Re: The constitution and the social contract
>>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <tb@becket.net> writes:
Thomas> Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes:
>> Show me. Show me the gag order that apparently comes with this
>> job. The constitution is open to all of us. Chapter and verse, please.
Thomas> I certainly did not intend to say that there is some kind of legal
Thomas> requirement that the secratary preserve neutrality.
Thomas> I merely assert that it's a really good idea.
And, pray tell, why is that?
Thomas> People have, in fact, asserted that the current secretary allowed his
Thomas> personal opinions on John Goerzen's measure to influence his
Thomas> decision. I don't have any idea if that's true; I have no idea what
Thomas> Darren's opinions even are on the measure, and I certainly trust him
Thomas> to do his best to keep the separate.
Oh, good.
Thomas> But that's not the problem. In an old phrase, the mere appearance of
Thomas> a conflict of interest must be avoided. It's not about trust; I
Thomas> certainly trust everyone involved.
I aver that voicing an opinion (which everyone with any sense
would know that a secretary has) does not create a conflict of
interest. How on earth is merely making public ones opinion (which
already exists) actually creating a conflict?
>> If we have people so are so susceptible to suggestion that a
>> pronouncement by the person perfoming the clerical duties of running
>> a vote are likely to change their votes, hell, their opinion is not
>> likely to be a great help anyway.
Thomas> If the secretary were merely a clerical functionary, then I wouldn't
Thomas> have this issue. But the secretary is also the Official Interpreter
Thomas> Of The Constitution, and that is something where neutrality is
Thomas> required.
When wearing the hat of a secretary, et, nuetrality has to be
exercised. But that does not mean the person wearing the hat has no
personal opinions, or has left his brains behind.
I think that assuming that if one has opinions one can't be
nuetral speaks volumes about the people who make these assumptions.
manoj
--
XVI: In the year 2054, the entire defense budget will purchase just
one aircraft. This aircraft will have to be shared by the Air Force
and Navy 3-1/2 days each per week except for leap year, when it will
be made available to the Marines for the extra day. XVII: Software is
like entropy. It is difficult to grasp, weighs nothing, and obeys
the Second Law of Thermodynamics, i.e., it always increases. XVIII:
It is very expensive to achieve high unreliability. It is not
uncommon to increase the cost of an item by a factor of ten for each
factor of ten degradation accomplished. XIX: Although most products
will soon be too costly to purchase, there will be a thriving market
in the sale of books on how to fix them. XX: In any given year,
Congress will appropriate the amount of funding approved the prior
year plus three-fourths of whatever change the administration
requests -- minus 4-percent tax. Norman Augustine
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: