Thursday, August 02, 2007

Thoughts after talking to Mike Ernest

Mike Ernest sent me a long email explaining his thoughts on the recent bill regarding the Open Government Act. It was off the record, so I'm not going to relate anything. I hope he can put something together to explain his side, as he was handcuffed before -- there was more than a bit of sense there about his legal reasoning. I think Mike was doing his job as a lawyer and not subverting democracy and open government, as it first appeared to me. I've dealt with lawyers just enough to tell that Mike is a good one, and his objections ones a typical lawyer would bring up. I think I'm bright enough to know when I'm being given a sales pitch, and I don't think Mike was offering any BS. I have come to the conclusion that I was too harsh and too rash in my criticisms of Mike in my letter and blog post.

I wasn't too harsh with the ultimate outcome of what happened with the Open Government Act that day, which was the real subject of what I wrote. What happened wasn't the best outcome for citizen oriented democracy. Ultimately the people who make the laws are the elected officials, not their lawyer. Were they using him to deflect venom from themselves? I think the answer is possibly.

I was not in attendance when this whole event went down, so I probably should have shut up and not gone around casting blame on this one. Like the 2,000 plus people who signed that petition, I do hope for maximum openness in government.

1 comment:

Mike said...

I appreciate this post and all the nice things people said in the comments in the previous post. It's nice to have anonymous defenders. But I'm no angel; on this issue I was professional. Reasonable people can differ on wheter I'm loathsome. I certainly have had my moments...

Fact is, Jeff didn't have to put this up, and it's not like I threatened to sue or anything (honestly). I really appreciate this. So thank you very much.

And I hope this isn't the end of the issue; I would still like to meet and discuss our earlier conversation. Would appreciate it if you could shoot holes in my reasoning. Because I have a feeling others will certainly try. In the press. Loudly.

And if I could, a shout out to Mike Tripp and Harry Blaylock. Without having read about their peaceful resolution last month, I probably would have become unhinged and taken cheaper shots than were sent my way, because that's the way I can get. But I'm working on it...

I am now a believer in the maxim that there is enough good in the worst of us and enough bad in the best of us that none of us should talk too much shit about any of us. Not my quote, but I'm finding it more and more apt every day.