Republican Dilbert Principle

The Dilbert Principle is a business theory suggesting that companies should promote their most incompetent employees to management positions where they can avoid customer interaction and do the least amount of harm to the business.

Media_httpcaseycomblo_afkar

In 2002, then CIA Director George Tenet told President Bush that it was a “slam dunk” that we would find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

President Bush used that as justification to launch a preemptive war against Iraq. To date 1572 American servicemen and woman have lost their lives in this war.

The CIA’s top weapons hunter has ended his search for WMD’s in Iraq without finding any such weapons.

Last December, President Bush awarded Tenet our nation’s highest Civilian honor, the Medal of Freedom for his service to our country. Yesterday, Tenet told an audience he regrets the slam dunk remark.

The Republican Dilbert Principle: Reward managerial incompetence, scapegoat underlings, and invoke 9/11 to justify any costs in lives, money, or reputation of incompetent actions.

The Stink of Tom Delay

Media_httpcaseycomblo_cicjh

“The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today.”
House Majority Leader Tom Delay, 3/31/05

Rep. Tom Delay seems to be in a heap of long overdue trouble. His abuses of power are many, and the Constitution is his frequent target. His most recent outrage, a not too subtle threat against judges who choose to follow the law rather than his own wishes, deserves to be the the last straw.

In my own backyard, Virginia Delegate Jeff Frederick, has enlisted Delay’s support to raise money for his campaign for re-election this fall. It’s easy to see why a first-term Delegate to a state legislature would relish any attention and support from their party’s House leader. But he has to be hoping that whatever money Delay can help deliver doesn’t bring with it the growing stink that comes attached with anything Delay touches.

The time for men to answer for their behavior may indeed be coming, but not for the judges who upheld the law and our Constitution. Instead for the man who has too often displayed utter disregard for the laws and Constitution upon which our government is based, and seeks to make his own rules when they stand in the way of his agenda.

for further reading:

Shame on Tom Delay
Fort-Worth Star Telegram, 4/3/05
(free registration required)

Texecrable
The Free-Lance Star, Fredericksburg, VA, 4/1/05

Tom Delay to help Frederick with Fundraiser
Potomac News, VA, 4/1/05

In Memory of Lirpa Sloof

Media_httpcaseycomblo_ildgd

In March 1994, an acquaintance forwarded to me an E-mail message he had received from a mailing list to which he subscribed. The message referred to a column by John C. Dvorak that appeared in the April 1994 issue of PC Computing magazine, and described a legislative effort under way in the United States Senate. In his column Dvorak described Senate Bill 040194, a bill “designed to prohibit anyone from using a public computer network (Information Highway) while the computer user is intoxicated”, and also make it illegal to “discuss sexual matters”. The bill, sponsored by Senator Patrick Leahy and co-sponsored by Kennedy, was crafted by members of Congress who know so little about computer networks that they think the “Info Highway” is an actual road. The column reported Senator Pat Moynihan asking “if you needed a driving permit to ‘drive’ a modem on the Information Highway! He has no clue what a modem is, and neither does the rest of Congress”.

One ominous result of the bill was the FBI’s plans to conduct wiretaps “on any computer if there is any evidence that the owner uses or abuses alcohol and has access to a modem.” A new law enforcement group called the Online Enforcement Agency was said to be placing want ads soliciting wiretap experts.

With strong support from Baptist Ministers and no member of Congress willing either able to understand technology or “come out and support drunkenness and computer sex”, the bill was on the fast track to passage. Readers were told they could register their complaints with Ms. Lirpa Sloof in the Senate Legislative Analysts Office, whose “name spelled backwards says it all.”

I would have probably found the column to be more amusing had I not been frustrated at how it had chosen to pick Senator Kennedy as a target. But the last thing I’d expected was that anybody could actually believe it to be true. I did have the advantage of certainty. I knew this story was not true. And there were plenty of clues in the story itself to help reader reach that conclusion. The title, “Lair of Slop”, is an anagram for April Fools. At the end of the column, “Lirpa Sloof…Her name spelled backward says it all.”, April Fools. And the bill number itself, 040194, a date, April Fools Day. But even these clues did not prevent a large number of people from believing it. It didn’t take long after PC Computing hit mailboxes and newsstands before the first calls and E-mails began arriving in Kennedy’s office, followed shortly by faxes and letters. The offices of the other Senators mentioned in the article also started hearing from outraged constituents.

I was surprised that people could believe the story, but my surprise grew even more when people I knew personally and who knew of my efforts to put Senator Kennedy online told me of their concern over this bill. Even Jonathan Gourd, sysop of North Shore Mac, the BBS on which Kennedy’s online efforts had begun, posted a message to his system encouraging readers to contact Congress and protest this bill. The whole tale was taken as fact by an even wider audience after initial messages of alarm, posted by people who’d read and believed the article, convinced many others of the Senate’s evil intentions without them having had the opportunity to read the story and perhaps catch the clues for themselves.

It was apparent that this story had the potential to become an “urban legend” of the Net. Just like other oft retold and wildly inaccurate stories such as the one about the proposed FCC modem tax or the dying boy who wanted Get Well cards, the Senate’s Information Highway Drunk Driving Bill was proving to be a tale with legs that could rapidly traverse the Net.

In an attempt to prevent Dvorak’s column from spawning another net legend, I posted an explanatory message (with the article included) to the ACE groups mailing list and encouraged readers to repost it where appropriate to help prevent the rumor’s spread. This message did get around and was reprinted in the widely read RISKS-FORUM Digest among other places. On March 30 a brief article about the hoax appeared in the Washington Post. These efforts seemed to work, calls from concerned constituents decreased.

In late October I received an E-mail message from a gentlemen who described himself as a Ph.D. in physical chemistry and an Internet user. He wrote that he had read the article and was concerned about this bill. Explaining passionately why he felt the bill was wrong, he offered his own expertise to Senator Kennedy as a scientific consultant to help prevent such misguided legislation. I e-mailed him an explanation and by that afternoon he’d sent a note expressing his own embarrassment at having missed the clues and believed the story. He was the last person I heard from on the subject.

In the year following Dvorak’s April Fools stab at the Senate, the Senate passed the Digital Telephony or wiretap bill. It’s purpose is to protect the government’s ability to eavesdrop on the Information Superhighway. In June 1995 the Senate passed the Communications Decency Act, a bill sponsored by Senator Exon of Nebraska, an effort to “clean up” the dark alley’s of the Internet and make them safe for children.

I have a much better understanding now of the people who didn’t see the humor in John Dvorak’s April Fools joke. Ironically, Senator Leahy has been the Senate’s most outspoken advocate for protecting the Net from misguided and damaging government intrusion, and not the sponsor of such as Dvorak’s column made him. Kennedy and Moynihan, both made out as ignorant of the Net in the article, were actually both among the 16 Senators to oppose the Exon bill when it came to a vote in the Senate.

excerpted from ‘The Hill On The Net: Congress Enters the Information Age‘ with the kind permission of the author
copyright 1996-2005 by Chris Casey

The Kilgore Plan for Virginia

Media_httpcaseycomblo_ydrat

The Virginia Young Democrats blog reports on the ‘Plan for Virginia’ from Republican candidate for Governor Jerry Kilgore’s web site. What they found was very interesting.

Body text goes here. Body text goes here. Body text goes here. Body text goes here. Body text goes here. Body text goes here. Body text goes here.

At least it has a catchy title.

Well Done Bob Casey!

So, today I spotted a Google Ad in my blog, linking to the campaign of Democrat Bob Casey. Casey is running for Senate in Pennsylvania as a challenger to the Republican incumbent Rick Santorum. It appeared at the top of yesterday’s post about my daughter’s parade comments to a Republican elephant.

I couldn’t be more pleased with the placement… a Casey, a Democrat, online advertising for his campaign, against Santorum, and right here on my humble site. Well done Bob!

New Scrutiny for Online Campaigning?

So far, the Internet has largely received a free pass in terms of federal regulations of online campaign activities. The 2002 Campaign Finance Law’s ‘Electioneering Communications’ provision did not apply to the Internet. Online communications in any form; banner ads, web sites, online commercials, email… all were exempt from regulation. But a Federal judge overturned that exemption and will require the FEC to reconsider its previous hands-off approach to the Internet.

What could that mean? It could mean that forwarding a campaign email to your personal email list, or speaking positively about a campaign in your blog, or linking your web site to a campaign web site could be considered campaign contributions. It could mean a ridiculous attempt to regulate political communications on the Internet.

The success of online campaigning in the 2004 cycle has demonstrated the Internet’s increasingly important role in our elections. The success of online organizing and fundraising, the small but real growth in online political advertising, and the growing impact of bloggers (in some instances, paid by campaigns) are all evidence of this growing impact. As online campaigning continues to mature an it will certainly be subject to greater scrutiny. But an understanding of the unique nature of the Net must be taken into account when trying to regulate it. Old rules just won’t apply. Otherwise, it could be like trying to make airplanes stop at railroad crossings, just because the busses do. It won’t work, and could be disastrous if attempted.

