stuckincincy Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Ideas are not generated by ass-kissing. 599392[/snapback] So are you saying there was something wrong with President Clinton's desires? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Oh boy, is this one of those "all government workers are incompetent" posts? So you're in favor of hiring political sycophants instead? 599411[/snapback] Sycophants? Re-read Ghost of BiB's post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tossy McSalad Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Oh great, there you go...scared him back into his hole. Does anyone know if he saw his shadow?? 599352[/snapback] I'd rather not discuss this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Realistically, though...why wouldn't you? On the project I'm working right now, we're trying to design a three-tier enterprise application with a team consisting of COBOL programmers who've never done and do not believe in three-tier architecture. Basically, we spend so much time arguing we never get anything done. And that's one software project. It doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to extrapolate that dynamic to a foreign policy team. 599381[/snapback] The article states that he recinded the e-mail, but it seems that the intent to hire for loyalty is still there. I can think of at least 2 people I know that may be qualified for this type of work, but I doubt that they would describe themselves as loyal to anyone in terms of politics. I can see your point in terms of programmers, but how is the loyalty question germaine to the tasks at hand. Of course if someone is trying to subvert the work, that is another matter entirely. Buy the assumption seems to be that Bush loyal people may be the segment of the population least likely to subvert this type of work and be the most qualified. I would think it would be enough to advertise for the policy priorities rather than attatch them to a political name. BTW, sounds like it sucks to be working with COBOL programmers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 You obviously don't get the point since you're stuck in the lemming mode: cronysim goes on all the time in "politically appointed" positions, and yes on both sides. However, for civil service hires, especially in the area of WMD, don't you want the most highly qualified person? Don't you want someone who is not afraid to have a counter argument to the Neocons? Sorry GoB, but I think this is more than a "change of policy." It's making sure that everyone is on board with one policy. That is NOT good at the STate department. Ideas are not generated by ass-kissing. 599392[/snapback] Policy is perhaps the wrong word. There is a national strategy to combat WMD, and several sub-strategies, plans and inter-related things that comprise the overall program. Across the broad spectrum, I don't see this as an issue of ass kissing. Before these policy and strategy documents are signed off on and issued just about everyone who might possibly become involved gets to chop and comment on the drafts. So, in effect folks at State had their chance at their say - as did those at Justice, Defense, treasury, etc. Key to this campaign, and I would imagine to most things is effectively leveraging the best capabilities and resources of all applicable agencies and departments to prosecute the strategies directed. This isn't effective with dissent. I don't know that dissent is even really involved here - though it's implied. There's just a new way of doing business that a some people don't agree with, but - that's in effect, too bad. In order for a synergistic process to work, just as with a sports team as an analogy, everyone must understand the playbook and their role in a particular play. No doubt "cronyism" to a degree is involved here, it is everywhere. But, there is also the angle of trying to change the institutional mind sets to better fit the accepted strategy. There's been a lot of shuffling and replacing in Defense, but I guess the author doesn't have the same in's with them as he has with State. But anyway - whether there was a pissing contest and death match at State or not, my point is like I said, that there is more to the big story, and the article in some respects is quite misleading. This is a very brief attempt to try to explain something that is really sort of complicated - but FWIW, I can guarantee you without any doubt in my mind whatsoever that their are "dissenting" voices in the system, and plenty of new ideas. That's actually the whole point. You might also be surprised to actually see how many "career civil servants with years of expertise" go into blank eyed shut down mode when asked to look at something differently than they have for the past 15 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 The article states that he recinded the e-mail, but it seems that the intent to hire for loyalty is still there. I can think of at least 2 people I know that may be qualified for this type of work, but I doubt that they would describe themselves as loyal to anyone in terms of politics. I can see your point in terms of programmers, but how is the loyalty question germaine to the tasks at hand. Of course if someone is trying to subvert the work, that is another matter entirely. Buy the assumption seems to be that Bush loyal people may be the segment of the population least likely to subvert this type of work and be the most qualified. I would think it would be enough to advertise for the policy priorities rather than attatch them to a political name. BTW, sounds like it sucks to be working with COBOL programmers. 599422[/snapback] Yeah...what Ghost of BiB said above. And I'm willing to stand on first-hand evidence that personal loyalty to Curious George isn't a requirement of government service...as evidenced by government contractors continually trying to recruit me despite my penchant for calling monkey-boy "Curious George"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted February 9, 2006 Author Share Posted February 9, 2006 Policy is perhaps the wrong word. There is a national strategy to combat WMD, and several sub-strategies, plans and inter-related things that comprise the overall program. Across the broad spectrum, I don't see this as an issue of ass kissing. Before these policy and strategy documents are signed off on and issued just about everyone who might possibly become involved gets to chop and comment on the drafts. So, in effect folks at State had their chance at their say - as did those at Justice, Defense, treasury, etc. Key to this campaign, and I would imagine to most things is effectively leveraging the best capabilities and resources of all applicable agencies and departments to prosecute the strategies directed. This isn't effective with dissent. I don't know that dissent is even really involved here - though it's implied. There's just a new way of doing business that a some people don't agree with, but - that's in effect, too bad. In order for a synergistic process to work, just as with a sports team as an analogy, everyone must understand the playbook and their role in a particular play. No doubt "cronyism" to a degree is involved here, it is everywhere. But, there is also the angle of trying to change the institutional mind sets to better fit the accepted strategy. There's been a lot of shuffling and replacing in Defense, but I guess the author doesn't have the same in's with them as he has with State. But anyway - whether there was a pissing contest and death match at State or not, my point is like I said, that there is more to the big story, and the article in some respects is quite misleading. This is a very brief attempt to try to explain something that is really sort of complicated - but FWIW, I can guarantee you without any doubt in my mind whatsoever that their are "dissenting" voices in the system, and plenty of new ideas. That's actually the whole point. You might also be surprised to actually see how many "career civil servants with years of expertise" go into blank eyed shut down mode when asked to look at something differently than they have for the past 15 years. 599429[/snapback] My pov comes from reading the same thing coming from too many departments. There's a Wall STreet Journal article today that touches on the subject as a whole. Some political hack at NASA was trying to muzzle scientist there as well. Here's the intro to the WSJ article: "WASHINGTON -- A dispute involving a researcher at the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service is fueling a debate over whether analysts throughout the government are being muzzled to prevent criticism of Bush administration policies. Louis Fisher, a 36-year veteran of the agency and an expert on the separation of powers, said his superiors wrongly punished him for giving interviews and publishing scholarly articles under his own name that contained criticism of the White House. Top officials deny those allegations, saying they were simply trying to protect the agency's reputation for nonpartisanship and objectivity." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 My pov comes from reading the same thing coming from too many departments. There's a Wall STreet Journal article today that touches on the subject as a whole. Some political hack at NASA was trying to muzzle scientist there as well. Here's the intro to the WSJ article: "WASHINGTON -- A dispute involving a researcher at the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service is fueling a debate over whether analysts throughout the government are being muzzled to prevent criticism of Bush administration policies. Louis Fisher, a 36-year veteran of the agency and an expert on the separation of powers, said his superiors wrongly punished him for giving interviews and publishing scholarly articles under his own name that contained criticism of the White House. Top officials deny those allegations, saying they were simply trying to protect the agency's reputation for nonpartisanship and objectivity." 599447[/snapback] As I and others have said, no doubt crap goes on. All administrations do it. Out of my lane. But, my perspective on the WMD issues and what is going on behind the scenes is coming from first hand experience. I am part of a fairly small group that is responsible for integrating and coordinating the efforts of these departments, agencies and international partners to do this thing. From that perspective, I know first hand how difficult "change" is for some people. And why for some - they are much more concerned with preserving their own rice bowls than in contributing to a unified joint effort. If it wasn't for this level of resistance, often for purely personal reasons, things might be a lot farther along. I hope my perspective here has some value. It's just not that everything is always as it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 I hope my perspective here has some value. 599464[/snapback] It does. Good stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 As maybe an exclamation point, I also have personal knowledge that there are some staunch Bush supporters including his own appointees that fight certain actions like dogs over a bone. Some people in those positions don't like having their "power" adjusted. Even if it is only in perception. Yes, I'll speak vaguely because I'm not that much of an idiot. No doubt, having some knowledge of the personalities involved, and knowing how petty people in Washington can be - some crap indeed came into play, but I don't think it was in terms of placing "unqualified" people into jobs over qualified people because of allegiances. This sounds in-house, and probably has absolutely nothing to do with Bush. I also get the impression from the article that this "mass exodus" is self induced. I didn't see nor have I heard anything where folks were summarily fired. There are power plays in any organization, and one side apparantly lost. So now, as is typical - especially for State - they go to a friendly press for their sour grapes. There are many precedents. State's role in this thing is very large, and very important. Can't be done without them. BUT - the approach to this role has changed. People not on board can undermine the overall effort sometimes without even intending to do so. And sadly, some intend. I don't view it as disloyalty or treason - they just think theirs is a better way and at the same time probably don't have a clear understanding of where their part fits into the bigger picture. Don't assume that "experts" are "expert" in all facets of any operation. They are considered "experts" precisely because they know the minutia of a particular piece. That also tends to narrow thinking and innovation. Sometimes it is better to have "generalists". I would say that placing a loyalty oath statement into an email, to me at least is an incredibly dumb thing to do - were it me, I would have addressed agreement with direction and policy in the interview process. I wouldn't be surprised if the guy got a good spanking for that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 As maybe an exclamation point, I also have personal knowledge that there are some staunch Bush supporters including his own appointees that fight certain actions like dogs over a bone. Some people in those positions don't like having their "power" adjusted. Even if it is only in perception. Yes, I'll speak vaguely because I'm not that much of an idiot. No doubt, having some knowledge of the personalities involved, and knowing how petty people in Washington can be - some crap indeed came into play, but I don't think it was in terms of placing "unqualified" people into jobs over qualified people because of allegiances. This sounds in-house, and probably has absolutely nothing to do with Bush. I also get the impression from the article that this "mass exodus" is self induced. I didn't see nor have I heard anything where folks were summarily fired. There are power plays in any organization, and one side apparantly lost. So now, as is typical - especially for State - they go to a friendly press for their sour grapes. There are many precedents. State's role in this thing is very large, and very important. Can't be done without them. BUT - the approach to this role has changed. People not on board can undermine the overall effort sometimes without even intending to do so. And sadly, some intend. I don't view it as disloyalty or treason - they just think theirs is a better way and at the same time probably don't have a r DDderstanding of where their part fits into the bigger picture. Don't assume that "experts" are "expert" in all facets of any operation. They are considered "experts" precisely because they know the minutia of a particular piece. That also tends to narrow thinking and innovation. Sometimes it is better to have "generalists". I would say that placing a loyalty oath statement into an email, to me at least is an incredibly dumb thing to do - were it me, I would have addressed agreement with direction and policy in the interview process. I wouldn't be surprised if the guy got a good spanking for that one. 599703[/snapback] I take your point. I read your posts. I just wish that you allow that you are not the only being out there who has connection with, experience with, and has some level of understanding about the government. It's big. It has it's full share of civil service hanger-on's ant snotty feifdoms. Warts and all, it is better than most. Perfection is a worthy ideal... Do we have some, any points of agreement here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Care to comment on Nassau County DA Kathleen Rice, a DEMOCRAT who "promised" to do away with cronyism and "yes-men", hiring her sister (who has zero experience) a week after her election to a $90,000 gig as her own personal secretary? As Jimmy Griffin said when a Courier Express reporter questioned him about the hiring of his family and friends for key administrative posts "Who'd you expect me to hire....my enemies?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 No doubt, having some knowledge of the personalities involved, and knowing how petty people in Washington can be - some crap indeed came into play, but I don't think it was in terms of placing "unqualified" people into jobs over qualified people because of allegiances. 599703[/snapback] Because this administration always looks far and wide for the most qualified people... Only the best of the best President Bush promoted Myers, 36, to the position [head of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE] last month as a "recess appointment" — temporarily circumventing congressional vetting and approval. [...] Myers previously worked with the person who nominated her, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. She's married to John Wood, Chertoff's chief of staff. And she's the niece of Richard Myers, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. [...] At a September hearing, Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, told Myers he wanted to have a talk with Chertoff, saying, "I'd really like to have him spend some time with us telling us why he thinks you're qualified for the job, because based on the résumé I don't think you are." Whatever, right? ICE only has 15,000 workers and a $4 billion dollar budget. It's just Immigration and Customs, what could go wrong? Who does the hiring for the State Department, again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted February 10, 2006 Author Share Posted February 10, 2006 So are you saying there was something wrong with President Clinton's desires? 599417[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Because this administration always looks far and wide for the most qualified people...Only the best of the best Whatever, right? ICE only has 15,000 workers and a $4 billion dollar budget. It's just Immigration and Customs, what could go wrong? Who does the hiring for the State Department, again? 599739[/snapback] ICE does? God we're in trouble. Fuggin OU fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts