Why the White House "Fishing" Really Stinks

The White House is being blasted for asking supporters to send "fishy" information about the health care reform bill that they have received through rumors, chain e-mails and casual conversations to a White House e-mail address -- the now infamous flag@whitehouse.gov.

I was all set to say -- ok, ok, we made our point. This is what liberals would have said if this had been tried during W's administration. No one seriously believes that this is going to create problems for any individual. There isn't going to be an "enemies list" or any such nonsense. There is no need to be paranoid.

But then I recalled how individuals in California who had made contributions in support of Prop 8 were targeted by those opposed. The San Francisco Chronicle published the names and home addresses of everyone who donated money in support of the marriage initiative and some of those donors were harrassed with a deluge of emails and in other menacing ways.

So who's to say this couldn't happen with people who voice concerns about a sweeping, unnecessary overhaul of an imperfect system? When they point out that the few million who are in a medical care crisis can be helped (and changes that can benefit everyone can be made) without the government taking over and without costing us trillions of dollars that we don't have -- should this be made a permanent public record?

The White House knows all the counterpoints being made to their proposals. They can simply respond to them. Why do they feel it's necessary to ask their supporters for specific people's names and/or email addresses? Maybe it's all innocent enough. Maybe the White House had no ulterior motive. But who knows what would have become of that list? What could happen if it gets into the wrong hands?

It's one thing for a blogger to go on record and put herself out there. I accept the consequences. But people shouldn't have to worry that their random conversations at the water cooler, the soccer game, or the neighborhood block party could lead to trouble.

I wouldn't have believed it. But it has happened. The conservative reaction to this move by the White House is not paranoia. It's an all-too-real concern about potential payback.

Linda Douglass, White House Communications Director for the Office of Health Care Reform

Is this woman Big Brother? Probably not, but why is she asking Americans to report on their neighbors?

Comments

[ChunLing]

Meh...I was more impressed with the plan to collect the GPS coordinates for everybody's residence. Or rather, the plan to remind everyone that the government has that information. Like anyone with an ounce of sense doesn't realize that already.

Or maybe not. I don't know how much most people think about the implications of "owning" land. Then again, I don't know how much most people think, period. Is it just an accident that the government is prohibited from collecting a list of this kind of information unless directed by statute, and yet there's a statute saying that they can't delete communications to the White House? Hmmm...careless, or clever?

I just can't tell. Either way it's idiotic.

[Pat]

Funny, I tried to find more info on this topic, but all my search engine came up with were other conservative blog posts with points of view like yours.

I'm disappointed to see how quickly you're being sucked over to the dark side. Where's that voice of reason that marked your former posts?

Look, I was a McCain supporter, even when my spouse was sent to Iraq to fight a war I thought was dubious, but "birthers"? "Obama singlehandedly trying to bring our country down"? C'mon!

I guess I'll have to find another, less crazed conservative blogger to get my daily dose of balance.

[ChunLing]

That's sorta the crux of the matter. The divergence of the basic consensus reality which permits civil discourse has produced a situation where each side feels justified in labeling the other "insane" (crazed, lacking in rationality, however you choose to put it).

You can't reason with the insane...the only recourse left is resorting to force. There are those who want to avoid that resort at any cost...but that only fuels the radicalization of the debate, because it makes 'rationality' a hostage for both sides to threaten in order to move the consensus reality towards their own position.

For years, radicals have done and said totally irrational things and thrown Americans on the horns of a dilemma (which can only exist in a basically effete society) between calling them insane and extending the range of "reasonable" discourse to encompass the previously unthinkable. The strategy has, on the whole, not been universally successful, Americans are generally willing to agree with the notion that certain viewpoints are really insane. There are historical reasons behind this, mostly explained by the full societal mobilization for war against a given representative of some inimical ideology (which has not yet occurred in the present conflict with Islamist terrorism, and also never fully occurred against Communism due to MAD strategic doctrine and "containment").

I, of course, regard sanity as an attribute which ordinary humans cannot possess by reason of their animal heritage. Too much of your behavior is driven by instinct and emotion for it to be possible for any but the most exceptional humans to act from what could accurately be termed a rational motives. But given that your social instincts towards conformity and unity can multiply the effect of even a limited number of examples of rational thought and behavior, I don't think it's really important. Besides, sanity is overrated. I like reason as a pastime, but there is wisdom in the saying that only the insane have the strength to prosper, and only those who prosper may define what is sane.

It is, obviously, not exactly true. But there is wisdom in it.

[Colette Moran]

Yup -- there are wackos of all shapes and sizes on both sides of the debate. And it is often done deliberately by the perfectly sane in order to muddy the waters and scare away the timid.

But I point out actual instances of people using a list of "opponents" to harass them -- and suddenly I'm off the radar.

I ask the President to not be hypocritical by transparently revealing what was demanded from his opponents -- and I'm a kook.

I recognize how Obama is trying to gain govt control of one institution after another -- and I'm "crazed."

Whose being sucked into which dark side?

[Pat]

Why is it that it's OK for Bush to wiretap innocent Americans -- his own countrymen! -- for the sake of "keeping America safe," but it's not OK for this administration to keep tabs on what lies are being disseminated for the sake of refuting them on its Website? How is it dangerous to counter misinformation with a source of correct information? Only conspiracy theorists (oh, and Charles Krauthammer) would believe that Obama could get away with creating a "hit list."

I believe that there are not only kooks, but good and intelligent people on both sides of the political debate, but seriously, we need to be reasonable. Birthers and people who believe that Obama is out to deliberately destroy America, just because his vision of a prosperous America doesn't match theirs, are not reasonable.

[ChunLing]

Innocent Americans having innocent conversations with known terrorists? Well, first off, it was the known terrorists being "wiretapped" as you call it. Monitoring all their "innocent" communications is an unavoidable result.

And most of the information which this administration would like to suppress about the health care takeover is provably true. I don't know what your definition of "lies" is, but I'm beginning to suspect it doesn't have the meaning you know most other people associate with the term.

For the record, I'm more likely to single-handedly destroy America than Obama ever will be. Or "fundamentally transform", if you prefer. That doesn't mean that Obama doesn't intend to "fundamentally transform" America into a socialist country, just that he isn't going to succeed. He can't even take credit for de-legitimizing the national government, since it already lost its Constitutional legitimacy some time ago.

But that doesn't mean that anyone is a "kook" for pointing out that Obama is the new king of purple Kool-Aid.

[Pat]

Well, thanks, ChunLing.

Ghost writing for the blog's author today? Your antagonism is right on time.

By the way, there WERE Americans who had nothing to do with terrorism and WERE wiretapped.

[ChunLing]

Of course. I was probably one of them at one point or another. But under the provisions of the Bush era program you referenced, only innocent Americans having innocent contacts with known terrorists fell into that category. That obviously doesn't mean that the existence of such a program suddenly abolished all existing electronic monitoring efforts, most of which were purely domestic and never had anything to do with investigating terrorism.

Of course...the new administration considers me a dangerous domestic terrorist. You probably agree. But just remember, I'm not trying to scare you into compliance with my demands. You are simply incapable of meeting the standards which I have been required to administer.