The Coming Crackdown on Blogging
CNET News.com, 3/3/05

Thanks to BOP for the heads up on the CNET article

Editing Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson saw them coming, the editors who would follow. And he and the other founders recognized that changing times would require the ability to modify the framework of our government (see: Article V).

In 1786 the Virginia General Assembly passed Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, the authorship of which was one of the three accomplishments that he put in his own epitaph (Writing the Declaration of Independence and founding UVA being the other two). Virginia thereby became the first state to disestablish religion.

In the Statute, Jefferson included a warning to future Virginia Assemblies that while they may be able to change the law, doing so would fly in the face of the natural rights on which the Statue was premised.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right.

Well TJ, that succeeding assembly you predicted is here. The House of Delegates has passed House Joint Resolution 537 which would tear down the wall between church and state in Virginia to explicitly protect an individual’s right to pray in public places, including schools. The resolution’s sponsors claim that Jefferson’s intent has been misinterpreted these last 219 years, and that the faithful are being oppressed in a way the founders never foresaw. Opponents see it as a step toward returning prayer to the classroom.

Alexandria writer Mary Clay Berry recently wrote in the Post about her experience with the coercive influence of mixing school and religion growing up in Virginia in the 40s as a cautionary tale of more recent effort by Conservative Legislators to bring religion back into our public classrooms.

Virginia’s pride in his efforts to prevent it not withstanding, Jefferson saw it coming. The small minded legislators who would follow him, and the Theocracy that they’d one day try to bring to America.

Maybe by then there will be a Democracy in Iraq we can flee to.

for further reading:

Va. Proposal Would Make Prayer a Right
The Washington Post, 2/17, 2005

What the Bible Shouldn’t Rule
By Mary Clay Berry, The Washington Post
Sunday, 2/13/05; Page B07

God and Darwin
The Washington Post, 1/25/2005

Constitution of Virginia, Section 16
Free exercise of religion; no establishment of religion.

The ‘Pull Up Your Pants’ Bill

More fun from Virginia’s House of Delegates this session. Today they approved by a 60-34 vote H.B. 1981 which “Provides that any person who exposes his below-waist undergarments in a lewd or indecent manner shall be assessed a $50 civil penalty“.

Now I’m quick to offer my own disdainful smirk whenever I see some slovenly looking teen showing off his boxer shorts like it’s some sort of fashion statement. And if it was my own kid it would earn them a rap on the head and a shouted ‘Pull up your pants!’. But a $50 civil penalty? Ridiculous.

The bill brings penalties for display of undergarments ‘in a lewd or indecent manner’. Is there a tasteful and decent manner for showing off your thong or boxers? What about on the beach, where bikinis and swimsuits differ little from underwear? Does the mean that such items without pants are OK, but if on display hiked up above pants worn over them they are illegal?

C’mon Virginia. That’s twice this week the work of our House of Delegates has made news for their intolerant and stupid legislation. Do some real work or wrap it up and go home.

UPDATE: The Virginia Senate shows some good sense.
Droopy-Pants Bill Dropped in Va. Senate
AP, 2/10/05

Virginia is for “Traditional” Lovers

Virginia is for Lovers, that’s the long standing tourism pitch here in my home state. It’s a pitch that’s been in use for 36 years, so it’s certainly demonstrated some shelf life. Don’t mess with Texas, but come screw in Virginia. It make me feel good about which state I live in.

Another means by which Virginian’s can display our pride in various qualities of our state, our membership in an organization, or support for a cause, is on the license plates we wear on our cars. The Virginia DMV currents offers 180 specialized plates, and our General Assembly is hard at work on a new option promoting ‘Traditional Marriage’.

With only a week remaining in an overloaded session (and just in time for Valentine’s Day), the General Assembly in our state for Lover’s has passed HB 660 which requires that Virginia “shall issue to the applicant special license plates for supporters of traditional marriage. The design of such special license plates shall include the legend: TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE and two interlocked golden wedding bands over a red heart.”

But does this go far enough? I had in mind that perhaps the new plate should specify that our Virginia values can only support the missionary position (for purposes of procreation only thank you). And Waldo Jaquith has done a fine job with a proposed design along those same lines. Well done Waldo.

That our elected officials would waste a moment with such hateful nonsense to promote this opportunity to proudly display our intolerance on our cars is an embarrassment to all Virginians, and a warning to others that Virginia may be only for ‘Traditional’ lovers.

Thanks to Eric Folley for pointing this travesty out

1 9 10 11 12 13 17