Slashdot Mirror

Actually Congress passed a bill to pay all 800,000 workers regardless of whether they were forced to work or furloughed.

https://www.govexec.com/pay-be...

And contractors who had to come in are also paid as they were working (I was a contractor during the Gingrich shutdown back in the 90's and had to come to work).

The only ones likely not getting paid are the contractors that didn't go to work, which depends on the company as some would pay anyway or have their contractors work on other contracts, go to training, etc, and any of the support industry that depend on money from these workers.

[John]

Now you may be able to pull some treasury sleight of hand to move approved spending to specific purposes,

Bingo.

Finally, there is no guarantee that furloughed federal workers will receive anything

Wrong. The fix is in.

So what this tells is us not that most people in government are Democrats (far from it), but rather that Republicans within our federal government found Trump so absolutely terrifying that they either did not contribute money or actively contributed to the opposing party rather than support him.

The underlying poll from the link you cited does show that the breakdown among federal government employees is a fairly even split. But that's of all "federal government employees", right? The relevant description of methodology states

From August 7-12, 973 federal employees participated in the survey, including 491 at the GS/GM-13 and above grade levels and 25 members of the Senior Executive Service. Respondents include representatives from at least 30 federal and defense agencies.

So, it's not clear if this is a great sample, or if it's biased in terms of industry (defense? education?) or other factors. After all, the original context was the FBI, which has only 35K employees (of 2.1M total federal employees, a mere 1.7%). Assuming no sampling bias (charitably), we would expect about 16 FBI employees participated in the poll, not enough to make meaningful claims about the other 35K (indeed, any claims you made about the FBI based on a sample size of 16, you'd be looking at a +-25% margin of error at 95% confidence).

On another note, it's really hard to get good data on political affiliation. There's plenty of data on political contributions from the FEC that one can slice any which way (indeed, while writing this post, I found this cool site), though.

Regardless, thanks for the good post. Posting AC because I'm rambling.

Conclusion: The actual facts show that you're full of shit.

Statistically, as of just a couple of years ago, federal government employees were only somewhere in the neighborhood of 44% Democrat, about 40% Republican, and the rest independent. (Source: Government Executive) And in the FBI, I'm pretty sure the percentage of Democrats is significantly lower than average. So what this tells is us not that most people in government are Democrats (far from it), but rather that Republicans within our federal government found Trump so absolutely terrifying that they either did not contribute money or actively contributed to the opposing party rather than support him.

That decision had nothing to do with their political affiliation, but rather their recognition of risk. Workers in those parts of our government have seen Trump's brand of political rhetoric coming from the lips of far too many dictators and autocrats over the years, some of whom have been quite brutal. When they hear it coming from the mouth of someone running for President, they get scared sh*tless, and rightly so. Words have power, and when a president (or candidate) uses words like "treason", attacks the free press, attacks the independent judiciary, attacks the independence of Congress, etc., he is basically swinging a wrecking ball at the very foundations of our democracy. These are the actions of an autocrat—of a despot—and the ability of our country to survive with such a person as its president is the true test of our constitutional democratic system. And most people in the government were hoping that they wouldn't have to see if it can survive that test.

Forgot to include the link in my comment. See for yourself.

wrong. It's because the costs were aggregated into a larger project. Said larger project might have been (and I'm pretty sure it was) a B-52 bomber, which needed special toilet seats. The total project cost was, for example $16 million, the cost was then assigned to each part, with little relevance to actual cost.

reference: http://www.govexec.com/federal...

You may get your wish.

is obviously Lynne Halbrooks. She got a promotion for this...per TFA "had recently been named the principal deputy inspector general". She now works for the lobbying law firm of Holland & Knight. Seems like she's also involved in helping cover-up the leaked info about a SEAL team member involved in the making of the movie "Zero Dark Thirty". A true PARTIOT (ACT), all-around. Hopefully for her she's got her thirty pieces of silver stashed away outside of US jurisdiction.

To have a government like Finland or the Netherlands requires pretty left-wing policies and attitudes, including paying civil servants well, which requires a lot of tax money. If you keep insisting on low tax rates because we don't have a government type that doesn't arise unless one has somewhat higher tax rates, I'm not sure what to say.

Feds earn 74% more than people in the private sector.

The Cato Institute’s Chris Edwards compared data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis to show that, in his view, civilian federal workers are overcompensated. Factoring both salary and benefits, Edwards pointed to BEA data showing the average federal employee earns about $119,000 annually, compared to the private sector worker who earns $67,000 per year. When comparing just salaries, feds collect 50 percent bigger paychecks, Edwards said.

Since the 1990s, federal workers have enjoyed faster compensation growth than private-sector workers.

More sources:
U.S. Office of Personnel Management: "Senior Executive Service Performance & Compensation"
Congressional Research Service: "The Federal Workforce: Characteristics and Trends"
Congressional Budget Office: "Comparing the Compensation of Federal and Private-Sector Employees".

Apparently our Government is starved for cash? Here's where we tax. Look at how it's spent.

It does not work — despite decades of efforts, Blacks and womyn still earn less than others — for whatever reasons.

It causes ugly discrimination of other kinds — with government contracts officially favoring womyn-run businesses and colleges openly penalizing certain races.

It costs businesses billions to avoid such lawsuits, and millions more in damages and fees when the avoidance-efforts fail. And not just businesses — government agencies too pay (with our monies) to avoid being sued. Even worse, the prosecutions by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission are of the "guilty until proven innocent" variety, with most targets agreeing to settle because the Executive can run them out of business before Judiciary gets to even hear the accusations.

And finally, even if it weren't for the failures and abuses, the whole idea is immoral, because it seeks to punish thoughtcrimes — one is guilty, because one had (or is suspected of having had) certain illegal thoughts.

Can we just stop this nonsense? If Tata — or anyone — want to discriminate, let them...

Roughly correct, according to this. "the contractor was told to allocate total contractual overheads equally across all deliverables - raising the book price of a $15.00 hammer to $435 without affecting actual cost by a nickel."

I guessed that before even opening the article. He has a habit of writing misleading Washington Post pieces about government waste. Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of government waste, but blame does not fall squarely on NASA. I complained about a piece he wrote last year:

David Fahrenthold's April 24, 2013 article "Feds spend at least $890,000 on fees for empty accounts" incorrectly states that the Pentagon spent $435 on a hammer. That claim has been repeatedly debunked for a number of years. The hammer was $15, and the the $420 represented R&D costs for a project spread evenly across all items. See, e.g.: http://www.govexec.com/federal-news/1998/12/the-myth-of-the-600-hammer/5271/

To which he responded:

Hello, Dave Fahrenthold here from the Washington Post. I wrote the story that dealt with the cost of “zero balance” accounts, and so I was forwarded the correction request you sent earlier. First, thank you for reading, and reading the story so closely. At this point, I don’t see the need for a correction to the story. Here’s why: the story says that the Pentagon “paid” $435 for a hammer. I had written it that way consciously, since I’d seen the findings you referenced in that govexec story: the hammer’s cost to the Pentagon included $420 worth of overhead (which had been distributed evenly among all the items for which the Pentagon was charged in that same order). The cost of the hammer, at least on the Pentagon’s books, was $435. To me, it’s still correct to say that’s what the Pentagon “paid,” no matter how that cost had been calculated. I’d welcome your thoughts, however. I’m grateful again for the feedback. DF

Nice enough, but to me this shows that he very well knew the full story but chose to present it in a purposefully misleading way. Given that there is so much real waste, I don't understand the need to latch on to myths like this.

Wow is this uneducated. I can't speak to the federal workforce as a whole, but for a variety of technical fields, like the one described in this article, as well as my own (data science), the federal government pays "competitively" but salaries in the private sector tend to be quite a bit higher. As for the hours and the benefits, that's largely a function of where you work, but I will point out that federal pensions for new hires got slashed as part of a recent round of budget negotiations.

The "Office of Government Ethics" explicitly authorized the SEC for an accelerated revolving door for regulatory capture back in 1991. Since this collusion has becomes downright transparent recently, they made a change to reverse the situation a bit starting this month. People who are just learning about the problem through "Flash Boys" are too late--you've already been outplayed here. You see, the problem is solved!

Right wingers want to "save the children?"

Do you even pay attention to who says what in congress?

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1107/111307tdpm1.htm

The Democrats want to "save teh children" just as much as the rest of the group-- because, shocking as it might be, people in the government want to expand the government.

I am consistently considered (and registered) independent, yet most of my friends are "right wing". None of them want stricter controls from the government. If anything, the very opposite of what you just said is true.

Really? The Reagan administration is sitting on funding and permission for the United States Air Force to go ahead with a program in 2009 and 2010?

Mainly because of a bill passed in 2007 by the Democratic majority that came into Congress following the 2006 elections.

Zombie Reagan has more power than I thought.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/30/air-force-liquid-coal-fuel

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0109/013009kp1.htm

"We don't want new sources of energy that are going to make the greenhouse gas problem even worse," House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said in a recent interview.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23811258/

Unfortunately, that claim of Clinton's is just another statistical mirage (of the kind both parties engage in).

First, when you talk about "federal employees" most people think of civil servants. But their ranks GREW during the 90s. The "shrinkage" was almost entirely due to downsizing the military.

The numbers also don't count contractors, jobs funded with federal grants, etc.

Depressing details here:

http://www.govexec.com/features/0199/0199s1.htm

This could be an interesting plot line for a Comedy script. I believe that Girish Kumar has just confessed to committing a felony. Is the DHS done eating dinner?

Sure we accept limitations. But we don't accept a limitation every time somebody imposes one. They have to follow certain rules. (You may have heard of them. They're called "laws".) You can't just suddenly decide that you don't want somebody taking pictures of what you're doing and demand that they stop. You have to give them fair warning. In the case of the military base, you will certainly see lots of warning signs — which are probably redundant, because lots of nasty looking MPs have probably already warned you not to take pictures.

As for the private home, yeah it's a pain have a picture of your unmowed lawn turn up on Google Maps. But taking a picture of an ordinary house is perfectly legal, as long as you don't trespass while doing it. And that's not going to change without a drastic re-interpretation of the first amendment.

In this case, you have two guys exposing the innards of a machine without any attempt at concealment. In a public place. It's perfectly reasonable for a passer-by to assume that it's OK to watch and record. Unless REI has a sign on its front door forbidding photography (maybe the do, but there's been no mention) it's hard to see how they can claim they acted within the law.

The final irony here is that this prohibition is totally ineffective against the people who would misuse this information. A criminal trying to get an unauthorized picture isn't going to openly pull out a low-resolution camera phone. He's going to use a high-resolution concealed camera and they'll never know the picture was taken. Ignoring this case and going ballistic over a casual photographer is pure security theater.

Now consider what happens under Obama. The DHS will be quietly dismantled; every excuse to split power back up into different agencies will be taken.

That's a nice rosy view of the future, but not one with much credibility. I don't see any move toward dismantling the DHS, quite the contrary. What I'm seeing are moves to consolidate power into the (politically controlled) White House.

He is also planning on moving other traditionally non-partisan functions under control of the White House, Rahm Emanuel and other ideologues, such as The US Census, which controls representation in Congress.

He's also busy building an army of activists that have pledged their allegiance to him, regardless of the details of his proposals might be.

This most recent proposal will basically put the Internet under the control of one party. This can easily start as a "cybersecurity" issue, then since they can do it they could say "well we want to block child porn" (because no one will defend child porn), and eventually they can shut down whatever they want, and you can't find out what's blocked because "it's a matter of national security".

Go ahead and say "It can't happen here".

There is a lot of potential on the following websites: http://www.govexec.com/ http://www.govcentral.com/ http://www.personaldemocracy.com/

US intelligence has, in most quarters, shifted away from need to know and toward "responsibility to provide".

I should also note that this is not just a CIA project.

I'm pretty sure he was liberal. Besides the fact that he was ostensibly well educated and working in the sciences - there have been lots of violations of the hatch act in the Bush Administration (example) - and as far as I know - no firings. If he were Republican - this would be the first.

First off, receptionists don't get paid $75,000/year.

Did you read what I wrote? Or are you being deliberately obtuse? I specifically and intentionally wrote "compensation". In a government job, the total compensation for an entry-level receptionist will cost roughly $75k yearly. My source claims $106k total yearly compensation for the average government employee.

Third, a receptionist is the only reliable facial-recognition system on the market today.

Not true. A person is the most reliable facial-recognition system. However that person has to already know whoever it is gaining entry to the facility. The facilities that I am most concerned with protecting are places like the NSA, where you might have more than two thousand employees in a single building. It is manifestly impossible for a secretary to have every person's face committed to memory. As for a missile silo? By all means. Have the 12 soldiers that guard that location tracked. I'm sure you'll find that they play a lot of cards and smoke a lot of cigarettes.
I never said a word about single-factor or two-factor or infinity-factor authentication. My entire post was specifically and only directed at the insane demand to have minute-by-minute rfid tracking of every government employee.

Fourth, the receptionists do not have to be cleared to access the same quality of information as everyone else.

Bullshit, bullshit, BULLSHIT. If you are controlling access to a facility containing sensitive information or equipment, you must be cleared to a level that can access that information. Why? Because the clearance is an assurance for the government that you will not intentionally release that information to a foe. If you don't clear your secretaries, and they control access to the information, what's to prevent Mr.Spy from being hired as a secretary and then letting his friend into the building?

Finally, the facility should already have IT support. Additionally, two computers is not a huge expense, and a software architect should be a one-time expense (assuming he does his job correctly).

I mentioned something about "Some of these infrastructure costs can be absorbed". That obviously implies that the infrastructure costs are not a huge expense, merely an additional expense that must be dealt with.

You're really grasping for straws to support this somewhat maniacal demand to have minute-by-minute tracking of when government employees go to the bathroom. Why?

Usually, there's a penalty in the contract if a contractor fails to deliver. In this case the Census Bureau mismanaged it, plain and simple. You can't change requirements repeatedly on a whim (including more than 400 requirement changes AFTER the dry run) and expect a program to come in on time and within budget.

Here's an in-depth analysis of what went wrong with the project: http://www.govexec.com/features/0707-15/0707-15s2.htm

Troll?! Seems pretty insightful to me!

The Federal government has a piss-poor history of IT and information security. The whole place, at least on the civilan/unclassified side, leaks like a sieve and loses computers and data at a terrifying rate.

It's not just "civilian" agencies that have trouble keeping information secure. FEMA, part of Homeland security, don't keep their computers secure.

They have treated him to a pop inspection, kind of like they did Iraq before the invasion:

Federal officials are expected today to finish a surprise inspection of the hurricane center, to see if it can fulfill its mission under Bill Proenza.

Want to bet the result is a smear job?

The attacks on the integrity of his policy shows up the problems of scientific publishing more than it does anything else. Jeff Master's critiques look solid, but he points to a big problem:

It will probably appear in the October-November time frame, according to the publisher. This raises an immediate problem, since only a privileged few are able to read unpublished research. This limits the possibilities for an informed debate on the issue, and basing important policy decisions on unpublished research is thus normally to be avoided. However, making accurate hurricane forecasts is important enough that such considerations can be excused.

The article should be widely available so I don't have to take Master's opinion of it. Weather Underground, because of the Weather Service Scandal is a suspect source of information. They did their best to cripple free updates from the national weather service and I'm still angry at them for it. Even if Master's claims are valid, they don't warrent the attention Proenza is getting.

Really what you see here is a scientist being smeared and muzzled. It's not the first time scientists at the NOAA have been gagged. Only bad policy has to be defended by firing people and shutting up the rest.

Proenza's problems and forcasting are just the tip of the melting iceburg of this scandal. QuikSCAT provides information about storm intensity, a key point in global warming research. It looks like the Bush administration is willing to sacrifice forcasting accuracy in order to bury evidence of global warming. There's more where that came from.

several airlines have approached the Homeland Security Department, the State Department and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce about providing "hospitality training" for federal security workers, Freeman said.

A 17 percent decrease in overseas visitors to the United States since Sept. 11, 2001, is partially a result of "rude and arrogant" treatment by airport security employees, said Geoff Freeman, executive director of the Discover America Partnership, a group of businesses promoting travel. The partnership, with the assistance of RT Strategies, a public affairs opinion research and polling organization, published a report based on a survey of more than 2,000 travelers to the United States and other nations.

A third of respondents said immigration officials were so abrasive that they do not plan to return. More than half of respondents said they were concerned about a terrorist attack or crime and safety issues when they visited the United States. But even more -- 70 percent -- said they were worried that "legal and security issues" and treatment of visitors, would mar their stay.

"Ministry of _____" is 1984.

I can't imagine why you would be worried enough to post AC because you talked about the ex-USSR. You even got modded Informative and misquoted.

I'll grant that the GP is right about disbanding the DHLS. There is no question that this will end up being a pox on a "free society". You are also correct that the DHLS encompasses some of the powers of the ex-KGB. With with torture camps in foreign countries and Halliburton building internment/containment camps within the continental US, there is no doubt that it's going to get worse before it gets better. The fact that you are too paranoid to talk about it in a public forum already speaks volumes about how far we've come in such a short time if you otherwise would have posted.

I'm not offering up conspiracy theories, I'm just watching what is happening around me. You have to admit, it's very odd.

Posting normally for obvious reasons.

Even an English surname won't save you. There are lots of names on the list, including Congresspeople. The odd thing is that, apparently, a spending bill was passed to clear up the list, wonder if that'll help at all.

Here are links to a couple of more recent articles about this and, following that, the text from an email that went out earlier in the week.

OMB to require standard Windows desktop configuration
http://www.fcw.com/article97974-03-19-07

OMB sets security standards for Windows computers
http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=36 410

----

March 20, 2007

MEMORANDUM FOR CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICERS

FROM: Karen Evans
Administrator, Office of E-Government and Information Technology

SUBJECT: Managing Security Risk By Using Common Security Configurations

Common security configurations provide a baseline level of security, reduce risk from security threats and vulnerabilities, and save time and resources. This allows agencies to improve system performance, decrease operating costs, and ensure public confidence in the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of government information. This memorandum requires your agency to develop plans for using the Microsoft Windows XP and Vista security configurations with an implementation date of no later than February 1, 2008. [1]

As you know, section 3544(b)(2)(D)(iii) of the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) requires agencies to develop minimally acceptable system configuration requirements and ensure compliance with them. Your agency is already required to:

* document in your annual FISMA report the frequency by which you implement system configuration requirements; [2] and

* use published configurations or be prepared to justify why you are not doing so.

As a model for this effort, the Air Force uses common security configurations for Microsoft Windows XP. These configurations were developed in collaboration with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), the National Security Agency (NSA), and Microsoft. These same organizations recently established common security configurations for Microsoft Vista. With these common security configurations now in place, we have a unique opportunity when using Microsoft Windows XP and acquiring Vista.

Requirements of Agency Plans

Agency plans for Microsoft Windows XP and Vista should be submitted to OMB by May 1, 2007 to fisma@omb.eop.gov and should describe the following items:

* Testing configurations in a non-production environment to identify adverse effects on system functionality;

* Implementing and automating enforcement for using these configurations;

* Restricting administration of these configurations to only authorized professionals;

* Ensuring new acquisitions by June 30, 2007, to include these configurations and require information technology providers to certify their products operate effectively using these configurations;

* Applying Microsoft patches available from DHS when addressing new Windows XP or Vista vulnerabilities;

* Providing NIST documentation of any deviations from these configurations and rationale for doing so; and [3]

* Ensuring these configurations are incorporated into agency capital planning and investment control processes.

Additional Resources Available to Agencies

By April 20, 2007, OMB in conjunction with DHS and other appropriate agencies will establish a means for information technology providers to obtain software images based on these configurations for test and development purposes. Additionally, the Chief Information Officer's Council will assist and facilitate sharing the common security configurations across the Federal government.

NIST has established a program to develop and maintain common security configurations for many operating systems and applications, and

the problems originated in the fact that we negotiated such crappy contracts with them

Yes, but why did Bush's government negotiate crappy contracts?

Might just be typical Bush Administration heckuva job incompetence, might be a typical giveaway to Republican-supporting companies.

Or, it could be corruption of procurement officials, as in the Boeing scandal.

"'I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to contracts awarded to KBR [Halliburton] represents the most blatant and improper abuse I have witnessed' in 20 years working on government contracts" -- Bunnatine Greenhouse, top Army procurement officer

I don't know where I said that incompetence is the sole purview of the public sector. I wouldn't make that claim, obviously. There's tons of private sector inefficiency and failure. The difference is, in the private sector, the inefficient and stupid are weeded out (except for where overreaching employment laws prevent hte market from working). It might not be immediate, but no company is in it to _lose_ money, and a long enough pattern of failure will result in a company going out of business. That's not the case with the public sector. There's no competition, there's a federal employees union that makes the teamsters blush, and there's an institutional opposition to firing that simply doesn't exist in the public sector (see this). And perhaps most importantly, there's no intrinsic reason for government employees to be more productive than their counterparts. The money's going to keep coming in, because, last time I checked, taxes aren't optional, whereas buying from a private corporation.

Yes, there might be your truly altruistic, motivated public employee. But the government is a big bureaucracy, and bureaucracies don't exactly inspire brilliance. There's thousands of years of evidence for that as well. The Imperial Chinese, for example. There's also high pay in the private sector, which means that even the altruistic ones are going to be constantly staring a substantial pay increase in the face, taunting them.

It's not my fault that you're intellectually incapable of conceiving of a small government society. There's actually a ton of literature on the subject, an entire libertarian philosophical tradition. And there's plenty of recent historical evidence that shows that large government, which necessarily includes a large number of regulations and laws governing business transactions, tends to suppress economic growth. And the United States government does a fair amount more than just protect private property rights. It infringes upon the economic liberty of its citizenry with impunity, and the bureaucracy supports it. Explain to me why the government necessarily do more than have a police force and a court system to enforce contractual obligations.

That the United States is the greatest nation in the world is not BECAUSE of its quasi-socialism and infringement upon the liberties of its citizens, but in spite of it. Almost every major advancement of the United States is the result of the actions of private individuals working together, not overwhelming bureaucracies blowing billions of taxpayer dollars while they slide through.

Really, you're just wrong here. Any comparative study of the public sector vs. the private shows that private employees have much higher productivity and a much more useful skillset than the public.

Most of the item prices that people go off about are limited production items, and often the costs figure in R&D to bring it upto military specs, and the lowered productivity of the production line because of military auditors and paperwork. GE for example charges 25% more for the same engine if it's going to the military because the auditors slow the line down, and they have to store all the additional paperwork for years longer then would be required for it's civil product. Lockheed Martin for example is still charging the DOD for warehouse full of paperwork just for the F-16.

For reference:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/18/rumsfeld/ (April 18th of this year)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/01/washington/01cnd -rumsfeld.html?ei=5070&en=2148bb81cafef9d0&ex=1163 221200&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1163076529-g9kIMjR0v6pCeRK B7CId4A (November 1st of this year)

Source?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboa rd.php?az=view_oet&address=358x1293 (multiple comments liking Saddam to Al Qaeda who was resonsible for the attacks)
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/20/9-11-and-sadda m/

Actually, we didn't lie. Believing something to be true that later turns out to be false is not lying.

While your statement is true, it is not true in this case. It has been well established that this administration had already planned to invade Iraq before the September 11th attacks and that any information which did not fit the plan was thrown out.

See this link: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,69 03,1185407,00.html

Further, it is well known that what limited intelligence we had was twisted to fit the goal. For instance, when the White House was told by Defense Department analysts that aluminum tubes found in Iraq were actually to be used for rockets, the administration found others who thought the the tubes could be used in a nuclear program. Even then Secretary of State Powell, after looking at the intelligence, said the tubes were for rockets. Guess which opinion the White House used.

Then we lied that Iraq was tied to Al Qaeda.

See the link from Democratic Underground I previously listed. There are several quotes in which Bush specifically says that Iraq was tied to Al Qaeda. However, if you want other sources you can try these:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/attack/140133_bushir aq18.html (Fourth paragraph)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0803/080803nj2.htm (3/4 of the way down the page)
http://www.newscloud.com/read/73666/ (Rice making the comment for the administration)

I could go on if you like but I'm sure you can find other sources, including Bush's own comments on the White House web site (if they haven't removed the evidence) which shows Bush linking Iraq and Al Qaeda even though it was well known that Saddam hated Al Qaeda and had given specific orders to his minions not to cooperate in anyway with Al Qaeda.

Link to the essay by Mr Freedberg, as I'm apparently too dumb to manage proper tag syntax for my hyperlinks:

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1298/120798t1.htm

I used to be able to find web pages explaining how this urban legend started, but I can't find it any more, because it's totally drowned out by the legend itself. The funny thing is the numbers are different every single time.

You must be blissfully unaware of the past 5-6 years of administration appointees. I almost envy you. Nearly ALL appointees over any sort of regulatory watchdog, scientific fact-finding, or pork-laden government spending bureau of the government has been an industry lobbyist of some sort who is assured to make sure that said industry (which donates lots of money to the Republicans) will make out like a bandit (literally) on the taxpayer's dime or taint and all evidence that gets in the way of said industry's profits.

Read more here:
Bush Has Appointed Over 100 Lobbyists as 'Regulators'
WhiteHouseForSale.org | Contributors and Paybacks Articles
Evidence that this has been a pattern of behavior as far back as when he was governor.
Some info on two of the officials reviewing the Dubai Ports World deal
An even longer list of crony appointees

The Bush administration is one of the more shameful examples of cronyism in modern US history. The term "conflict of interest" doesn't begin to cover it. Then, when you can't find a person with experience as an industry shill, you can always go to political advocates with no experience in the field (but solid Bush support):

Michael Brown's two political appointees deputees in FEMA
A petition for Bush to make political appointments with a list of 6 good examples
The Hertiage Foundation even endorsed making political appointees over experienced civil servants in 2001! ...No really, 7 ridiculous arguments straight from the horse's mouth! (How's FEMA workin' out there, HF?)
Why, just look how many Heritage Foundation flacks are now in the administration.

Any wonder why the DHS hasn't done hardly anything useful, why FEMA had someone with no emergency relief experience installed as it's head, why scientists are abandoning NASA, the EPA, the CDC, etc. in droves, and why hundreds of IRS agents that audit capital gains and estate taxes have been downsized? It's government with the wheels taken off -- oriented explicitly to do nothing but enrich special interests by people who have publicly stated that that's all they believe the government exists to do in the first place.

What, you didn't think they meant that they'd try to STOP it when they said that, did you? Yeah, I was fooled too, but not anymore. It's time we get people back in power who believe that the government is meant to serve the people. People who believe that it's part of the solution and not part of the problem. Otherwise, as we've seen, the temptation to just exploit "the problem" is just too much.

While I agree that Clinton was a centrist, a simple google search shows you're wrong about Kerry, and that he is and was one of the most liberal democrats in the senate.

Google search(john kerry liberal conservative rating):
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=john+kerry+li beral+conservative+rating&btnG=Google+Search

Kerry rated most liberal member of Senate (2/27/04):
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0204/022704nj1.htm

List says Kerry top Senate liberal:
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040227-11124 1-3716r.htm

Thanks!

"We're scared to go to New Hampshire," he said. "They have gun racks on their motorcycles. They don't want anyone telling them what to do." [cite]

Given that the Federal (US) government is required by the OMB to switch to IPv6 by June 2008, I seriously hope you are not looking to do any business with them or any federal contractor after that date.

On the other hand, in typical US government fashion, according to the GAO implementation speed is seriously behind schedule.

We're talking technology here but since you brought it up... Read on ... Brad Miller, the manager of communications and government affairs for the Business and Institutional Furniture Manufacturer's Association, said FPI's actions have forced such steps. "We find ourselves today with a prison-factory program where the bureaucrats running it may have learned more than they have taught from some of those they imprison -- more about strong-arming their way through life than meeting the needs of customers with quality service." Who are you fooling?

