How it's worded, versus how it's received

"My administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government." Barack Hussein Obama, the next former President quoted at breitart.com

I understand now.

He was talking about an unprecedented LOW level of openness.

Yes, we all assumed the best, so it really is our fault for interpreting it the wrong way.

This is the problem of modern politics, a speaker delivers a carefully worded statement, say from a teleprompter, and each member of the audience interprets the words through his or her own filtering mechanism. In the example above, most listeners probably assumed he meant that the openness would improve from our perspective, causing a better view of what happens within government. Only the most cynical would have predicted the change to an almost totally "behind closed doors" mode so publicly despised by the current practitioners.

The same people said we would have a minimum of 5 days to review legislation before it was signed (although that's far too late for any kind of change), but none of the major bills have had anywhere near that time. Most recently we only had 36 hours for the health care reform bill.

According to dictionary.com, reform really only means change, the direction of change has not yet been defined. Apparently to those in favor of owning "health care reform", reform means they get to own it, the quality of service is irrelevant.

Likewise, health insurance is not the same as health care, even when some choose to use the words interchangeably.

Matthew 7:15-20 tells us to pay attention, more words to live by.

Peeling the Onion of the Deceit

Another glimpse into their mindset arrived last week as San Fran Nan was begging for support. Her excuse for her behavior paints her as totally out of touch with her constituents: "We have to pass this so you can see what's in it!".

Isn't it a major component of our representative form of government for the elected (that's Pelosi and company) to represent the electorate (that's us)?

So how in the world does she expect us (the electorate) to tell the elected (Pelosi and company) how to represent us if we can't provide feedback? And how can we provide feedback if we don't know what they're doing until they're finished?

Surely they aren't so simple that they think they can do anything they want after their election, are they?

Her remark is right in line with Obama's (now-voided) promise to let us review all major legislation before he signs it. By the time it gets to the President's desk it's too late for the people to have any influence on it.

Was this campaign promise merely a distraction to pacify his unthinking supporters?

Or do they really believe that the people should not be able to influence the work of our representatives?