Slashdot Mirror
The Ridiculous LexisNexis Search that the Justice Department Used
[First name of a candidate]! and pre/2 [last name of a candidate] w/7 bush or gore or republican! or democrat! or charg! or accus! or criticiz! or blam! or defend! or iran contra or clinton or spotted owl or florida recount or sex! or controvers! or racis! or fraud! or investigat! or bankrupt! or layoff! or downsiz! or PNTR or NAFTA or outsourc! or indict! or enron or kerry or iraq or wmd! or arrest! or intox! or fired or sex! or racis! or intox! or slur! or arrest! or fired or controvers! or abortion! or gay! or homosexual! or gun! or firearm!
Needless to say, when asked about it, Williams first said she didn't remember ever seeing it, then said she'd used an edited version just once. LexisNexis records show she used it, as shown, 25 times." Note that 'sex!' appears twice in the query. Must be VERY important.
But the damage he's done will remain for much longer.
For those of you wondering what that query is about and what it's being used for, here's TFA:
So there you go. The Justice Department was using a screwy LexisNexis query to try to determine the political leanings and affiliations of people they were looking to hire, because they were illegally filtering out applications people (non-repubs/conservatives) based on their political affiliations.
You really should drink more coffee in the morning before you start posting, Taco.
Why would you bother writing such an inane and senseless post? Why does the fact that Bush will be gone in six months mean we have to stop talking about the crimes he and his administration committed? There is a reason we hate him, and it isn't just because he's a stupid, self obsessed, spoiled frat boy who somehow fooled the nation into voting for him twice. We hate him because he has tried to take away our rights.
You know, defending the man at this point is pretty much an admission that not only did you vote for him, twice, but you are too proud to admit you screwed up.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Plus, whatever he decides to do in the last few days of his administration. Let's hope he only limits himself to the typical last-minute pardoning spree.
Don't forget, the Democrats (and Republicans) in the House and Senate are just as complacent in whatever damage has been done, by allowing it to continue and contributing their own malfeasance.
If the Ds really didn't want a war in Iraq, they shouldn't have given Bush the piece of paper authorizing military action.
GWB isn't any more evil than Pelosi and crew! The whole bunch is corrupt! So until you stop voting for the Republicrats, you get what you deserve.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Why shouldn't an administration be able to hire people on their side of the political fence? Are you seriously going to sit there and tell me with a straight face that President Clinton's administration didn't weed out conservatives from executive branch jobs? I can understand certain things such as race or gender being illegal to use as hiring factors but I would assume that a given administration would not want to hire attorneys who hate everything that administration stands for, whether the administration is conservative, liberal or anything in between.
...quicker, easier, more seductive the darkside is...but more powerful, it is not.
You don't search for goatse. goatse finds you.
Sorry, that argument doesn't fly. Yes, the House and Senate are somewhat complicit, and everyone loves a good 'Republocrat' joke, but there is a HUGE difference between the two parties. Don't forget, the Democrats do not have an overwhelming majority in either house, and Republicans can win if they just filibuster.
Bush and company are qualitatively different from other politicians. It isn't just a matter of the amount of corruption. It is the type of corruption and the unmitigated, "What are you gonna do about it? hur hur hur," GALL of these criminal clowns.
Stealing a pack of gum and robbing a bank at gunpoint are both crimes. That does not mean they are both equally serious.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
It's a hippy litmus test. The Owl thing was something they used to pin on Gore, so if someone shows up in a newspaper article, with a mention of a "spotted owl" then there is some hippy crap going down.
Or, of course, the person could be using the term themselves to paint someone else as a hippy.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Are you seriously going to sit there and tell me with a straight face that President Clinton's administration didn't weed out conservatives from executive branch jobs?
But... but Clinton!! *rolls eyes*
The fact that Clinton did it does NOT excuse the current administration. Both administrations are wrong for doing it. It's not a matter of who did it first. The fact someone else got away with it is not a permission to do it yourself.
Get over it. He'll be gone in six months.
Because, after all, the only reason to disagree with any of the things he and his cohorts have done is irrational hatred. It has nothing to do with subverting the Constitution he swore to protect, failing to prevent a major terrorist attack despite warnings, unapologetic law-breaking, stove-piping intelligence to justify a war of aggression and an occupation that's trashing our armed forces and our economy, gutting the balance of powers, alienating long-time allies, making the tax burden even more regressive, hamstringing prosecution of marketplace abuses, blatantly politicizing the Justice Department, rewriting science in the name of ideology, or any other similarly whiny little complaint.
Nope, those things are all just shallow excuses. It's all about the hate.
Okay, first, there was a huge concerted attack by the right wing against Clinton for the most minor of offenses. It wasn't 'dismissed,' the man was IMPEACHED. Why hasn't Bush been impeached? We will move on when there is at least the same level of justice for Bush.
Second, your cynicism is disgusting. You can't excuse one wrong act by pointing that others have done lesser evils. Wrong is wrong and it is never right to pressure people into shutting up about it.
Third, the GP wanted this story gone. He wanted us to stop talking about the crimes committed by this administration. The justice department engaged in criminal and unethical behavior, and he obviously doesn't want that talked about.
Finally, no, sorry, no past administration has ever been this blatant in apply purity tests to career hires rather than political appointees. And unless people like you get their way and this is all swept under the rug, then future administrations will have even less of a chance of doing it.
It really sounds as if you'd love it if everyone would just shut up and let ourselves get fucked over by the powerful. Not gonna happen, sorry.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
According to the Vanity Fair article "The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush" [December 2007] (1):
"our grandchildren will still be living with, and struggling with, the economic consequences of Mr. Bush."
And, I believe it will be longer than that due to the stated facts in said article.
(1) http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/12/bush200712
I dislike this argument not only because it's used in virtually every political discussion on Slashdot, but also because it appears to be designed to encourage complicity. Sure, the argument states that change is just as simple as deciding to vote for some third party, but all of the existing third parties tend to only appeal to a very limited fringe group, so that's really no solution at all.
So, dismissing the idea that simply voting for a third party will change everything as realistically unfeasible, we're left with the central part of the argument, which is that both parties suck, so you might as well just throw up your hands and do whatever you've been doing. Neither party will ever change anything, the argument goes, so just vote for whoever you've always voted for and go on with life. Of course, this argument is designed to assure the current party in power stays in power.
However, it contradicts actual reality. It's possible, given their complicity in GWB's antics, even probable, that the Democrats would not be any better if they took power. However, the evidence we currently have is that while Bush has actively sought to come up with new ideas to destroy the country, the Democrats are responsible only for allowing it to happen. Yes, passively allowing someone else to screw everything up is a bad thing, but is it really just as bad as actively screwing things up? Isn't it at least possible that the Democrats might screw things up less if allowed to implement their own ideas rather than just being content to allow someone else to implement his ideas?
In reality, what we have now is the fact that Bush and his cronies have done a monumentally shitty job. We also have a theory that the Democrats would do an equally shitty job. You seem to be content to stay with the people in power because a shitty job will be done either way. I, on the other hand, would rather not reward a shitty job with more time in power, and would instead rather give the other party a chance to prove they are capable of doing a less shitty job.
An individual's best bet for political change these days remains to pick the party that most closely aligns with them and attempt to change it from the inside (a difficult and time-consuming task to be sure). Simply voting for the Loony Toon Party, knowing that it will never get more than 3% of the vote, is just not a practical solution.
As someone who grew up in and amongst the debate surrounding the spotted owl it would seem you gloss over the very real impact the issue had on thousands of people. It was more then a mere political litmus test, it was a divisive issue that in some areas really made one weigh the benefits and trade offs of economic development.
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
I can't believe that they thought that query was so good it needed to be passed down. They'd have gotten a lot more benefit out of skimming a handful of articles that mentioned the guys name more than once.
That could also just mean that it was a "magic black box" that they didn't really (want to be bothered to) understand. If they'd kept it because it was good, I'd expect that they would have tweaked it occasionally to make it even better.
Cynicism is a disease of the soul, it excuses inaction. It doesn't make you cool and hip and smarter than the average bear. It makes you an apathetic lump.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Keeping in mind the author was digging to find information on job candidates, it's not that surprising. Those words also appear next to sex! and fired; the author was trying to dig dirt on the candidate, and these were simply the non-political concerns.
Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
It's usually mislabeled as well. I've seen it used WAY too many times with people who aren't neocons (like Bush). Of course, it's also one of those words which definition is in the mind of the beholder.
Civil service positions (not political appointees) are supposed to be appointed on merit. Getting around this process is spitting in the eye of the values of American Constitution that we were all taught in school. Even Ashcroft would not do this and specifically instructed his staff that as employees of DOJ they were to be non partisian. Without a doubt the worst administration in modern history. Hopefully America can recover from the deep hole in which it has dug itself.
The law, which the practice was violating [...], is, probably, unconstitutional in itself, because it tramples on the President's power to run the Administration however he sees fit.
So you're saying that the guy in charge of upholding the constitution and the rule of law can, at his option, ignore any law that he pleases and do what he wants because somebody, somewhere thinks it is probably unconstitutional?
Because my crazy idea was that we had some sort of checks-and-balances system where only the legislature can make the laws, only the executive implements them, and only the courts interpret them. Maybe I was reading about some other country, though.
not according to any court, BTW, but only to the new Justice Department
How is it that here you can recognize that only courts can authoritatively interpret law, but the rest of your jabber grants that power to the executive branch? I can understand making this mistake weeks apart, but you've managed to contradict yourself in the same sentence.
Civil servants have a much more narrowly defined range of the things they can or can't do with regard to politics. It is illegal to politicize certain career government positions, & this is exactly what Gonzales / Goodling did. Whether you think it's a good idea or not is immaterial.
There is a war going on for your mind.
What we're seeing here is one basis of Karl Rove's "permanent Republican majority" that he bragged about in 2004. There are already instances on the books (sorry, I can't produce any specifics) of charges filed against Democrats shortly before elections, even at the time those charges were known to be baseless by less political employees, and after election were found to be baseless by due process of law. The counter to this would be charges against Republicans either not filed, or delayed until after an election. If you have the power to instigate and time prosecutions relative to election cycles, you have a powerful tool for influencing elections without touching the ballot box or counting mechanism.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
He summarized the debate from a political perspective to explain why 'spotted owl' appeared in the search. This isn't the same thing as 'glossing over'.
