Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
It can be, yes, if you're serving the wrong cause.
If you're an idiot who has no idea what you're talking about, however, and suddenly think you're constitutional scholar, a lawyer, and the DNI all rolled into one, it's generally not a good thing.
Thanks to the TaxProf blog and to Instapundit, I discovered this chart detailing political giving by government lawyers:
With certain limitations understood (we don’t know the affiliations of non-donors), the chart above looks more like the political affiliations of Ivy League women’s-studies departments than those of an allegedly impartial federal bureaucracy.
The civil-service system was designed to replace the spoils system, which — in addition to creating chaotic rushes of office-seekers with each change of administration — packed political hacks into important administrative positions. A civil service was supposed to change that unacceptable reality by placing the administration of the more neutral functions of the government into the hands of dispassionate professionals. Thus the strong federal job security in the civil service, greater security than enjoyed by virtually any private-sector employee. The job security — so the argument goes — was necessary to prevent the re-emergence of blatant political patronage.
But what if the combination of increasingly activist government with strong bureacratic bias re-creates federal service as a kind of permanent spoils system for the Left? Isn’t it inevitable that this leftist bureaucracy will eventually view itself not as a servant for all citizens but as an instrument of its own righteous ideology?
If the recent history of our universities is any guide, the products of a leftist bureacratic monoculture will be characterized by the following:
Ignorance: Groups of like-minded people are notoriously incurious about the ideas and perspectives of dissenters.
Condescension: They don’t let ignorance stand in the way of a bulletproof sense of moral and intellectual superiority.
Hatred: Since all the good people they know agree with them, they ascribe the worst of motives to the other side, believing them to be motivated by little more than greed and bigotry.
And, finally . . .
Fanaticism: Cass Sunstein described the ”law of group polarization” like this: “In a striking empirical regularity, deliberation tends to move groups, and the individuals who compose them, toward a more extreme point in the direction indicated by their own predeliberation judgments.” In other words, when like-minded individuals deliberate, their common views grow more extreme over time.
We conservatives have a problem with Big Government, no matter who’s running it. But we also have a particular problem with this big government, as key agencies are increasingly staffed and run by individuals who wield enormous power, cannot be fired, and despise roughly half the American population. When Barack Obama urges supporters to “punish our enemies,” there are many federal employees only too willing to comply.
Here's the thing with this... how do you mitigate that? I don't think you can initially, other than having some sort of oversight to keep these blatantly politicalizations at a minimum.
Remember, these lawyers are in their positions at the behest of the President... they can be let go when the next President get elected.
Until now, I thought Democrats were being overly defensive as they circled the wagons around the White House, assuring everyone who would listen that the president obviously wasn't involved. Who in Congress had overtly pointed the finger at the president?
Enter Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) who figured out away to insinuate White House involvement in the IRS targeting scandal and needle the president about the NSA spy scandal at the same time.
Stockman sent a letter to Chairman Darrell Issa of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee on Tuesday, asking him to subpoena all NSA records of phone calls between employees of the White House and the IRS.
“Obama assures the public he only collected this information to uncover wrongdoing and protect civil liberties. Clearly he would want us to use it to investigate this case, because otherwise he’d be lying,” said Stockman.
“If Obama has nothing to hide he has nothing to fear,” said Stockman.
“This case must be investigated fully, given admitted wrongdoing by the IRS, its potentially criminal implications and revelations the White House has been less than honest about what they knew and when,” said Stockman. “Obama says the PRISM program is perfectly legal, so there should be no problem whatsoever in providing the information on White House and IRS phone calls.”
“The only possible scenario in which the administration refuses to comply would be if it would reveal unconstitutional or illegal behavior,” said Stockman.
Stockman’s office electronically delivered the same letter to the Homeland Security Committee chaired by Rep. Michael McCaul.
Here is the text of the letter to Chairman Issa.
Chairman Issa:
Thank you for your ongoing efforts to investigate abuses of civil liberties by employees of the Internal Revenue Service.
These abuses seem to indicate a larger, higher pattern of ideologically-driven harassment of Americans which Congress has an obligation to fully investigate with every tool at our disposal.
Frankly I am disappointed by revelations Obama administration personnel have been less than forward about what they knew and when they knew it.
As you know, recent revelations the National Security Agency has been keeping an “ongoing, daily” log of every domestic phone call in the United States.
I respectfully request your Committee subpoena the records of every phone call made from all public and private telephones of all IRS personnel to all public and private telephones of all White House personnel.
If President Obama is collecting such information, he certainly would want us to use it. If he has nothing to hide he has nothing to be afraid of.
Warmest wishes,
STEVE STOCKMAN
Member of Congress
If they don't have anything to hide... then what's the problem?
Unfortunately that isn't really a way they can search the data (by IRS/White House) for a few reasons*. The programs mentioned don't really do land lines, and most of the office lines will be land lines. Additionally, within the data base the numbers are not tied to an owner. He would have to gather all the numbers he was interested in and then subpoena records related to those numbers, and the NSA folks would use those to run the queries.
*Based on my understanding.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/13 21:44:24
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
CptJake wrote: Unfortunately that isn't really a way they can search the data (by IRS/White House) for a few reasons*. The programs mentioned don't really do land lines, and most of the office lines will be land lines. Additionally, within the data base the numbers are not tied to an owner. He would have to gather all the numbers he was interested in and then subpoena records related to those numbers, and the NSA folks would use those to run the queries.
*Based on my understanding.
They use official cell phones.
What we don't know is what kind of security they have on those phone/accounts. I remember that when Obama was elected in '08, he tasked (someone) to ensure that he can keep using his dingleberry... uh... I mean blackberry.
Having said that, if Issa does issue the subpoena, at least we'd hear why they couldn't/wouldn't provide such information. Which is really what Stockman is going after.
Even 'official cell phones' will need to have all the numbers gathered to be included in the subpoena. And you will miss a lot that is done via land line, especially in the IRS.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
CptJake wrote: Even 'official cell phones' will need to have all the numbers gathered to be included in the subpoena. And you will miss a lot that is done via land line, especially in the IRS.
I guess I dislike congress critters wasting time show boating. More importantly, I strongly believe using the IRS for political reasons was disgusting, using info collected for intel purposes for political reasons is far worse, and that is what he is advocating.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
"Looks at his Blackberry"
"Looks at the wife Blackberry"
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
CptJake wrote: I guess I dislike congress critters wasting time show boating. More importantly, I strongly believe using the IRS for political reasons was disgusting, using info collected for intel purposes for political reasons is far worse, and that is what he is advocating.
To be fair, they could be wasting their time on less productive things that case even more harm. They could be doing their jobs.
At least, in this case, the showboating is proving a point that needed proved. At least, in my opinion.
CptJake wrote: I guess I dislike congress critters wasting time show boating. More importantly, I strongly believe using the IRS for political reasons was disgusting, using info collected for intel purposes for political reasons is far worse, and that is what he is advocating.
To be fair, they could be wasting their time on less productive things that case even more harm. They could be doing their jobs.
At least, in this case, the showboating is proving a point that needed proved. At least, in my opinion.
Except he is clearly calling for the use of info collected by intel agencies for intel purposes to be used for political reasons, that is illegal for VERY good reasons.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
I've heard a lot of people tell me this week that they aren't even remotely concerned about the situation because they had "nothing to hide", yet not a single one would give me the password to their e-mail.
I've enjoyed seeing the random angry person from congress speaking out or grilling alexander during his latest trip before congress since you know...everyone in congress was "fully briefed" seems there are alot of people in congress that dont really know what they are "fully briefed" on
something I've been wondering about but havent been able to find any actual info on is if your called before congress to give testimony about something, you are sworn in, if your asked a question and give a lie because your answer is classified, does that count as perjury?
There was this exchange back in March when Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has getting questioned by congress
"Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" Wyden, D-Ore., asked Clapper.
"No, sir," Clapper answered.
"It does not?" Wyden pressed.
Clapper reluctantly softened his answer somewhat: "Not wittingly," he said. "There are cases where they could, inadvertently perhaps, collect - but not wittingly."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Can we use the same technology and system and use it to track all guns purchased and owned by people?
Give owners "numbers", and only have the actual person behind the number released if there are compelling causes for a law enforcement agency?
Since databases are okay with most people now?
a federal registration would never fly as the slippery slope people would tell you that this just tells the government where all the guns are and when its time to take all of our guns they know where they are...though I must admit since we now know big brother is all up in our business, tracking our interneting, phone calls, credit card purchases....it wouldnt shock me if there was already a database of gun owners floating around
unrelated to the above, on the subject of the government storing all this sundry data on americans, I cant help but wonder what sort of info is in there waiting for a hacker from china or Korea to come across
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/14 05:03:20
The UK government has warned airlines not to allow an ex-CIA employee who leaked secret US surveillance details to fly to the UK, according to reports.
The Associated Press news agency reported seeing a document at a Thai airport telling carriers to stop Edward Snowden, 29, boarding any flights.
The travel alert - reported to feature a Home Office letterhead - said Mr Snowden "is highly likely to be refused entry to the UK".
The Home Office would not comment.
According to AP, the alert was issued on Monday by the Home Office's risk and liaison overseas network.
The document had a photograph of Snowden and gave his date of birth and passport number, the news agency reported.
It said: "If this individual attempts to travel to the UK: Carriers should deny boarding."
It went on to warn airlines they may "be liable to costs relating to the individual's detention and removal'' should they allow him to travel.
According to the Home Office's website, a charge for such a situation would be £2,000.
Bangkok Airways, Singapore Airlines and Malaysia Airlines confirmed they had received the notice, which was not supposed to be seen by the public, AP reported.
Mr Snowden was last seen in Hong Kong, where he travelled ahead of the Guardian newspaper's story which revealed the extent of the National Security Agency's (NSA) programme to seize data from US internet and telephone firms. There is no suggestion that he has any intention of trying to travel to the UK.
Mr Snowden's actions have divided opinion in the US, with some calling him a hero and others calling for him to be tried for treason.
Well, that makes sense. Easier to just brush him off, and not let yourselves get put in a position where you had to make a choice, especially when you're so buddy-buddy with the US.
Of course, the latter means that he'd be a world class fool for trying to go to the UK anyway...
All this government snooping just have us all "edgy"... considering this:
What makes the news scary are the revelations of what else Team Obama’s been up to. Follow the bouncing scandal ball:
* On Benghazi, the administration has simply clammed up, keeping suspicions alive that there’s much more to this story. A handful of intrepid reporters have bucked the tide, but others have stopped asking why no help was sent and where President Obama was that night. Because . . .
* In clear violation of the First Amendment, the administration — allegedly angered about national-security leaks — seized phone records from the AP and Fox News in a what looks like a transparent attempt to put the fear of God into them and keep others incuriously toeing the party line, which mostly amount to: Trust us. But can we? Consider . . .
* The strange goings-on at the Environmental Protection Agency, where recently-departed chief Lisa Jackson was using a fictitious e-mail account in order to communicate privately without all those pesky “transparency” requirements. How widespread is this practice? What to make of word that Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was also using “secondary” e-mail accounts?
* Then came the IRS bombshell — something every taxpaying American can relate to. That a supposedly neutral collection agency with powers far beyond what we entrust to law enforcement would cheerfully target Tea Party and other righty groups for special scrutiny is the stuff of Orwellian nightmares. And although the IRS has tried to blame “rogue elements” in its Cincinnati office, whistleblowers are coming out of the woodwork to point the finger directly at the White House.
All this adds up to a perfect storm of mistrust, now exacerbated by the fears of the surveillance state that has mushroomed since the panicky post-9/11 “reforms.” Thus Americans now fear a culture of suspicion among top law-enforcement officials, who treat more than 300 million overwhelmingly law-abiding Americans as potential criminals, subject to snoops and pat-downs.
And when that leviathan falls down on the job — as it did in failing to spot the Tsarnaev brothers — then the trade-off between liberty and security becomes a very bad bargain indeed.
Here's the thing with this... how do you mitigate that? I don't think you can initially, other than having some sort of oversight to keep these blatantly politicalizations at a minimum.
You don't. Political matters are going to be political by necessity.
Also, this is...
With certain limitations understood (we don’t know the affiliations of non-donors), the chart above looks more like the political affiliations of Ivy League women’s-studies departments than those of an allegedly impartial federal bureaucracy.
...lame journalism.
It is simultaneously sexist, anti-intellectual, and presumptuous.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/06/16 16:45:16
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Look at the timestamp of that post. It was quoted, everyone that knows me on here would know that I didnt write it. (was up all night for work and half drunk )
Here's the thing with this... how do you mitigate that? I don't think you can initially, other than having some sort of oversight to keep these blatantly politicalizations at a minimum.
You don't. Political matters are going to be political by necessity.
Uh... no. You're flat out wrong dude.
Also, this is...
With certain limitations understood (we don’t know the affiliations of non-donors), the chart above looks more like the political affiliations of Ivy League women’s-studies departments than those of an allegedly impartial federal bureaucracy.
...lame journalism.
It is simultaneously sexist, anti-intellectual, and presumptuous.
Then tell me how wrong it is... please, I'll wait with abated breath here.
)