1+--+e.c.

Rough draft -- Definition Paper 01.30.11

minor rough draft
The question of what level of government transparency is appropriate has been pressing as long as the existence of government. Is it better to know more or less? In what situations should citizens be kept in the dark or fully aware? Modern day technology and more experience has provoked curiousity, discontent, and many other emotions in citizens. What are or aren’t they hiding and why? Depending on the event, ((situation))changeword)field?) the government has concealed little information, large amounts of information, or entirely lied on any given topic)). ... the majority of my rough draft got 'beibered'. (( @http://www.est1992.com/lol/ )) click that link if you're curious/brave. I had typed quite a bit in Word, but it has since been revised multiple times. I'll try and recreate it though.

Supporting details: Motives behind each -reputation -safety -knowledgable votes(b/coftruth) -no sure answer

revised rough draft
The question of what level of government transparency is appropriate has been pressing as long as the existence of government. Is it better to know more or less? In what situations should citizens be kept in the dark or fully aware? Modern day technology and more experience has provoked curiosity, discontent, and many other emotions amongst citizens. What are or aren’t they hiding and why? Depending on the event, the government has conceals large amounts of information, little information, or entirely lies on any given subject. There is always a level of transparency. The recent uprising of information leaked on the infamous website //wikileaks// followed by the block of the site is a prime example of the question of government transparency. Seeing what is potentially being deliberately hidden from us is anything but comforting. With copious amounts of information available on the internet, how is the public to know what is true? This site has provided citizens with enough information to question when and how much the government is lying or concealing information. Their disapproval of the site is daunting and only raises more questions. One must truly consider though, the responsibility the state has to its citizens while also recognizing the line between freedom of information and national security. When is this blindfold over the public acceptable, and when is it taken beyond its limits? The amount of information revealed to the public by the government is always weighted. By concealing copious amounts of information, they remain in complete control of a situation and can manipulate it without the sometimes brash influence of the public. At the same time, couldn’t the public’s influence be beneficial. In non-violent situations, giving information to the public tends to be nothing but pleasing. On the other hand, if our officials are dealing with matters of warfare, public panic can be well avoided by blindfolding (figuratively of course) the citizens and handling the matter in the calm way that they have experience doing. The outbreak of public disorder and concern could be distracting, unnecessary, and fatal. As long as the government’s concern is focused on the safety and well being of its citizens, we are in a good state. The alarming thought that elected representatives have entirely lied to their citizens raises concern. If the citizens are ever made aware of the lies they propose the obvious questions of what has been so direly concealed and why. Lying to the public is a risky maneuver, but agreeable in times of public danger. It could be just the opposite though. Should the public know they are in danger, or let the people whom they elected control the situation. Having an uprising of citizens’ opinions on an alarming situation could be potentially fatal. Each level of transparency has its motives behind it. When little information is distributed it could range from protecting a nation to protecting a reputation. Revealing large amounts of information satisfies the curiosity of the public, but also makes everyone more vulnerable. Entirely lying to citizens may be necessary, but not entirely fair. Be them what they may, each level of government transparency has its motives behind it, and as citizens, all we ask is that they are fair.

revised revised rough draft
The question of what level of government transparency is appropriate has been pressing as long as the existence of government. Is it better to know more or less? In what situations should citizens be kept in the dark or fully aware? Modern day technology and more experience has provoked curiosity, discontent, and many other emotions amongst citizens. What are or aren’t they hiding and why? Depending on the event, the government has conceals large amounts of information, little information, or entirely lies on any given subject. There is always a level of transparency. A recent uprising of information leaked on the infamous website //wikileaks// followed by the block of the site is a prime example of the question of government transparency. Seeing what is potentially being deliberately hidden from us is anything but comforting. With copious amounts of information available on the internet, how is the public to know what is true? This site has provided citizens with enough information to question when and how much the government is lying or concealing information. Their disapproval of the site is daunting and only raises more questions. One must truly consider though, the responsibility the state has to its citizens while also recognizing the line between freedom of information and national security. When is this blindfold over the public acceptable, and when is it taken beyond its limits? The amount of information revealed to the public by the government is always weighted. By concealing copious amounts of information, they remain in complete control of a situation and can manipulate it without the influence of the public. At the same time, couldn’t the public’s influence be beneficial? Isn't the government intended to be "//of the people, by the people, for the people//." In non-violent situations, giving information to the public tends to be nothing but satisfying to both parties. The citizens are pleased that they got their say, and the government is pleased that its people are pleased, in an ideal world at least. On the other hand, if our officials are dealing with matters of warfare or other severe situations, public panic can be well avoided by blindfolding (figuratively of course) the citizens and handling the matter in the calm way that they have experience doing. The outbreak of public disorder and concern could be distracting, unnecessary, and fatal. Defining when to be so acutely secretive is what is vital. As long as the government’s concern is focused on the safety and well being of its citizens, we are in a good state.(pun intended) Alarming thoughts that elected representatives have entirely lied to their citizens raises concern. If the citizens are ever made aware of the lies they propose the obvious questions of what has been so direly concealed and why. Lying to the public is a risky maneuver, but agreeable when the public is endangered. It could be just the opposite though. Should the public know they are in danger, or let the people whom they elected control the situation? Having an uprising of citizens’ opinions on an alarming situation could be potentially fatal. Each level of transparency has its motives behind it. The government's reaction to information that is leaked from outside sources is perturbingWhen little information is distributed it could range from protecting a nation to protecting a reputation. Revealing large amounts of information satisfies the curiosity of the public, but also makes everyone more vulnerable. Entirely lying to citizens may be necessary, but not entirely fair. Be them what they may, each level of government transparency has its motives behind it, and as citizens, all we ask is that they are reasonable and most beneficial.

You are very intelligent and opinionated...as is conveyed through your work! =) Though i do not neccessarily agree with your overall point in this piece, i love your diction and your transitions are very nice. Your writing is very capable of evoking much emotion and thought in the reader with all of the good points you have to make, however it could use more information from outside sources; perhaps cited examples of instances in which the government has handled a situation with too much deceit, or something along those lines. Also, i think you used the term "copious amounts of information" a couple of times redundantly...but otherwise your writing is incredibly interesting to read, and very well organized! --Lexi