However, if you'd like to enlighten us as to the intricacies of this divisive issue, my sockpuppet would be happy to mod you off-topic.
But with Congress having created things for him to run already, the President is the head of the Administration and responsible for its successes and failures. It is not called "President's Name Administration" for nothing.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I know I'm splitting hairs, but these definitions mean nothing because they only mean something in the context of the speaker.
Conservative means that the belief holder is against change and wants things to stay roughly status quo. They feel that things are good they way they are in a if it ain't broke; don't fix it. kind of way.
Classical conservatism (original Republicans) had nothing to do with liberty, it had to do with protecting the rich Northern industry and winning the Civil War for the US at any costs. Hence protecting the status quo for the North.
Neo-con is similar in that it is pro-big business and war-hawkish which is actually just an excuse for no-bid contracts; hence more pro-big business. Unfortunately their fiscal policy tends to align with the compromises of those goals which lends itself to fiscal irresponsibility. They tend to mouth their support of social restrictives like the religious right and some times even throw them a bone, but it is mostly a ploy to get their votes.
A neo-libertarian (what is now called libertarianism) is anti-tax and small government but mostly ends up removing long-standing laws written to protect the public from the conflicting interests of big-money, and hence ends up actually removing freedoms from the populace. This is because they tend to ignore that the lack of a legal framework leaves the weak prey to the strong, like all anarchism does (why should fiscal anarchy be any different?)
A liberal is someone who is for a change, be it women's sufferage, equal rights, decriminalizing drugs, etc. Pure and simple.
right and left wings refer to fascism and communism respectively.
The Democrats and Republicans of today would not recognizable to voters around the civil war times although I think the terms actually meant something then and not shifting meanings based only on the speaker's starting political leanings.
This is all like having some idiot try to explain away the differences between nerd, dweeb, dork and geek. (Hint: they are all synonyms, but if you ask 10 people you'll get ten equally idiotic answers depending on what social group they belonged to in high school!)
cat sig >
I don't see "compassionate Conservatives" as neocons, though. The two Bushes fall into that line.
Using "compassionate" to describe George W Bush is like using "snuggly" to describe Dick Cheney. The President who let the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts get and stay that fucked up for as long as they did; isn't compassionate. The Commander in Chief who makes excuses for torture isn't compassionate. The brilliant diplomat who famously said "Goodbye, from the world's biggest polluter" when leaving a summit discussing the huge amount of human and environmental damage being done by pollution, is not compassionate. You rightly use "machiavellian and power hungry" to describe Neocons which is an accurate descriptor of Dubya, a power hungry Neocon.
We are all just people.
A conservative is someone who believes in continuing whatever is already shown to work; he "conserves" in a social or political sense. Conservation is the fundamental conservative ethic - never throw out the baby with the bathwater, you might need that baby, after all we've needed them before.
A liberal is someone who believes that new problems, or problems that do not respond to conservative measures, should be solved in a new way. Progress is the fundamental liberal ethic - we've got to be free to move onward and upward to a better tomorrow, and we'll need new ideas and bold initiatives to get there, we can't let ourselves be imprisoned by obsolete ways of thought and action.
You will notice that these terms are not mutually exclusive. People who use them in a mutually exclusive sense are sometimes just misinformed, but usually (in the USA, at least) have had their minds infected by harmful memes that prevent them from thinking clearly about anything that can be cast as part of a fictional liberal/conservative dichotomy. In the worst cases, you have people like Ann Coulter and Michael Savage, who openly call for the murder of their chosen enemies, and people like Jim David Atkinsson who follow the orders of these people.
The divisive hysteria that has characterized the United States for most of my life, starting with Joe McCarthy and Father Coughlin and more recently continuing with Coulter, Savage, Bill O'Reilly, and many others, is akin the "Tulip Madness" of 1634-37. It's a mental abberation that has infected millions of people, that is being promoted by people who think they can ride the tiger to wealth and glory.
Someday, we'll just wake up, and nobody will be able to understand why it happened, because we will have passed the stage where we can be used in this fashion.
Or we'll all kill each other.
Salvage logging--removal of dead, diseased, or insect-riddled trees--is a good thing for old growth forests. It makes them less vulnerable to wild fires and creates room for new trees to grow. The actual writing of the bill, combined with a judge in the pocket of the loggers, left massive loopholes in what should have been a protective measure for the forests. And you can't genuinely blame Clinton: the Congress gave him a choice between shutting down the government or allowing 15 months of selective logging in specific areas. There's no correct answer for that choice.
Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
Please do not confuse people who call themselves "compassionate conservatives" with people who can actually feel compassion.
Don't you understand that you are already showing force, and that is what North Korea and Iran are responding to when they try to become nuclear ready? They know its the only thing you are afraid of, and they need to obtain it to defend themselves.
I thought the wildfires took care of it? Wild forest fires are actually a part of the natural cycle of a forest.
/ The Arrow
"How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny