences”. In contrast presenting cases of “substantial differences” does put down the idea that there are NO substantial differences. Yes I would have liked to see BO being further apart from the previous administration on these cases, but I understand the argument that a new AG cannot turn his department 180 degree and remove people from their ongoing cases. I also respect the idea the the AG office should be independent enough that the president does not “order” it to stop or reverse cases that are ongoing. The real test is what new cases this new administration brings out, and what type of arguments they present in those cases.

8. Mark E Hoffer Says:
   June 23rd, 2009 at 10:41 am

   DeD,

   if you believe AG “Bag” Holder is ’sufficiently’ independent, along with the other precepts of the mythos that you delineate, above, at 10:11, certainly, feel free~

   though, do me a favor, where does one find a copy of the “Fox playbook” you refer to? That, in itself would be worth the cost..

9. DeDude Says:
   June 23rd, 2009 at 10:47 am

   The justice department is supposed to serve justice first and foremost, serve the administration second (and only in its attempts to uphold and execute laws) and hopefully not at all serve political goals and ideologies. During the Bush administration that whole thing was turned upside down, and right wing ideological purity became the main criteria for employment. As a result a lot of people who think their main goal is to serve their right wing ideology, are sitting in the AG office as career employees. Cleaning that s**t out of there and getting back to a situation where everybody understand and follows the rule that they should serve justice and “the people” before anything else, is going to take a lot longer than the few month that the new AG has had so far. If it is done to hard-handed and top-down it will do a lot more damage to justice than losing a few wild-eyed cases in federal court will do. It is extremely important to re-establish the political independence of the justice department, even if it means allowing a few misfits to do their misfit deads a little longer than honest people like to see. Will the current administration ever get a justice department that functions as it is supposed to do, no, but it will become a lot lighter shade of grey than what it was under the previous republican regime.

   The Fox playbook is on display everyday at Fox “News” for independently thinking people to view and laugh/cry about (depending on your disposition).

10. Mark E Hoffer Says:
    June 23rd, 2009 at 1:15 pm

    DeL,

    the Slave cares not what color his Chains are..

    thanks for the ‘playbook’ tip–Useful, that.

    maybe you’d do well to take a page, from a different ‘book’:

    http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/diogsino.htm

    http://thinkexist.com/quotation/a_man_once_asked_diogenes_what_was_the_proper/167372.html