FBI Searches New Fed CIO Kundra's Former Offices 173
CWmike writes "While new federal CIO Vivek Kundra gave a speech here this morning on his vision for the US government's use of technology, the FBI conducted a search of the District of Columbia's IT offices — where Kundra worked until last week — and arrested an employee and another person who works for an outsourcing vendor, say reports. There was no indication that Kundra was connected in any way to the FBI's raid, which was part of a bribery sting operation. And if Kundra was aware of what was going on at his former offices or concerned about the raid, it wasn't evident during his speech at FOSE 2009, a trade show focused on government IT. The FBI would not comment on the reports. President Barack Obama last week appointed Kundra to be the federal government's first official CIO."
More (Score:2, Insightful)
Par for the course? (Score:5, Funny)
Okay, so a bunch of his underlings got arrested for a spot of corruption while he was either (a) ignorant or (b) had plausible deniability. I like this guy already. I think he's got a very good handle on what it takes to be a good IT manager. My only other question: Was the soda machine out of Mountain Dew? If so, we have a winner.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Update: The guy is already on leave [cnn.com]. It's amazing how short your political career can be just by being appointed to something by Obama...
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Obama should scale back this "transparency" thing. It seems like everyone he knows has something illegal, corrupt, or somehow shady hanging over him.
Choices... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is Obama just making really bad choices, or is everyone at that high a level in .gov just corrupt?
Re:Choices... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is Obama just making really bad choices, or is everyone at that high a level in .gov just corrupt?
They're puppets who may or may not falsely believe that they have anything like a will of their own or ideas of their own. The real political power is not the President but the corporations and old-money families who put him into office. They don't put a President into office unless he has views that they find to be either favorable or convenient. That's not a conspiracy theory so much as a proposition that entrenched power tends to act in its own interests, and as such, it should be self-evident.
I cannot prove this but I will offer some speculation: the more I have heard of his speeches and his intentions and his beliefs, the more I think that John F. Kennedy was a fluke. He was a fluke because he really did want to represent the people and not the interests that got him into office. I believe that is why he was assassinated -- to those interests, this represented a betrayal or a "double-crossing" and they made an example. Certainly the Mafia could arrange such an event, and I will say that I believe that the monied interests who truly run this country make the Mafia look like a bunch of amateurs, though they prefer to buy people off rather than use brute force. Most people's princples are indeed for sale if the price is high enough, and they know this because they know what corruption is. It's just that occasionally there comes someone who cannot be bought and against whom they don't have some other form of leverage.
I apologize that I do not know the time or place, but this is a quote from a speech delivered by JFK:
The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society. And we are, as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweigh the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in ensuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit, to the extent that it's in my control. And no official of my administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes, or to withhold from the press or public the facts they deserve to know.
An open government of the sort he advocated is quite terrifying to the powers behind the throne. So, I think Obama or any other President probably cannot help but to make bad choices or to have corruption. Even if he himself is a sincere man, he is working within a system that is not designed for sincerity.
Re:Choices... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like JFK, Barack Obama is a product of Chicago Political Machine(TM) — easily the most corrupt [heritage.org] local political system in the nation (think Blagojevich [thepeoplescube.com])... I'd rather JFK and Obama were both flukes — having the nation's President come from such gutters as a rule is rather disgraceful...
Were you as forgiving towards the previous President? More importantly, were the moderators?
Re: (Score:2)
Were you as forgiving towards the previous President? More importantly, were the moderators?
Did the previous president give any evidence of indication that he was a fluke ala JFK ( going against the interests of his class), or was he like JFK solely in the fact that, like JFK, he was born into a wealthy and politically powerful East Coast family?
Are slashdotters really this simple minded? "This guy seems to think both JFK and Obama don't necessarily represent the interests of the wealthy. I wonder if he would extend the same courtesy to Bush?" Well, can you name a few things Bush did that were mo
Re: (Score:2)
Were you as forgiving towards the previous President? More importantly, were the moderators?
