Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Introducing the "Disinformation Governance Board" (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ekbeats
- Start date
Boston
Footballguy
I can say with 99.9% certainty that that was not even considered when they thought this out.
FairWarning
Footballguy
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
There's a whole 'nother thread's worth of material on just how terrible this Washington Post article is, and how it and similar articles are canaries in the proverbial coal mine.
Want to hire a person like Taylor Lorenz as an opinion columnist? Okay, fine, whatever. But how does any media organization hire a person like this to do straight news and expect to retain any credibility whatsoever? This is literally Gateway Pundit level reporting, except this is the Washington ####### Post, not some fringe website.
I should add for full disclosure that I actually pay for a subscription to the Washington Post. I get a NYT sub for free thanks to my employer, but I take WashPo on my own accord. It's not as if I have some kind of historical grudge against this outlet or anything. It's just depressing to watch it turn into the same clown show run by clowns as every other institution. Kind of like when The New Republic went from a genuinely top-notch magazine to "Newsweek for people who had trouble following along with Newsweek."
Last edited by a moderator:
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
That article is just unreal.
Is this like 5d chess where they throw out disinformation to try and justify the ministry of truth?
What in thev story was inaccurate? As I said before, it matches up with my observations of this whole mess pretty well.
There was a ton of disinformation put out there by bad-faith actors. The idea that the Board was going to censor stuff? The idea that the Board was going to edit tweets or concern itself with who got blue check marks? The idea that the Board was going to track people who repeated unkind fables about Kamala Harris? Those weren't honest mistakes by their originators, but it seems like most of the internet fell for all of it.
Boston
Footballguy
https://reason.com/2022/05/18/disinformation-board-nina-jankowicz-taylor-lorenz-pause-dhs/
Nina Jankowicz's Faulty Record, Not Her Critics, Doomed the Disinformation Board
And The Washington Post's wildly one-sided account of Jankowicz's fall was an exercise in government PR.
Nina Jankowicz's Faulty Record, Not Her Critics, Doomed the Disinformation Board
And The Washington Post's wildly one-sided account of Jankowicz's fall was an exercise in government PR.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I don't understand why we're supposed to ignore public statements made by Jankowicz -- statements that relate directly to free speech in an online environment -- and pretend that they're not relevant when evaluating whether she is the right person to lead a government agency that has an extremely high potential for mission creep and general abuse.
The fact that some critics of Jankowicz happen to be bad-faith actors doesn't mean that all of the criticism directed toward her or this board are invalid. And besides, what is Taylor Lorenz if not a bad-faith actor, albeit one who has been strangely granted an extremely prominent platform? I think you're way off on this one for some reason.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
By the way, can you explain why this is an irrational thing to be worried about? Do you think Donald Trump would have any philosophical objection to using a DHS agency to manipulate online information? Or is it that you think that nobody who works for DHS would ever do such a thing?
rockaction
Footballguy
I'm a little surprised at the nothingburger stance regarding a new government agency. It would seem that the creation of the agency itself gives it not only scope in mission but also enforcement powers of some form. That a government agency gets turned over to somebody who speaks about directly relevant issues and has proven to be, through her own words, hostile towards subjective speech gives me real pause.
I don't get the "nothing to see here" angle about this. There was nothing to see about the USA PATRIOT Act and it gave us the NSA, who spies on everybody in America in addition to the gutted electronic privacy protections that the PATRIOT Act ushered in. And this was all done almost unanimously.
If we haven't learned that an agency might have problems with mission creep, enforcement, and freedom issues, I'm not sure what else we've learned. And this is pure speech we're talking about. Like it's merely a policy preference and not a God-given bedrock right.
I don't get the "nothing to see here" angle about this. There was nothing to see about the USA PATRIOT Act and it gave us the NSA, who spies on everybody in America in addition to the gutted electronic privacy protections that the PATRIOT Act ushered in. And this was all done almost unanimously.
If we haven't learned that an agency might have problems with mission creep, enforcement, and freedom issues, I'm not sure what else we've learned. And this is pure speech we're talking about. Like it's merely a policy preference and not a God-given bedrock right.
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I guess if MT of all people is telling me that I should be less civil libertarian-y on this issue, I should take that under advisement. He and I usually broadly agree on this stuff, so a friendly "Hey, there's actually nothing to see here" is a signal suggesting that I'm just misfiring on this one.
I dunno though. It really does seem to me that if the Trump administration was proposing the exact same thing in the exact same way, just with a right-wing doppelganger of Jankowicz, everybody would be absolutely losing their #### over the death of democracy.
I dunno though. It really does seem to me that if the Trump administration was proposing the exact same thing in the exact same way, just with a right-wing doppelganger of Jankowicz, everybody would be absolutely losing their #### over the death of democracy.
Boston
Footballguy
Absolutely...just read a funny quote..."the Disinformation Board was killed by disinformation."
quick-hands
Footballguy
shader
Footballguy
The only reason anyone would downplay the disinformation board is because they trust Biden/Jankowicz etc. But that's horribly short-sighted, imo. I don't think anyone can say with certainty what the disinformation board would eventually turn into. I think it's obvious that they weren't immediately going to be given the power to censor the entire internet, censor twitter, etc. But was anyone really saying that?
Even the "provocateurs" like Posobiec were all worried about what this would eventually lead to, not the immediate implementation of Nazi-censorship from day 1.
There's no way to sugarcoat it. Jankowicz herself said she was joining the Biden administration. That gives her power - and she was in charge of the Disinformation Board. Even if that power wasn't specifically spelled out, a historical look at government agencies proves that the power that they start with isn't the power they have 10,20,30,40 years later.
No one needs the government telling them what is true and untrue. No one.
Even the "provocateurs" like Posobiec were all worried about what this would eventually lead to, not the immediate implementation of Nazi-censorship from day 1.
There's no way to sugarcoat it. Jankowicz herself said she was joining the Biden administration. That gives her power - and she was in charge of the Disinformation Board. Even if that power wasn't specifically spelled out, a historical look at government agencies proves that the power that they start with isn't the power they have 10,20,30,40 years later.
No one needs the government telling them what is true and untrue. No one.
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
This is the point that I think MT is overlooking. The DHS doesn't need to go in and censor anything. All they need is to say "This story about inflation is disinformation," and they can count on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. to do the censoring for them.
Now, obviously it won't work like this all the time. If a there was inflation (say) on a Republican's watch, and a Republican-led DHS labeled that as disinformation, social media companies wouldn't comply, and everybody would raise holy hell about the obviously heavy-handed attempt by a government agency to control the free flow of information. But they'll work hand in glove with a Democratic administration.
A Republican administration will have to do just straight-up censorship.
Max Power
Footballguy
Twitter is ready to pickup the football and run.
TWITTER
Introducing our crisis misinformation policy (twitter.com)
Introducing our crisis misinformation policy (twitter.com)
Max Power
Footballguy
No chance. This sounds pretty bad.
zerohedge
@zerohedge
*TWITTER TO PLACE WARNING NOTICE ON TWEETS DEEMED MISINFORMATION
*TWITTER TO DISABLE LIKES, RETWEETS, SHARES ON MISINFO TWEETS
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
IvanKaramazov said:
GordonGekko
Footballguy
Dan Curtis and Herman Wouk held firm about showing Jewish Elders in a full three dimensions in War And Remembrance. But it was actor John Gielgud that changed the entire trajectory of events. He insisted that all the Holocaust scenes be shown unedited and not filtered down, even though this would be prime time television on a major network, back when mini series were seen as national television events like Lonesome Dove.
Part of the conflict was that network heads were leery of showing the Jewish Elders in a complicit light with the Nazis. I.E. the entire "There's nothing to see here, everything will be OK, let's wait it out, someone will come to help us/save us" was part of power retention as a function of one of the practical ironies of real human nature. When you've always had power, even in the face of genocide, some want to grab onto it as long as they can, even if it's fleeting, even if it's just domination over just one other person.
Wouk's research found that many Jewish Elders, at the end, demanded special treatment and special accommodations away from the "commoners", even when dragged out of those trains. They were stripped, humiliated and were gassed with all the rest. Most had to watch their wives, their children, their relatives, their friends, their colleagues all die first.
People who usually say, "There's nothing to see here" when it comes to authoritarian regimes, if we are talking all of recorded human history, usually had to watch their children be executed first before they themselves were lined up against a wall. I've seen ethnic cleansing up close. The logistics are usually sorted out by burying masses of people alive. Soldiers cannot mentally cope with lining up civilians against a wall and shooting them. Also, no one wants to talk about this, but it's seen as a waste of ammunition.
Zyklon B was created, in part, because previous attempts to get rank and file infantry to shoot down civilians, caused lots of desertions. It caused rebellion against NCOs. It created a path for some to turn and help the Resistance elements during occupation. It wasn't just a question of "efficiency", it was a bypass of understanding that German soldiers were not just raw machines to operate a grinder.
The problem with the modern Western viewpoint of politics as a type of "team sport" is they don't understand that the stakes will be the survival of their children. The problem of Limousine Liberals is they can't envision it will be "them" or "their children" being unloaded out of those trains. "I thought it was like a big game, I didn't know it was real"
What I saw up close was those who resisted being buried alive were made into examples. Their children were brought in front of them, put on their knees, and their throats were cut open.
Nearly all Americans were born with "freedom" implied. They were born into "abundance" Most Americans have never set foot outside of the safety and "bubble" of Western friendly nations and vacation spots and tourist traps. Most have never seen the carnage of how the rest of the world operates.
"There is nothing sweeter than liberty"
You can translate that into a million other languages but most Americans, especially the most privileged, has no clue what that really means. They don't realize what they take for granted every single day. Billions of people around the world don't even have clean drinking water. How many people here fill a glass of water and really think about how lucky they are compared to most of the world and most of everyone who has ever lived and suffered on this planet.
Rock, you want to hear the grim reality? There are a lot of people who won't realize the gradual loss of that sweet liberty will probably end up with them watching their children die in front of them. They don't have to take my word for it, just look across human history. Until then, watching other people burn is like a sport for some. It's "their team" winning at all costs. It's something rationalized like a sporting event in their mind.
One of the bitter ironies of his life is that the most ardent of zealots are usually the ones to sell their dignity causally without any given regard to what was actually lost.
rockaction
Footballguy
Honestly, I do. I was raised that way, though. I think more people do than we might give them credit for. Oh, they're not among the whining activists on Twitter and they're not nodding their heads along to the cable news networks that we see so often, but there are tons of people still out there working hard, appreciating what they have and how tenuous their grips on the levers of power and self-government are.
Another bitter irony is that these same people that I just mentioned, these same salt of the earth folk, knowing how quickly their enemies would put them up against a wall, bury them in a ditch, or leave them without resources with which to live, begin to rebel at ossified systems, onerous regulations both social and economic, and exclusive clubs which make the world run but leave them no point of entry, no chance at the good life. Those people that feel the first cuts or last deep pangs of disenfranchisement cast their lot in with the professional hucksters, the flatterers, the people who speak of them as if they were their own, all while these hucksters are ready to leave these people at the drop of a hat once they've stopped being expedient to the huckster's success; ready, willing, and able to grind them down with the real yoke of the devil incarnate.
Such is human history when all seems meaningless and arbitrary and lost. I hope we haven't found our way there.
Last edited by a moderator:
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
It's a matter of selective reporting. The author chose to frame the "pause" as being prompted primarily by the so-called "right-wing attacks", yet the article almost totally ignores the thoughtful arguments from the right and from the center (and even on the left) which were piling up in opposition to the Board.
Also, the author does not provide very many examples of these "attacks", which tends to prevent the reader from making an informed conclusion.
If this article had been an op-ed piece, then such omissions would have been expected, if not justified. But this piece was presented as a news story. I understand that when I read the WaPo, I'm going to get a left-leaning slant; but this was far more than slant -- it was basically a 3 a.m. Nina Jankowicz Twitter rant, cleaned-up and disguised as journalism.
Another issue with the article is that the author practically draws a parallel between the "attacks" and "disinformation" -- as if Jankowicz was a victim of the very thing she was hired to monitor in the first place. That's a VERY dangerous suggestion, especially in light of the author's decision to omit or downplay any falsehoods that may have been used to attack the Board. There is a difference between cyber-bullying and disinformation. If you blur those lines, then you create the very environment that the critics were concerned about in the first place.
I know I seem to be out on a limb on this one. To me, it feels like I'm the only one who's remained sane on this issue -- which is probably how insane people often feel. So I am forced to update my probability estimate, upwards, that I've gone insane.
In any case, anyone who's been reading my posts over the past few decades should be confident that, if I thought there were any solid basis for believing that a new government agency were going to be in charge of censoring stuff, or arbitrating the truth of controversial claims, or anything remotely like that, I'd undoubtedly be leading the charge to courageously and patriotically denounce it on a fantasy football message board forum. It's what I do.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not overlooking. Duly considering and explicitly rejecting. (Also, I doubt that Facebook was putting disinformation warnings on anything involving baby formula. They were probably putting misinformation warnings on it. Likewise, any incorrect or dubious statements about inflation are going to be misinformation, not disinformation. There's an important difference because people can disagree about whether information is true or false -- i.e., whether it's good information or misinformation. But disinformation is intentionally and strategically false, so there shouldn't be much genuine disagreement about whether it's true.)
Can anyone offer some examples of those thoughtful arguments? I honestly don't remember seeing any. (As distinct from the arguments against Jankowicz personally, which are a different matter that I'll save for another post at another time.)
At some point I'd like to go back through the entire thread and consider each of the arguments in it that have been made against the board. For now, here is my taxonomy of arguments I remember seeing.
Category #1 -- Arguments based on factual misunderstandings (or at least baseless factual suppositions). "The Disinformation Governance Board is bad because government agencies shouldn't be in charge of editing Twitter." These arguments are nonstarters to people who care about factual accuracy.
Category #2 -- Arguments that could apply with equal force to literally any government organization. "The Disinformation Governance Board is bad because it's a government agency, and all government agencies are bad." This is a fine argument for principled anarchists, but for everyone else it's just special pleading. (You might not think this argument is common, but see below.)
Category #3 -- Arguments that the Disinformation Governance Board is bad because it might act beyond its scope of authority. There is some nuance to this category because under some conditions, but not others, it can be a good argument. The DGB's scope of authority is apparently to write memos to other organizations within the DHS about best practices in dealing with foreign malign disinformation that threatens U.S. national security. (Link.) It's pretty hard to object to that. Various sections of the DHS have to deal with disinformation in carrying out their duties; right now they do so on a kind of ad hoc basis, without much in the way of empirical study, theoretical rigor, or collaborative discussions about best practices. Enter the Disinformation Governance Board.
"Ah, but what if instead of just writing internal memos, the board starts doing [insert bad, unauthorized thing here]?"
Many such arguments are just Category #1 or Category #2 arguments (or both) in disguise. "What if this governmental entity starts doing stuff it's not authorized to do?" can, after all, be asked about literally any governmental entity.
In order to avoid being a Category #1 or Category #2 argument, I think two conditions are required. First, the argument has to start from an accurate understanding of what the Disinformation Governance Board is actually tasked with doing -- not from imagined horrors based on how scary its stupid name sounds. And second, the argument has to show a plausible path from what it's actually tasked with doing to whatever the feared bad thing is. (And not just in a generic way that applies to all government organizations.)
Are there any arguments satisfying those conditions?
Here are some sources of information that describe what the board was going to be tasked with:
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/01/mayorkas-defends-dhs-disinformation-board-00029182
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2022/05/01/mayorkas-on-disinformation-board.cnn
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2022/05/02/fact-sheet-dhs-internal-working-group-protects-free-speech-other-fundamental-rights
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-europe-united-states-freedom-of-speech-alejandro-mayorkas-69f658351103d4d049083ad20a713e2a
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-dhs-disinformation-governance-board-and-why-is-everyone-so-mad-about-it/
Last edited by a moderator:
Desert_Power
Footballguy
Seems like your posts on this subject are right on target and I appreciate it. A lot of the rest of us are just tired of constantly pushing back on the hysteria fomented by outright conspiracy theorists like Jack Posobiec.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Maybe I have the timeline incorrect, but didn't it go something like this...
Board announced, very vague details provided.
Lots of criticism.
In response to the criticism "no,no,no, this is what the board is going to do."
If that is correct, I think some healthy skepticism is in order.
rockaction
Footballguy
I don't think anybody needs to adhere to any fictitious categories to claim that an agency headed by Jankowicz was a bad idea, especially given that she'd been on the side of restricting speech on other platforms and that agencies tend to expand their scope of authority beyond that which is initially granted them by the people.
Arguing against an agency's creation because of the deleterious effects of its foreseeable future is actually a perfectly legitimate and thoughtful argument why the board shouldn't be given the go-ahead to exist. It doesn't even follow that all agencies increase their scope of dealings. In fact, agencies get sued because they don't enforce enough for some people.
So we have the basic tenet that in this case, the people, once in great executive power, can affect lives down to the nub of existence if they so desire, and they may do this through means that aren't in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution.
All respect for you Maurile, but you don't sort of get to set up the confines of the debate with a tightly-bound argument that tramples the thoughtfulness of rejecting the agency due to the utter foreseeability of malfeasance by an agency of this sort.
Arguing against an agency's creation because of the deleterious effects of its foreseeable future is actually a perfectly legitimate and thoughtful argument why the board shouldn't be given the go-ahead to exist. It doesn't even follow that all agencies increase their scope of dealings. In fact, agencies get sued because they don't enforce enough for some people.
So we have the basic tenet that in this case, the people, once in great executive power, can affect lives down to the nub of existence if they so desire, and they may do this through means that aren't in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution.
All respect for you Maurile, but you don't sort of get to set up the confines of the debate with a tightly-bound argument that tramples the thoughtfulness of rejecting the agency due to the utter foreseeability of malfeasance by an agency of this sort.
rockaction
Footballguy
Yes, you aggrieved souls of the bowels of the internet, pushing back against the benighted losers. Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.
Desert_Power
Footballguy
This whole subforum was created when a certain former owner of the site didn't like criticism he was getting for spreading another conspiracy theory Posobiec (whom you edited out of my post) popularized.
rockaction
Footballguy
You're making leaps in logic and motive here. If the current owner (who is not a conspiracy theorist) wanted the subforum gone, it would be gone and we'd be either all banned or back on the front page. I think this subforum was a long time in the works before his partner went and believed that particular conspiracy.
Enforce is a transitive verb. Enforce what? Can you identify a statute that you think shouldn't be enforced, but that you think an advisory board with no operational authority might enforce anyway?
IMO, you're doing exactly the thing I described above -- making what appears to be a Category #3 argument that is really just a Category #1 and Category #2 argument in disguise. In order to avoid that, you should start with a specific thing that the board would actually be authorized to do (from the links I provided or any other source you can find) and explain how it's reasonably foreseeable for that to lead to something bad (via mission creep or whatever).
FWIW, I was opposed to creating this subform at the time, but I think David's view in favor of it has been vindicated. I do think it helps keep the FFA nicer, and it's also convenient to have all the political threads in one spot.
Last edited by a moderator:
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Well, I do get tired of pushing back against those who rant about hysteria and conspiracies and yet gave ZERO pushback on The Dossier and Russian Collusion.
ALL I'm saying is that those in glass houses probably shouldn't throw stones.
Desert_Power
Footballguy
The order of events that day were pretty clear if you were posting in the thread when that meltdown occurred (I think it was Save Ferris B that posted the expletive laden rant in his direction that got everything locked). Anyways, point is that some of just get tired of arguing the same things particularly when those claims come from the same discredited source. I understand, however, that you lawyers are built different on that topic
Last edited by a moderator:
Desert_Power
Footballguy
Probably right, although it is unfortunate many breaking news threads get moved/merged over here. Your still pinned moderation idea was a pretty good attempt too.
rockaction
Footballguy
Why would it be statutory? Wouldn't an executive agency be operating under the auspices of executive power?
rockaction
Footballguy
My fears have been assuaged! Homeland Security is so vague about what the Board will do that I can't possibly oppose it. See this!
"He clarified that the board is an internal working group that will gather best practices to address the disinformation threat from foreign state adversaries and cartels and 'communicate those best practices to the operators.' He added that the board does not have operational authority and it will not monitor American citizens." - Politico, 05/01/22
And the same guy is featured in all the other articles. I'll have to read them whether the press just reads off of the press sheet and calls it "fact," or if there's something more to it.
Seems like an awful lot of talk about how our freedom of speech will be protected for so innocent and endeavor, no?
"He clarified that the board is an internal working group that will gather best practices to address the disinformation threat from foreign state adversaries and cartels and 'communicate those best practices to the operators.' He added that the board does not have operational authority and it will not monitor American citizens." - Politico, 05/01/22
And the same guy is featured in all the other articles. I'll have to read them whether the press just reads off of the press sheet and calls it "fact," or if there's something more to it.
Seems like an awful lot of talk about how our freedom of speech will be protected for so innocent and endeavor, no?
Good point. I'll broaden my question to include the Code of Federal Regulations in addition to just the United States Code.
Good, so you do understand.
If there were no information at all about the board -- none whatsoever -- would you agree that any specific criticism of it, based on no information, would be uninformed and premature?
A criticism of something, in order to be worthwhile, should be based on actual information about it, right?
If you don't know what the Board will do, I think it logically follows that you can't reasonably oppose it. You can oppose whatever you subjectively imagine it might do, but that's different.
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction
Footballguy
Sure. And since I just read the fact sheet DHS put out and this is so nebulous in detail, I'll just say there isn't anything to concretely oppose. I don't see why this puts the burden on the skeptic rather than the proponent of the new agency, especially working in the realm within which it will work, that of "disinformation."
From CBS News, the link you provided:
"But DHS has yet to release a charter for the board, and there's still some confusion about the parameters for the group. Officials released a fact sheet, Monday, which promises to 'release comprehensive quarterly reports about the working group's activities to Congress, including its oversight committees.'"
Huh?
There's no charter, there are no parameters, but it involves "disinformation." Good to see ya. Have a nice day with your fun new executive agency! I know, I know, best practices! Sounds good to me! Here's a few trill.
Ahoy, matey!
rockaction
Footballguy
Right. See my post above. That sort of puts the burden on the creators of the agency to be really specific about what they want rather than putting the intellectual burden on detractors that can imagine a million foreseeable problems with a nebulous agency that has no proposals other than to combat "disinformation" of some sort.
Who combats? What powers do they have? How are the powers enforced?
We never hand an agency carte blanche to solve a problem. We request all these things from them, assess where rights and duties reside, and then figure out either a compromise or a practice to balance the two, or we respect one competing duty or right over the duty or right it buts up against.
rockaction
Footballguy
Not really. Specific criticism of specifically what they will be doing, probably yes. Specific criticism of nebulousness, its leaders, and its mission (which is barely even able to be mentioned without speech coming to the immediate fore)? No, that's not uniformed and premature.
You don't get to play dumb be design and get a federal agency out of it.
The burden is always on anyone making a claim. A criticism is a type of claim. So yes, if you want to criticize something, you have the burden of establishing that your criticism is sound, which includes establishing that it is factually accurate.
The DGB never did anything, so it can't really be criticized for anything it did. If you want to criticize it for things it was likely going to do, I think you have the burden of establishing what it was likely going to do.
It wasn't going to do anything without some operational authority, or a budget, or some kind of function prescribed by DHS. Once those things were in place, they could have perhaps drawn valid criticism.
When all you know about an organization is its name and the identity of its leader, I think the only things you can validly criticize about it are its name and the identity of its leader. And on those points, fair enough. The DGB's name was dumb and its leader did not garner widespread public trust. Those are perfectly valid criticisms.
Beyond that? Most criticisms seemed to consist of assertions rooted not in facts, but, as you put it above, in imagination. That renders them less valid, IMO.
But I do recognize that criticizing things can be fun and can make us seem worldly.
In that spirit, I hereby denounce whatever the next governmental organization is going to be. I don't know what operational authorities it will have or what tasks it will carry out, but that just makes it nebulous. I don't even know its name at this point, which adds to its nebulousness and heightens my criticism accordingly.
Wow, I wasn't sure that was going to work, but I actually do feel more worldly now.
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction
Footballguy
The Save The Rainbow Kitten Surprise lobby will be very disappointed not to have earned your endorsement.
Now that the worldliness is out of the way -- and therefore not a hang-up -- I'd like to say that the burden of persuasion and product in this case was upon those proposing the new agency. Given our country's reluctance to add new authority and the subsequent means made to protect civil liberties, a body divorced from the legislature, especially since it was nebulous, ominous sounding, and had a real-life Medusa for its head, was subject to fantastical criticisms. It sounds like it was a fantastical project.
Max Power
Footballguy
https://apnews.com/article/covid-science-health-world-organization-government-and-politics-8662c2bc1784d3dea33f61caa6089ac2
WHO is coming around on the lab leak
WHO is coming around on the lab leak
Similar threads
