Reading an article in the Washington Times about the nation’s top general cautioning youngsters about getting too outré in their Facebook and Twitter offerings I came across the following:
Evan Lesser, managing director of ClearanceJobs.com, said there are three main categories of online behavior that can disqualify someone for a security clearance: illegal behavior, criminal acts and poor judgment.
Obviously someone told Mr. Lesser that when making a case one should always provide three examples. So provide them he did. Even though it seems pretty difficult to distinguish between illegal behavior and criminal acts. Had Mr. Lesser’s style book prescribed four examples would the sentence have read … illegal behavior, criminal acts, breaking the law, and poor judgment?
Or is the lesson, perhaps, that just because we can instantaneously publish something for the world to see without going through all the rigamarole of the Dead Tree Era doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to go directly from vision to viral. A little judgment might be nice and maybe even a little copy-reading could be in order prior to hitting the PUBLISH button.
Seems like an article about taking care about what gets published online became the proof of its own pudding.
Tags: leading by example
Recently there has been a lot of boasting coming out of Washington about just what wonders the U.S. Government can accomplish. Several have pointed smugly to the Hoover Dam when they weren’t talking about building high-speed choo-choos or piling up enormous debt to fix hundreds of shovel-ready infrastructure problems.
They did that just to get us interested. So we could see what they’re capable of once they get over their nervousness. They know that dam they’re always bragging about could never be built today. They figured that once we noticed there wasn’t a single high-speed train running and they told us that the punchline to the $500,000,000.00 gag was that there were no shovel-ready infrastructure projects we’d be sufficiently revved-up to appreciate their headline act:
The Gov of Healthcare!
And ya gotta admit, this is one helluva show.
A new post over at the Powerline Blog gives us some idea just how far out this bunch of cutups is willing to go.
For example, when you have a huge IT installation ready to go you don’t change several things at once. Because that way if there’s a problem you don’t know if it’s one big problem or eighteen little problems or if everything’s fine in isolation but working together the elements create an evil synergy that cooks everybody’s goose.
But our friends at Powerline inform us that the dauntless contortionists at Cirque du Olé (dot-gov) are willing to suffer humiliation and ridicule and interminable lawsuits just to keep us on the edges of our
sanity seats. So the day before the system goes live (again):
But specialists said weeks of additional work lie ahead, including a major reconfiguration of the computer hardware, if the $630 million site, Healthcare.gov, is to accommodate the expected flood of people seeking to buy health insurance. Without the additional changes, experts predict, the website may continue to crash during periods of peak use.
And for God’s sake don’t get any software people involved! Years of placating politicians is all the experience that’s needed!
“We think we have the capacity to handle the demand,” said Jeffrey Zients, an administration official who served as the acting director of the Office of Management and Budget and is overseeing the site repair efforts.
Users say the site looks better, pages load faster, and more people are getting through to sign up for health plans.But technical problems still affect HealthCare.gov’s ability to verify users’ identities and transmit accurate enrollment data to insurers, officials say. The data center that supports the site faces continuing challenges, and tools for processing payments to insurers haven’t been built.
Who needs arithmetic, anyway? The important thing is: Keep ‘em entertained ’till after the election.
After reading this short piece in National Review Online I am forced to ponder if things would have been much different in Uganda under Idi Amin.
A couple of weeks back, cancer patient Bill Elliot, in a defiant appearance on Fox News, discussed the cancelation of his insurance and what he intended to do about it. He’s now being audited.
Insurance agent C Steven Tucker, who quaintly insists that the whimsies of the hyper-regulatory bureaucracy do not trump your legal rights, saw the interview and reached out to Mr Elliot to help him. And he’s now being audited.
Liberals will insist that, even though they are promoting a program that will harm your life, it will be better. Not better for you. Just better. And they will go door-to-door until they sell it.
Jack Russells yap. And they yap. And they yap. And sooner or later the yapping becomes background noise so that we don’t really notice it and then they get the yapping made into laws.