Did the previous president give any evidence of indication that he was a fluke ala JFK ( going against the interests of his class), or was he like JFK solely in the fact that, like JFK, he was born into a wealthy and politically powerful East Coast family? Are slashdotters really this simple minded? "This guy seems to think both JFK and Obama don't necessarily represent the interests of the wealthy. I wonder if he would extend the same courtesy to Bush?" Well, can you name a few things Bush did that were more in the interests of the common person, rather than the wealthy?
Brevity is something I've yet to master, so I think you just saved me some effort by explaining that.
Thank you.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The GGP said: "any other President". Hence it was logical to wonder, if he was as tolerant towards corruption under Bush (who, BTW, had no problems appointing cabinet members without problems of tax-dodging).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The GGP said: "any other President". Hence it was logical to wonder, if he was as tolerant towards corruption under Bush (who, BTW, had no problems appointing cabinet members without problems of tax-dodging).
Understanding corruption and accepting the reality of it is not at all the same thing as feeling "tolerant towards corruption" (or excusing it, as you seem to imply), and on that basis I believe you have misunderstood me. I was attempting the former, not the latter.
I find it useful to understand that this sort of corruption is systemic. We'd like to believe that it's the fault of $ONE_GUY, with the exact identity of $ONE_GUY varying depending on whom you ask. Most people you ask will select someone th
Re:Choices... (Score:2)
Wake up, people!
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm, +5 scary conspiracy theory. Have you stayed up all night playing Deus Ex and drinking coffee?
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm, +5 scary conspiracy theory. Have you stayed up all night playing Deus Ex and drinking coffee?
You'll find that there is a conditioned response (not unlike Pavlov's dogs) to instantly ridicule anything that even looks like a conspiracy theory without ever spending a moment to think about its plausibility. Like all self-limiting responses, this one reduces thinking and limits possibility, not in reality of course but in your mind. Like most of our self-limiting responses, this one appears to come from the media. I mean, if you work at Company X and that company makes widgets, you and all of your co
Amusing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why the hell is this marked troll?
It's a valid question.
How many of Obama's choices have had either tax problems or scandals?
Seriously, troll is 100% wrong moderation.
Re:Choices... (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know what's going on with moderation here, but I'll throw my hat in the ring.
Why is this modded Troll?
Why are som of the other posts moderated down?
The politicizing that seems to be going on here is worrisome.
Re:Choices... (Score:5, Funny)
The politicizing that seems to be going on here is worrisome.
You must be new here.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I'm posting AC because I want to remain neutral and not come across as being a conspiracy theorist or promoting these people's views. However, your post makes this very appropriate and I don't think anyone should ever be afraid of information.
The Obama Deception [obamadeception.net] is a new documentary that is being officially released on March 15 '09, but it's up on the torrent sites so you can download it right away. I'm sure the creators won't mind people downloading it, either, since it's very political and they're trying
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
TFS comprehension fail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. Enjoy the country your stupidity has gotten you.
How the hell is this interesting? How did the parent poster fail to comprehend the story?
Since you didn't bother quoting it, and for those too lazy to hit "parent" twice, the original was:
Is Obama just making really bad choices, or is everyone at that high a level in .gov just corrupt?
So, after appointing the guy who underpaid his taxes and blamed it on TurboTax to head the IRS, we have the guy who worked in an office which has been hit by a federal investigation into bribery working as CIO.
Considering that a CIO has purchasing power, it seems to me to be quite a coincidence that our new US CIO's former
Re: (Score:2)
No shit. I am busting my everliving ass to get as many negative mods in this thread as I can, and some jackass comes along and mods me intersting. Trust me, you're nowhere near as unhappy as I am right now.
To answer your other questions, read my other posts around here.
Re: (Score:2)
Just curious: if you really meant that and were not just being facetious, then what is the purpose? That's not intended as sarcasm or a put-down or anything like that; I really want to know.
Re: (Score:2)
Read my Journal.
Offtopic topic? (Score:4, Insightful)
arrested an employee and another person who works for an outsourcing vendor, say reports. There was no indication that Kundra was connected in any way to the FBI's raid
So... what's the big deal?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Offtopic topic? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmmm. Let's rewrite it slightly.
While new republican CIO John Doe gave a speech here this morning on his vision for the US government's use of technology, the FBI conducted a search of the Texas's IT offices â" where Doe worked until last week â" and arrested an employee and another person who works for an outsourcing vendor, say reports. There was no indication that Doe was connected in any way to the FBI's raid, which was part of a bribery sting operation. And if Doe was aware of what was going on at his former offices or concerned about the raid, it wasn't evident during his speech at FOSE 2009, a trade show focused on government IT. The FBI would not comment on the reports. President George Bush last week appointed Doe to be the federal government's first official CIO.
Change anything? IMO, it would have. "Look at the corruption, George Bush is now appointing a CIO of the entire USA from a corrupt Texas IT department that is involved in bribery and sting operations!"
Oh. But this is Obama's administration. Who cares if several appointments of his weren't honest about their taxes (oh, sorry, "forgot" about certain items. Admittedly, in some cases, it did look innocent; but sometimes, not so much, especially for someone that you'd think would know these sorts of things...), that his CIO worked in an IT department that had bribery sting deals going on, or whatever...
Eh. I know Bush administration wasn't good and that most all government is corrupt, blah blah. But that doesn't mean I should just ignore this because it happens to everyone or whatever. If the place he worked has people getting busted for bribery or whatever, then investigation should continue; no, not because she is guilty until proven innocent, but because I think government officials should be held to a pretty high standard. Especially since, in the last 100 years, they've tended to be dishonest.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There was no indication that Doe was connected in any way to the FBI's raid, which was part of a bribery sting operation.
Which reduces this to a story about a couple of low-level employees getting arrested over nothing. Which is about as far from FP Slashdot fare as you can get.
Boring.
And then Timmeh slaps in a quick reference to Obama for the Hell of it.
Lame.
I'm not one to bash Slashdot and its "declining
Re:Offtopic topic? (Score:4, Interesting)
And that's supposed to make us feel good?
The guy was/is the head of that office. He either didn't know about the corruption (as the frigging FEDERAL CIO for the country, that might be a think he'd be expected to know about corruption in his own office) or he was in on it.
Either way, for me, this is 100% a bad sign and should raise a huge red flag.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
He either didn't know about the corruption... or he was in on it.
Above post has serious blinders on. Other possibilities:
Any of these is quite likely, and the last is, exactly the kind of action I would want to see a CEO take if in the course of his work he became aware that something suspicious was happening in his business. What would be the alternative? "I'm firing you two because I'm pretty sure that you're guilty of crimes in my
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't bother you that the guy who is supposed to be the Fed CIO wasn't aware (if that's the case) that there was corruption in his own office?
Cause it bothers me.
Re: (Score:2)
Above post has serious blinders on. Other possibilities:
* he cooperated with the FBI investigation
* he was informed of the FBI investigation before the arrests
* he initiated the FBI investigation
Sure but for any of the above to be true we also have to believe one of the following:
* He forgot to tell the Obama admin about it.
* He told them but they were too stupid to think they would need to have an explaination ready wh
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it sure sounds like you got upset, whether or not we expected you to. ;)
Meh, not sure what the stereotype mention is doing for the argument.
Omniscience from department heads, no. But whether or not he really knew about it is a rather important question at this point, is it not? No, he's not guilty now, and probably won't be, but we should probably make sure. Which it looks like the FBI is doing. And until they conclusively say something about it, I'm not going to defend him and say he's innocent a
Re:Offtopic topic? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not, it's got nothing to do with Dems or Repubs.
No, it doesn't. But, the GP's point is correct: if this had been a member of Bush's administration, this article would already have 500 comments of wailing about how it was Bush's fault, Cheney's fault, and the fault of neo-cons, the Illuminati, FBI, CIA, RIAA, MPAA, etc....
Can you say "partisan"? I knew you could.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, 'cuz everybody's so quiet and respectful in this thread *rollseyes*
Re: (Score:2)
But that'd be a result more of a witch-hunt against Bush rather than Obama apologism. If this had happened during Bush's first year in office, I believe the popular response would've been "and this is news for nerds?".
Which is exactly my personal response now.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it doesn't. But, the GP's point is correct: if this had been a member of Bush's administration, this article would already have 500 comments of wailing about how it was Bush's fault, Cheney's fault, and the fault of neo-cons, the Illuminati, FBI, CIA, RIAA, MPAA, etc....
And, he would flutter gently into his new position, his apparent taint of criminality not having harmed his career in the slightest. Under Obama, he steps down. Can you say "Change"? I knew you could! :)
Re: (Score:2)
They're both right about that much. A plague on both your houses.
Now that's something about which we can violently agree!
The only good thing I can see so far about Obama is he's a very effective speaker. I know he's full of shit and I still want to believe in him.
Don't take away his teleprompter, or it will destroy your last positive illusion.
Re: (Score:2)
Change anything?
No. Answer is the same: *yawn* Let me know when he's implicated in any way, then I'll care.
If Scooter Libby hadn't actually done the Perp Walk, I wouldn't care about him either.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares if several appointments of his weren't honest about their taxes (oh, sorry, "forgot" about certain items. Admittedly, in some cases, it did look innocent; but sometimes, not so much, especially for someone that you'd think would know these sorts of things...), that his CIO worked in an IT department that had bribery sting deals going on, or whatever...
I took all those tax snafus to mean our tax code is so titanic and so flipping confusing that even people that should know better can't make heads or tails of it.
Re: (Score:2)
With such complexity in the US tax system I'd need more info before saying someone's "tax problems" = doing something unethical/immoral.
Re: (Score:2)
Subject (Score:1)
obviously, FBI is lacist.
First order of business: (Score:2, Interesting)
Take a pay cut, show the world that you're not in it for the money, you're in it for the future of technology in the USA.
Then call the BSA, report software piracy in a government office, collect the rest of your salary as the "reporting bonus".
Or, in another thought: It really had nothing to do with him. Just because you work with someone who does something stupid/illegal doesn't immediately make you guilty of also being involved in the stupidity/illegalities. Doesn't mean it doesn't, just means it doesn'
Band of thieves (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there even one person in Obama's administration that isn't a crook, in the same field they are appointed to oversee?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hypocrite.
( just like those who moderated that post as a troll. )
Re:Band of thieves (Score:4, Insightful)
That sight you list is partisan and very pro-Obama. How can they mark 'no earmarks' as a compromise?
I thought it was going to be a good sight to follow until I started seeing things like the above.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh Gee, lots of bibliography. (Score:2, Informative)
...gad zooks!: A ComputerWorld Blog; the writer of whom gets his information from...
...gad zooks!: A political blog; the writer of whom gets his information from...
...his ass.
Nice trail.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
...gad zooks!: A political blog; the writer of whom gets his information from...
...the Washington Post [washingtonpost.com].
FTFY.
You might not like the Washington Post, but it hardly qualifies as "his ass."
There's also the AP [google.com] and, well, plenty of other hits on Google [google.com].
Re: (Score:2)
The CW article cited in TFS [computerworld.com] FBI searches Kundra's former offices as new federal CIO rallies IT troops had a link labeled "the FBI's raid," [computerworld.com] which lead me to:
The CW blog Old office of Obama's CIO pick gets raided by FBI that had a link labeled "raided by the FBI," [politico.com] which lead me to:
a Politico blog FBI raids office of D.C. CTO, Obama appointee which had no links leading to any of the wire services, including the Washington Post.
There's
Mod up (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More info from AP. (Score:2)
Acar worked under Kundra, Obama's pick to coordinate federal computer systems. Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs would not say whether the White House knew the investigation was under way when it named Kundra last week, but called the case "a serious matter."
Acar, a 40-year-old native of Turkey, had a $127,468-a-year position purchasing the city's computer equipment and lining up contract workers for numerous city agencies.
Source: AP [google.com]
Unfair Implication By Headline (Score:2)
It's easy to fool people (Score:3, Interesting)
Flatter them.
Promise them big ideas and big, vague solutions.
Tell them that everyone is equally important.
That's how you make a Crowd happy. Of course, to do that you, you have to be a cynical bastard. That's why most Revolutionary leaders are corrupt people who plunge their countries into New Dark Ages.
Obama, coming from the most corrupt political machine in North America (the Chicago machine), is undoubtedly aware of all these things, and knows how to manipulate them for personal gain. Again, very cynical. But that's the RealPolitik(tm) when you have a huge crowd of people out there who vote with their emotions, based on the appearance of realities they're too lazy to research.
Hope! Change! Hope! Change!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This could be unrelated. He hasn't been arrested yet. However, there does seem to be an early stigma on Obama's appointees and corruption. Obama better hope this guy is clean.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sigh... (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/02/03/washington/AP-Obama-Killefer.html [nytimes.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/opinion/03tue1.html [nytimes.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/us/politics/05richardson.html [nytimes.com]
That is four appointees tied to corruption issues, so the CIO would be the fifth if that were the case.
Then, there is the Blagojevich scandal, which the media was adamant from day 1 that Obama had no knowledge about, and zero possible connection. The media can't know that for certain. Obama may very well be innocent there, but there is a perception of stigma regardless.
Now Obama's replacement, Burris may be charged with perjury and there are calls for him to resign.
Again, Obama probably doesn't know Burris very well, and had no control over whether or not Burris perjured himself, but none of this is good PR.
Re: (Score:2)
Now Obama's replacement, Burris may be charged with perjury and there are calls for him to resign.
Last I knew, Obama wasn't a support of Burris and wanted him to resign.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Please read the full post where I said Obama probably doesn't know the guy very well, and probably has no connection to his perjury.
The point is however, that so long as the issue continues to blow up, it will continue to create bad PR.
After all, there is a slight chance that Obama did have some knowledge that Blagojevich and his wife were both on the take. Burris apparently lied about not knowing. Obama was cleared of wrongdoing before any investigation was done, or any facts came out. Literally, the da
List of Obama appointees who've had to withdraw (Score:5, Interesting)
For future reference, the list so far:
People who haven't withdrawn, but have had major issues:
Will Vivek Kundra be next on the list?
Re:List of Obama appointees who've had to withdraw (Score:4, Interesting)
It should also be noted that Daschle said initially he wouldn't resign over the tax charges, and that Obama said he still stood behind him despite the tax charges. There was some speculation that he changed his mind later because there was more dirt that might come out. Who knows.
My big question with Daschle is that he isn't a laywer, and he claims that he isn't a lobbyist, and Obama promised not to appoint lobbyists, but the tax scandal was part of 2 million dollars in salary (plus perks) given to him by a law firm that specializes in lobbying.
What exactly was Daschle doing for the firm as a non-lawyer and non-lobbyist that he was paid 2 million plus perks?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Daschle is a lobbyist.
That bill Obama just signed in hiding did have 8,500 earmarks and was his job.
I really hope that soon he starts doing the things he said he would do and get moving on the major spending problem this country has had with Clinton and Bush.
Re:List of Obama appointees who've had to withdraw (Score:4, Insightful)
I really hope that soon he starts doing the things he said he would do and get moving on the major spending problem this country has had with Clinton and Bush.
He said he would never allow earmarks: broken campaign promise. He said he wouldn't appoint any lobbyists: broken campaign promise. He said he would fight against NAFTA: broken campaign promise. He said he would fight against wiretapping: broken campaign promise.
But you are still convinced he isn't another corporate shill like Clinton or Bush. I'm sure he attends Bilderberg because he is looking out for the little guy.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't you hear? O will take a year to worry about earmarks for the next budget [yahoo.com]. I love the excuse - he didn't want to change a budget created before he was president. So by this rational he won't care about Gitmo, the Iraq war, or the economy since it was all from policies created before he was pres. Oh wait, I'm apply rationality to politics. Oops
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. He was most likely lobbying on behalf of the law firm. The reason they want to keep it somewhat under wraps is because it's perfectly legal. Who do you think comes up with bills nowadays? Client goes to law firm and says they want a bill that will help them. Law firm draws it up then calls Daschle to figure out who they can get to present it. