🚀 go-pugleaf

Michael Friedman) writes:
|> Bernie Cosell) writes:
|> >Michael Friedman (mfriedma@us.oracle.com) wrote:
|> >} Kate E. Loomis) writes:
|> >} >Regarding the extensive list of names on the "top secret, Soviet-Style
|> >} >health reform task force" : there is no analogy here. These people are 
|> >} >not creating policy, they are _drafting a plan_ . ...
|> >} >So what is the problem?
|> 
|> >} The problem is that we are supposed to have an open government.  Plans
|> >} that do not require security are not supposed to be drafted in secret
|> >} by people whose names are not even released.
|> 
|> >} If nothing else, people who object to the makeup of the task force
|> >} have the right to know who is on it and to present their objections to
|> >} the people of the United States.
|> 
|> >By and large, NONE of the government
|> >'plan making' machinery is particularly open.  
|> 
|> Phrases like "particularly open" or so vague that they are
|> meaningless.  However, can you name another government committee whose
|> members are secret and which is not related to national defense or
|> sensitive foreign policy issues?
|> 
It took us about 6 years to find out that Nancy Reagan's astrologer
was a key member of the White House Committee for Planning and Decision
Making.  Are you suggesting that she only advised on national defense
and sensitive foreign policy issues?

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.