The Ridiculous LexisNexis Search that the Justice Department Used 589
[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.
spotted owl? (Score:5, Funny)
what the hell
Re:spotted owl? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So kinda like in the best-selling thrille "The Spotted Owl Brief"?
Re:spotted owl? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:spotted owl? (Score:5, Funny)
My clock is digital with 1 minute resolution and is set ~30 seconds slow. It's right 1440 times a day - Try that trick with a broken clock.
You insensitive clod.
Re:spotted owl? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:spotted owl? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:spotted owl? (Score:5, Funny)
Not really surprising. Spotted owls are notoriously poor prosecutors. They also have a well-known bias against rats and other vermin, making them unsuitable for political work.
Re:spotted owl? (Score:4, Informative)
I think this link might explain it - I guess it was a little sensitive to the government: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100202031.html [washingtonpost.com]
The spotted owl is a shibboleth. (Score:5, Informative)
It's a Shibboleth [wikipedia.org]. Something that you can use to guess at another person's social/regional/political origin.
Back in 1992 [nytimes.com], there was a plan to log some forest. Republicans liked the idea of logging. Democrats didn't like the idea of logging.
Democrats went with environmentalism -- the notion that a risk to 50 of the 500-odd remaining spotted owls in existence outweighed the commercial interests of the loggers -- as their means of obsctructing the Republicans' goals.
Republicans went with the commercial argument -- "preposterous to forego millions of dollars in revenue over 50 spotted owls!" -- as their means of embarassing the Democrats.
The spotted owl became a shibboleth. Anyone who said "save the endangered owls!" was likely to be a Democrat, and anyone who said "to hell with the owls!" was a Democrat.
Many of the things in that list are shibboleths from the Clinton era. If you followed events such as Iran-Contra (a scandal embarassing to the Republicans), the spotted owl (a shibboleth for environmentalism), the recounts in Florida (which could have only benefited the Democrats), or worked (or ruled) on cases involving other politically-loaded wedge issues -- whether economic ones like NAFTA, outsourcing, and Enron, or sociolopolitical ones like racism, sexism, abortion, homosexuality, and gun ownership -- you had political opinions.
This query wasn't designed to figure out what those opinions were, but it would be a very clear way listing all the times someone identified their political stance by using a political shibboleth within seven words of the name of either Presidential candidate:
"John Doe accused Al Gore of placing the interests of the spotted owl above the legitimate interests of the taxpayers" -> John Doe is almost certainly a Republican.
"Jane Doe suggested Al Gore wasn't doing enough to protect the spotted owl" -> Jane Doe is almost certainly a Democrat.
The spotted owl is a particularly effective shibboleth; most of us have opinions about gun ownership, NAFTA, or Enron that don't necessarily dermine how we vote. But the spotted owl was a manufactured controversy; outside of birdwatchers, very few people knew or cared about the spotted owl until it became the center of a political debate.
Modern-day shibboleths include "homicide bombers" or "the Democrat party" (phrases used only Republicans), or "big business / big health care / big pharma" or "multinational corporations", or "neocons" (which are phrases used almost exclusively by Democrats.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The spotted owl is a shibboleth. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The spotted owl is a shibboleth. (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is that most people can't even come to a single definition of "conservative." So what the heck is a "neo-conservative" supposed to be?
Wikipedia has a pretty good running definition for neo-con, though. Essentially, social conservatism with a big government twist (which essentially fits every Republican president since Ford, and is most exemplified by GWB). So-called "paleo-cons" (usually with libertarian leanings) are exactly the opposite.
Re:The problem is the US is a two party state (Score:5, Funny)
Disclaimer: I am not a political scientist, and thus can only write from my observations as a lay person. The above statements are IMHO only.
That's a very short and limited disclaimer. Any casual Slashdot reader could easily take your observation about the shortcomings of parliaments and apply it in the real world with terrible consequences, and you would be liable. Might I suggest:
Disclaimer: The posting Slashdot user ("the author") who authored the above electronic nested web comment ("the comment") being read by you ("the reader") is not and has never in any previous capacity been a political scientist or professional political pundit, nor has he/she assisted any persons occupying these or similar occupations. His/her comment is provided "as is" with no warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of reliability and fitness for a political purpose. The entire risk as to the quality and veracity of the comment is with the reader. The author posted the comment purely as the observations of a lay person ("IMHO") and should not be construed as a wholehearted endorsement of any political proposal that may or may not have been included within it.
Re:The spotted owl is a shibboleth. (Score:5, Informative)
No, Bush most definitely is a neoconservative (socially conservative, pro-foreign-involvement, and big-government). Barry Goldwater was a paleoconservative (and so am I). Bush? Neocon all the way.
Re:The spotted owl is a shibboleth. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The spotted owl is a shibboleth. (Score:4, Insightful)
Please do not confuse people who call themselves "compassionate conservatives" with people who can actually feel compassion.
Re:The spotted owl is a shibboleth. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:The spotted owl is a shibboleth. (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't want to blow my moderation..
I don't consider neocons to be ultra conservative.
They spend money like drunken sailors, the support the expansion of the federal government, they ignore the constitution.
OTH, they are pro military, pro corporation, and use religion as a glue to get enough votes to advance their position. I.e. Neocons are very close to facists / corporatists.
I'm not saying that in a half naked hippy screaming "fascist!" kind of way at law abiding cops doing their jobs. I'm looking at the neocons actions- comparing them to historical factions and concluding that the closest match I find is fascists.
It means nothing! Nothing I tell you! (Score:5, Insightful)
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!)
Re:It means nothing! Nothing I tell you! (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a good correction to the parent poster.
In addition the "left" side of the political spectrum has historically emphasized egalitarianism, both in the political sense (equal rights for all) and in an economic sense (opposition to vast disparities in wealth). The hard left (Communism) wanted to establish economic equality forcibly (through confiscation) while the moderate left favors achieving it through tax and social policies.
For most of the last 50-60 years, Conservative in the US has implied strong opposition to Communism (while that was still a going concern) and pretty rigid opposition to even the moderate left program (what Europeans term social democracy).
Re:The spotted owl is a shibboleth. (Score:4, Funny)
The spotted owl became a shibboleth. Anyone who said "save the endangered owls!" was likely to be a Democrat, and anyone who said "to hell with the owls!" was a Democrat.
Trying to have it both ways, eh? Tricky, those Democrats...
Re:The spotted owl is a shibboleth. (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:spotted owl? (Score:5, Funny)
ya rly
Oblig. Life of Brian (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oblig. Life of Brian (Score:5, Funny)
Well, in fairness, "arrest" and "intox" also appear twice... So they also care about getting drunk and enjoying a bit of the ol' ultraviolence...
TFS Blows, TFA Is About Hiring Practices (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:TFS Blows, TFA Is About Hiring Practices (Score:5, Interesting)
Dropping Monica Goodling into that query returns 653 results in the last 2 years.
Re:TFS Blows, TFA Is About Hiring Practices (Score:5, Informative)
Reading some other articles about this, it appears that was not the full extent. They were even excluding Republicans and conservatives that weren't Republican or conservative enough for them. Basically people that they thought would not make loyal "Bushies".
It also appears that experience was not as highly evaluated as political considerations. One cited example of the was a well regarded senior prosecutor with counterterrorism experience was passed over for a junior attorney with no experience for a counterterrorism post just because the senior prosecutor's wife was a Democrat.
Re:TFS Blows, TFA Is About Hiring Practices (Score:5, Interesting)
To further illuminate what Goodling was doing, she told this to a U.S. Attorney telling him he could hire another prosecutor for his office:
"Tell Brad he can hire one more good American."
"good American" is Goodling and probably Bush administration code for conservative, Christian, homophobe, pro life, Bush supporting, Republican. The implication being all other American's are "bad" Americans. How does it feel to live in a country where your Executive Branch has branded you as a "bad" American unless you live and think the way they expect you to live and think.
It is an entirely acceptable standard for political appointees who will come and go with the President who appoints them. It is expected for them to be ideologues in the same mold as their boss. It is an illegal and unacceptable criteria for career civil servants who, once they enter the ranks of civil service, are nearly impossible to get rid of unless they leave of their on accord.
The report unfortunately stops short of finding who directed Goodling to do this, but since she was the DOJ liason to the White House chances are it was Rove, Myers, Cheney and or Bush, who were probably directing Goodling to fill the Justice Department ranks with career civil servants, who need not be well qualified for their jobs, but who were certified ideologues who would carry the right wing flag for decades to come and slant prosecutions and the law in the direction their ideology dictated.
The DOJ has received all the attention but there is an open question if the same program was being practiced in some or all of the other departments and agencies under control of the Executive Branch. If it was there may be an army of entrenched Republican ideologue civil servants who will frustrate future President they don't agree with for decades to come.
Re:TFS Blows, TFA Is About Hiring Practices (Score:5, Insightful)
"Or the next President decides to fire him because he doesn't like the way he clips his toe nails, which he is perfectly free to do."
Presidents can't just fire civil servants. Their is a vast legal code to protect civil servants from politicians doing just that. The problem here is the same code is supposed to prevent the executive branch from hiring unqualified ideologues too. The Bush administration with their complete contempt for the law and government just chose to ignore that part, probably with the assumption the next Democratic president couldn't get rid of all the Republican only civil servants they were illegally hiring. They were trying to stack the civil service with their people which is against the law, for good reason.
The Bush administration in particular and Republicans in general hate civil servants because they are often unionized and hated for being "big government" and not easily held to account for their performance. It is possible they chose to break the law here in an attempt to completely corrupt the career civil servants at DOJ as their form of revenge, and replace qualified lawyers with unqualified ones with the proper ideological background
Goodling as an example wasn't really qualified for the lofty position she held. She was a graduate of Jerry Fallwell's Grade C law school which placed more importance on your Christian background than academic ability or knowledge of the law. If she was a good lawyer she should have known what she was doing was illegal and she would eventually get busted for it. I assume she figured the Republicans would control Congress and the DOJ forever so no one would ever enforce the law.
Re:"Illegally" filtering out (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:"Illegally" filtering out (Score:5, Informative)
The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 does list it among the criteria (it is in fact in the very first of the 12 prohibited personnel practices [osc.gov]):
Twelve prohibited personnel practices, including reprisal for whistleblowing, are defined by law at  2302(b) of title 5 of the United States Code (U.S.C.). A personnel action (such as an appointment, promotion, reassignment, or suspension) may need to be involved for a prohibited personnel practice to occur. Generally stated,  2302(b) provides that a federal employee authorized to take, direct others to take, recommend or approve any personnel action may not:
(1) discriminate against an employee or applicant based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicapping condition, marital status, or political affiliation;
Re:"Illegally" filtering out (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I don't understand... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Yes, of course -- since it is illegal to take political views into consideration for certain kinds of career non-political jobs. Federal law is very clear on this. Read the PDF linked in the story for more information.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
is a very competent attorney who happens to be a neo-Nazi member of KKK and NAMBLA
That's a good question. Is he actually competent, or is he going to let running around with little boys in white hoods with swastikas on top get in the way of his work?
How about the other extreme: a very competent attorney who has spent his life sucking up to the Republican party? If the theory is that the NAMBLA guy isn't going to work so hard to bust pedophiles, why should I expect the Republican to work so hard to bust Re
Re:I don't understand... (Score:5, Informative)
First and foremost, because it's illegal.
But there are two types of nominations in the DoJ: "Career" & "Political". Political appointments are indeed open to scrutiny of political affiliation, but are temporary and remain active only until a change of administration. Career posts are normal jobs, and those people are supposed to be more neutral. Filtering people for Career jobs based on political affiliations is illegal. The issue coming to light now is that Bush administration officials used the same questionnaires and methods for both types of posts.
Re:I don't understand... (Score:5, Informative)
If the search is used to vest someone's political position for a "political appointee" position, that's fine. If it's used the screen "technical/professional" candidates it's probably a violation of civil service provisions and most likely some statutes.
Because It's Illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
There are certain high level posts in the various executive branch agencies that are tagged 'political appointments'. These jobs, which steer those agencies, can be determined based on politics.
For everything else, such discrimination is illegal. It is assumed, by the law, that people are professional enough to do their job regardless of who is in charge - and anyway, they can be fired if they intentionally sabotage the agency without legal cause.
Only recently, since the Neocons took over, has it even been an issue that 'attorneys hate' the people they work for. I mean, really, is such harsh language remotely accurate? Or is it being used as a boogie man in order to make an end-run around very wise laws; laws that prevent the government from swinging to extremes with every change in the administration.
(And lets not even bring up the fiscal nightmare it must be if agencies have to rehire everyone every eight years...)
Now, with my straight face: Clinton did NOT weed out conservatives from executive branch jobs. He in fact explicitly hired many people across the aisle, for better or for worse. The idea that you never hire people who disagree with you is one that has only seen it's heyday in the last eight years. It's actually often a very good idea.
Re:I don't understand... (Score:5, Informative)
Why shouldn't an administration be able to hire people on their side of the political fence?
Because it's illegal to do so for these types of Justice department jobs (and rightly so).
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?
For prosecutors in the justice department? I'll tell you that with a very straight face unless you can show otherwise. Everything I've read says this just doesn't happen for these kinds of appointees. The fired prosecutors were shocked to be fired for political reasons.
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.
I find that a very strange attitude. Criminal prosecutions (which is what the Justice department does) shouldn't have a political slant to it. I'd hope you'd agree that that would be a horrible horrible thing no matter who was doing it. There's a reason why the image representing justice (the one holding the scales) is blindfolded.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pretty much. And GP didn't post a citation of Clinton doing anything of the sort. I'd be personally surprised if he did, though; surely there'd have been a scandal, since Congress was owned by the GOP through most of his term.
I've argued with people who blew smoke and pretended ignorance about the difference between Clinton firing political appointees and what Bush does with careerists. I have a hard time deciding if they're trolling or they're truly that half-witted.
For the uninitiated like myself... (Score:5, Informative)
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LexisNexis [wikipedia.org]
They used Lexis to do a form of background search on people. They used the information from these searches to decide who to hire. The DOJ said the way they did this is federally illegal and also against DOJ policy.
And if you're an actual RTFAer, here you go: http://www.usdoj.gov/opr/goodling072408.pdf [usdoj.gov]
Rules (Score:5, Informative)
Connector Order and Priority
Connectors operate in the following order of priority:
1. OR
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. NOT
7. AND
8. AND NOT
If you use two or more of the same connector, they operate left to right. If the "n" (number) connectors have different numbers, the smallest number is operated on first. You cannot use the
Example: bankrupt!
* Because OR has the highest priority, it operates first and creates a unit of student OR college OR education!.
*
*
* AND, with the lowest priority, operates last and links the units formed in the second and third bullets above.
Re:Rules (Score:4, Informative)
Creates one big collection of records which contain any of the search terms...
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!
Finds records where the candidate's last name follows within two words of one of the search terms...
pre/2 [last name of a candidate]
Finds where the last name and the search term fall within 7 words of any of the search terms...
w/7
Example: Would find "sex Clinton" or "sex ____ Clinton" within 7 words of the word bush (probably a lot of hits here if any candidate had the misfortune of being named Clinton).
Lastly, finds any citation that contains the first name of the candidate within the record set defined by the previous steps...
[first name of a candidate] and
Note that including the word "and" here actually disconnected the first name of the candidate from the last name. She should have written:
[first name of a candidate] pre/2 [last name of a candidate]
So essentially you would get a list of citations where the last name of the candidate would follow one of the search terms by one or two words and also fell within 7 words of any of the search terms. Sounds like a lot of records.
Someone check me on this if you would...
Is LexisNexis Still Relevant for Non-Lawrers? (Score:5, Interesting)
Back when I used LN a lot, about ten years ago, the thing that made it useful to me even when searching through sources that were indexed elsewhere as well were the search terms like A w/5 B, which searches for term A within 5 words of B. That always produced much more relevant results than A and B, and despite all the praise of things like Pagerank, I've never seen a modern internet search engine give nearly as good of results as I was always able to find using this sort of technique.
Is this type of search still limited to LN, or are there ways to do the same sort of thing on Yahoo/Google/etc?
Now I get it (Score:4, Funny)
This must be what they mean about a search with a "wide stance".
Perhaps it's more enlightening to add together all the terms appearing more than once, like sex!, fired, racis!, arrest!, intox! and contravers!. What emerges is an interesting psychological view into the heads of the people doing the search. Based on what they list more than once, I would guess Jan Williams and Monica Gooding are afraid of getting so drunk or otherwise intoxicated that they wind up having sex with someone of a different race, being arrested (perhaps by an aggrieved other-racial spouse or something), and having the subsequent controversy cost them their jobs.
Just kidding, but who knows? Some of those prim and proper morality queens get really, really twisted when they drink a bit too much. Yeah alcohol!
These folk hate America (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Translate please? (Score:4, Informative)
A service that provides online legal and business information. LEXIS was the first full-text information service for the legal profession. NEXIS provides the archives of The New York Times as well as Wall Street industry analysis, public records, tax information, political analysis, SEC filings and more. See online services.
http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=LEXIS-NEXIS&i=46050,00.asp [pcmag.com]
Not that I'd expect you to know, I didn't know either.
Re:Yes, you hate George Bush ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yes, you hate George Bush ... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Yes, you hate George Bush ... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
You seem to lack perspective here (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the House and Senate are somewhat complicit
Is that like being somewhat pregnant?
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that is like being somewhat sick, or somewhat poor. There is a huge difference between the actions of the President and his band of thieves, and the minimally Democratic House and Senate.
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if you think everything is binary like pregnant/not-pregnant.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny, that's the exact same thing conservatives were saying regarding Clinton regarding his illegal wars, bombings on negative news days, illegal fund-raising and secrets traded to China, breach of U.S. citizens rights to fair trials, and more...
So really, sorry, I have to concur with the idea that the politicians (both in the White House and the Big House) are just corrupt, scoundrels almost all of a similar coin.
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if all those stories are true, which they aren't, you can't excuse corruption by pointing to corruption. This isn't a game, son, this is our country and our rights. And blanket cynicism is even more pointless and harmful to our nation.
You seem to want everyone to believe that all politicians are equally corrupt. This is a disservice to your country, and a transparent attempt to excuse great crimes by pointing to petty misdemeanors.
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:5, Insightful)
you can't excuse corruption by pointing to corruption.
If you vote D or R, because you're pointing to the corruption of the other, than that is exactly what you're doing.
But that is not what I'm doing. I'm pointing to the corruption and saying that both sides are guilty and we need another option.
Both sides (D n R) are complicit because there is no real "opposition" party, save for the third parties. Both D and R parties have enough power and corruption that both sides turn a blind eye to the corruption, but occasionally toss the voters a sacrificial lamb.
If you think Senator Tubes is unique and the exception to the rule, you should take a look at the dealings of Feinstein and Pelosi on the other side. Most (if not all) ARE corrupt!
I hate them all, they're flushing america down the tubes (pun intended).
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't really know, but anytime I bring up the heinous acts of the current administration, some idiot has to pipe up about how both sides are corrupt, as if that negates my complaint. And they never point out the crimes of both sides as you imply, reread those posts. They only pick on Democrats, as if that means there is no difference.
Maybe excuse isn't always the right word. Some times, they are just trying to make everyone feel so cynical that no one feels that anything can be done. Its as if they are saying, "all politicians are corrupt, there's nothing you can do about it, so shut up about Bush."
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:5, Insightful)
The economy good, Clinton was able to enact fiscally conservative policies which reduced the total national debt to probably below 60% GDP. It might have been lower, but the fiscally irresponsible conservatives continued to waste money on frivolous things like investigating whether he got a blow job. Certainly important for the sexually spurred, but not an issue for those of us who ever irregularly are allowed to play in such reindeer games.
The issue is that Bush has really fucked up. The economy is tanking. He is forced to adopt socialist methods such as tax rebates and public financing or the private home equity market in order to keep the US from sliding to oblivion. Such socialist methods are quite reasonable to him as is shown by the first this he did when take office is use the French model to ruin an educational system that was admired throughout the world, not for the ability of the students to pass test, but for the universal access to a decent education by all students.
By surrounding himself with yes men, he has created a space where bad decisions were made, and money was wasted. We are now seeing the dollar slip and credit market dry up because, at least in part, the deficit will likely hit 80% GDP before his socialist policies can be rescinded. Two trillion dollars are being spend every week to provide corporate welfare to his friends, and we do not see any benefit. The national defense is disintegrating, and we are paying to train foreign forces to fight against our forces. And oil is still going up, and we are reaching a national energy crisis, even though Carter gave us the solution all those many years ago. Those solutions were good, I know because I see real conservatives use them all the time. And, to add insults to injury, Afghanistan, the state that provided safe haven for those that attacked the US, and Saudi Arabia, the State where many of the attackers originated, remains exactly at the same level as in 2000, which means such attacks are exactly as likely.
So it is not a matter or corruption or scoundrels. It is a matter of taking the job seriously, and believing that you can play it just like you did back in frat house, or if you need to grow up a little. We are not talking much, but realizing that there are valid views other than your own, a key learning outcome of the college experience, would be nice.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
but there is a HUGE difference between the two parties
No, there isn't.
Both are interested in increasing the power and reach of government, just in different directions.
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:4, Insightful)
OH, gosh, that sounds BAD! Wait, one direction means helping the little guy, reining in corporate power, universal health care like all other first world countries have, and fixing social security rather than privatizing it. I can get behind that kind of increased government power.
The other direction is corporate handouts, tax breaks for the rich, government in our bedrooms, loosening workplace safety, environmental, and other regulations, crushing organized labor, and no bid contracts for military contractors. Not the same thing at all.
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:4, Insightful)
I can get behind that kind of increased government power.
You're no better than the idiot that says the same thing to fight the "evil doers".
Until you realize that compulsion under any circumstance is evil, you're part of the problem! Why should I be compelled to take care of the idiot who eats 3 Big Macs every day and suffers from Diabetes and Heart Problems?
Because the next thing you'll tell me that NOBODY can eat a Big Mac. And on and on the list will get bigger until we have ridiculous laws put in place forbidding people from selling legal items in certain places.
You think this is a joke? LA and SF both did this recently, one said "no more fast food" trying to define what is, and isn't fast food, and that drug stores can't sell cigarettes.
You see, one person's freedom isn't another person's responsibility. People are trying to avoid the consequences of their actions by compulsion by government guns.
I don't want your universally bad health care. I want disparity in choice. I don't want the freakin government to tell me what is or isn't good for me.
Don't violate my rights please. Don't compel me to comply with what you want me to do, that is nothing more than fascism!
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh please. The 'big mean government is coercing me with guns' argument is so old and tired. If you don't like it, go some place else. There's plenty of uninhabited land in the world where you can set up a homestead and no one will ever even know. No one is holding a gun to your head and making you participate in society. You do so because you benefit more by doing so than by leaving, and you know it.
The thing that gets me about you libertarian types is how hypocritical you all are about coercion. It's perfectly okay to use coercion to enforce your unilateral ideas about property and take away MY rights to go wherever my legs will take me. That's okay, but using 'coercion' to ensure that everyone has enough to eat before allowing anyone to profit outrageously from the hard work of other people is communism.
You people do not believe in individual responsibility. You simply support the individual's right to amass power and use it against others with less power. You hate any method such as democracy or rule of law that the less powerful can use to band together to protect themselves against the more powerful. You see yourselves as superior to the rest of us, and the right you want protected is your right to prey on us.
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait, one direction means helping the little guy, reining in corporate power, universal health care like all other first world countries have...
Erm, if the side you're speaking of is the one I'm thinking of, the LAST time they "tried" to give us universal health care "in the first 100 days!" they ended up bringing us HMOs and PPOs... which, from a guy who worked for years in a medical office, has done far more damage to American health care, and many of us STILL have no coverage. That's not even mentioning handing over health care to people who don't give a tinkerer's damn about our health. Reining in corporate power indeed.
I'm not a member of either party, and so am happy to call "shenanigans" when either side tries to shaft us.
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:4, Informative)
Right, because there are enough full time, well paying jobs for everyone, and the system would continue to function perfectly if no one did the minimum wage jobs. Get real.
And you are just delusional about the income tax. Payroll tax IS income tax, you moron. You have been grossly misled: Look here and follow the links to more info if you need to [wikipedia.org]. If you make $16.73 an hour, you are SOLIDLY in the bottom 50%. The median income is about $23 per hour. Do YOU pay no income tax?
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:5, Insightful)
You have absolutely bought into lies. I know I can't change your mind; but I hope that you can at least let a seed of skepticism blossom in your mind. Maybe the Democrats really are just as bad as the Republicans. They both lie. They both are powerhungry. They both want to restrict the American people. The only difference is in the details of the corruption.
Just admit the possibility. Shedding party affiliation is a bit like shaking a religious upbringing; the hardest part is breaking the initial unshakable faith.
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:4, Insightful)
No, they can't. For example, how could a Republican filibuster have passed the FISA amendment to grant retroactive immunity? How could a filibuster "authorize the use of force" (and a metric shitload of money) in Iraq without a declaration of war?
Congress actively supported Bush's bullshit. Filibusters by a minority party could have prevented some of it, but could not have caused it. Our problem is not that Congress failed to oppose the president; it's that our Congress worked with the president.
In 2002, 2004, and 2006, when people voted for Democrat or Republican senators and housereps (with a few exceptions), they were voting for Bush.
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the House and Senate are somewhat complicit
It depends what you are talking about... to pick some of the current heavy hitters:
They are completely complicit in our spending problems, as they solely introduce and pass to the president all government spending.
They are completely complicit in the invasion of Iraq, which passed the house and the senate by overwhelming majorities.
They are completely complicit in the Patriot Act, which passed nearly unanimously in the Senate IIRC.
So where do the parties differ? IMHO, mostly in rhetoric. The only places where they have substantial differences is on so-called "wedge issues". The country's well-being and survival are not dependent on gay marriage or abortion, and yet this is where we spend our energy. It gives otherwise similar politicians something to use to differentiate themselves.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously, the administration that does all that shit is worse. Come on! Yeah, the democrats are bad for letting them get away with it, but that doesn't make them the same.
Re:You seem to lack perspective here (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean while in the minority they voted for stupid acts that the american people were in favor of. Politicians can't cure stupid you know.
It is cowardice for more of them not to have voted against it, but at the time it was legitimate to think that if the democrats had opposed it, the public would side with the republicans thinking the dems were in favor of selling america to Osama. In those days, Bush was bulletproof and most of this country believed he was our only hope of defeating terror.
A good politician in the real world knows when he can lead the public to rational, good decisions and knows when he has to get out of the way of the public making very stupid decisions.
Of course, in retrospect it seems pretty sure that voting against the patriot act wouldn't have been a pointless self-sacrifice, but hey, if the dems could tell the future, the butterfly ballots in florida wouldn't have been an issue.
It's sad how cynical you are. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Yes, you hate George Bush ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Yes, you hate George Bush ... (Score:5, Funny)
...the damage good ole [President Bill Clinton]...did to us
8 years of peace and prosperity ending with a budget surplus?
Re:Yes, you hate George Bush ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
You aren't being sensible here (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What a load of condescending horse shit. What makes you think I blame everyone else or that my life is messed up? My life is probably better than yours. It is that way because I have taken responsibility for myself.
You sicken me. You excuse the abuse of power by claiming that no one can oppress others without their consent. This is true, but irrelevant. I suppose you blame rape victims for wearing purty clothing, and murder victims for not fighting back.
Why do you assume that taking responsibility for one's
Re:Yes, you hate George Bush ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:LexisNexis Search? (Score:5, Informative)
Needless to say it is very dangerous in the wrong hands.
Re:LexisNexis Search? (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed. Our Sheriff's department uses it (along with other services by the same company), and it's downright scary the ammount of stuff they can pull.
Want all the blue and gray SUV's that have a 9 and an F within a 100 mile radius of a given location? It can pull that up. Want to find out if a particular person has ANY connection to the owner of that vehicle. It can do that. As a demonstration it was able to connect our sherrif to a woman that his wife had been roomates with over 20 years ago (before they were even married).
It was astonishing how much information it could coordinate on any person in the room that we plugged into it.
Also was tied into the sex offenders database. If you wanted to narrow that search for the blue/gray SUV earlier down to sexual offenders within a certain radius that owned or were associated with the owner of such a vehicle, then it could do that.
What's scary is that some level of this functionality is available to whoever wants to pay for it (afterall, most of the information is just public records correlated into a massive database). Law enforcement and such agencies do get more access (for instance, the ability to pull up social security numbers), but the average person with deep pockets could still get a hell of a lot of information for it. They do TRY to be secure with the LEO-only portions though.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They do TRY to be secure with the LEO-only portions though.
So, if you're beyond a Low Earth Orbit, you're safe?
Re:LexisNexis Search? (Score:4, Funny)
They do TRY to be secure with the LEO-only portions though.
So, if you're beyond a Low Earth Orbit, you're safe?
Law Enforcement Officer, but I like your sense of humor.
I would have also laughed if you took it as limiting access based on astrological sign.
Re:LexisNexis Search? (Score:5, Interesting)
I can only wonder how many small coincidences could be completly misconstrued during both investigations, or other things such as affairs.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Analysis, please (Score:5, Informative)
The search requires that the candidate's full name is found, along with at least one of the following 'keywords' not more than 7 words (that's the "w/7") away from the name; so in most cases it would be a pretty small return.
Actually, the syntax used seems to be incorrect (I've never used LexisNexus, but just did an exhaustive 30 second search for information on the syntax).
The "pre/2" control assures that the word preceding and the word following are found, with a maximum of 2 words in between. I think the "and" before the "pre/2" is incorrect, or at least superfluous.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, it's doing this:
((Name of Applicant) + (X || Y || Z || etc))
So it will only return a story with the word "sex" in it if it also has the name of the candidate.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've never used LexisNexis, but it appears the '!' is a wildcard.
'Racis!' would match to 'racism' or 'racist' - as in "he levelled charges of racism" or "was accused of being a racist."
'Controvers!' would match to 'controversy,' 'controversial,' etc.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hedley Lamarr: Qualifications?
Applicant: Rape, murder, arson, and rape.
Hedley Lamarr: You said rape twice.
Applicant: I like rape.
Courtesy IMDB [imdb.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I assumed ! to be a wildcard, so sex! would match sex or sexual or sexually or sexist or sexism or sexy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Spotted Owl? (Score:4, Informative)