US Open Government Initiative Enters Phase Three

circletimessquare writes "The Obama administration opened a discussion forum in January of this year which has become an electronic suggestion box. It is now entering stage three, following brainstorm and discussion phases: the draft phase, in which the top subject matter is codified into suggestions for the government. 'Ultimately, the visitors advanced more than 3,900 ideas, which in turn spawned 11,000 comments that received 210,000 thumb votes. The result? Three of the top 10 most popular ideas called for legalizing marijuana, and two featured conspiracy theories about Mr. Obama's true place of birth.'"

Comments

Re:and this is different and worse than the foundi

[ShieldW0lf]

I didn't say it was different. I said that it wasn't created by some saint for a higher purpose, but rather negotiated by a bunch of people who were already on the top of the heap and felt that it would help them stay there. It was created in the manner that it was created for the enrichment of a few people and the maintenance of their dynasty, and it worked.

It's not an effective democracy because it wasn't created by people who believed in democracy. It was created to be an ineffective democracy and sold to a bunch of rubes who didn't know better.

you're wrong, here's why Re:Legalize it?

[damn_registrars]

Sorry, but you're wrong. He is not a "government expert" as some have tried to claim.

As you have shown, he works at UCLA. In case you didn't notice, the UCLA is not a government facility. It is a state school.

You pointed to the government-funded research that he has done; though that statement is accurate, it does not make him a government employee or a "government expert". He has obtained federal money to support his research, as many, many, many other scientists in this country have also done. The National Institutes of Health provide funding for many research projects, including the one that I am on. However our NIH funding does not in any way make myself or my boss "government experts".

For those not familiar with the mechanisms at work here, let me point out that at most, if not all, large research institutions (universities and the like), federal research dollars are paid to the institution on behalf of the grant awarded. Essentially the institution receives X dollars for professor Y on a given time frame. The institution then pays professor Y directly for his research costs based on those X dollars, after taking out money for expenses that professor Y is obligated to pay the institution for.

In other words, even though a researcher has grant money from the NIH, they are seldom paid directly by them, and at no point does that situation automatically make them a "government expert".

Therefore, unless he has been specifically appointed to a position within the government; the claim of him being a "government expert" is patently false.