Wednesday, February 01, 2006
What do you have to hide?
The argument typically heard for spying on citizens, is that "if you don't have something to hide, why should you care?"
Well, I won't go into just how fundamentally stupid and naive that is, but let's take it for what it is, and turn the tables. If any one group needs to be monitored, it's those at the very top, for what they do can have the most impact on people. So if the Bush administration wants to be able to spy on us without any restraint, how about if we go for full transparency in our government for once?
This administration isn't the first secretive administration, but they seem to have carried it to a new level. For one, he asked to limit the 9/11 investigation.
And now, they refuse to cooperate in digging up pictures of Abramoff.
Now, I ask you, what do Bush and his cronies have to hide? They shouldn't have to have all this privacy if they didn't have some skeletons in the closet. I know what you're thinking...these are issues of "national security". Yeah, right.
Well, I won't go into just how fundamentally stupid and naive that is, but let's take it for what it is, and turn the tables. If any one group needs to be monitored, it's those at the very top, for what they do can have the most impact on people. So if the Bush administration wants to be able to spy on us without any restraint, how about if we go for full transparency in our government for once?
This administration isn't the first secretive administration, but they seem to have carried it to a new level. For one, he asked to limit the 9/11 investigation.
And now, they refuse to cooperate in digging up pictures of Abramoff.
Now, I ask you, what do Bush and his cronies have to hide? They shouldn't have to have all this privacy if they didn't have some skeletons in the closet. I know what you're thinking...these are issues of "national security". Yeah, right.
# posted by Sean LeBlanc : 7:16 PM