The head of the Homeland Security Department's visitor tracking program on Tuesday called for the creation of a "global ID management system" to make travel easier while enhancing security...

[Jim] Williams said he wants to join forces with several DHS agencies to develop a global identification system that would cut wait times, reduce government fees for travelers, fight illegal immigration and, perhaps paramount, better defend nations from terrorists.

The US VISIT chief, who already oversees identity inquiries for nearly every visitor who enters the United States, said a worldwide identification system will better link nations in the fight against terrorism. In his speech, he likened al Qaeda operatives and sleeper cells - including the ones that attacked on 9/11 - to "submarines" that must surface to kill.

My earlier post on this thread.

You have a funny definition of the word 'finally'.

"Congress voted Saturday to give NASA all of the $16.2 billion it sought for 2005"

"Congress on Wednesday approved a $16.5 billion budget for NASA, fully funding the administration's moon-Mars exploration initiative for a second consecutive year."

The FBI and the military are spying on non violent politcal activists now. Given that we have Alito on the supreme court who supports the power of the "unitary executive," and given that Bush lied to us about always getting a warrant before engaging in phone tapping (in New Mexcio 2004 google it), it's utterly foolish to allow Bush to have the power to spy on anyone in violation of FISA. Lists of links showing Bush's FBI and military spy on domestic activists now from a post to William Arkin's excellent early warning blog at the Washington Post: http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/ 01/nsa_expands_its.html

American Media Dodging U.N. Surveillance Story By Norman Solomon Media Beat March 6, 2003 http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2226&printer_fr iendly=1

###

The unholy trinity of electronic snooping: Bolton, Negroponte and Hayden By Wayne Madsen Online Journal May 5, 2005

###

NSA spy program hinges on state-of-the-art technology By Shane Harris National Journal January 20, 2006 http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=33 212&printerfriendlyVers=1&

### NSA Gave Other U.S. Agencies Information From Surveillance Fruit of Eavesdropping Was Processed and Cross-Checked With Databases By Walter Pincus Washington Post Sunday, January 1, 2006; A08 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/12/31/AR2005123100 808_pf.html

### New Documents Show FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force Targeting Peaceful Protest Activity in Colorado ACLU Press Release December 8, 2005 http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/22884prs200512 08.html

### New Documents Show FBI Targeting Environmental and Animal Rights Groups Activities as "Domestic Terrorism" ACLU Press Release December 20, 2005 http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/23124prs200512 20.html

### Secret Pentagon Unit May Have Gathered and Kept Unauthorized Files on Thousands of Innocent Individuals and Organizations Newsweek Jan 23, 2006 http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/printer_3073 0.shtml

### Protesters Subjected To 'Pretext Interviews' FBI Memo Shows No Specific Threats By Dan Eggen Washington Post Wednesday, May 18, 2005; A04 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/05/17/AR2005051701 240_pf.html http://www.aclu-co.org/docket/200406/JTTF_file_sar ah_bardwell_08-02-04.pdf

### Battlespace America: The new Pentagon can peruse intelligence on U.S.citizens and send Marines down Main Street Peter Byrne Mother Jones May/June 2005 Issue http://www.motherjones.com/cgi-bin/print_article.p l?url=http://www.motherjon es.com/news/outfront/2005/05/battlespace_america.h tml

The question is about its legality

Here's how you fix that: NMCI Required Network-Wide Password Reset

Well duh, it's hardly surprising, when everything's considered.

Ralph Nader and Jack Layton are liberals; John Kerry and Paul Martin are just less right-wing than George Bush and Stephen Harper.

Interesting, in that John Kerry was rated the most liberal member of the Senate

Undoubtedly, that's not going to convince you that he's as liberal as Ralph Nader. Nader, who's not a legislator, doesn't have to compromise on his positions. That's a luxury that John Kerry, as a member of the Senate, just doesn't always have. As for Layton, well, I guess you could go to Canada if you want a "real" liberal.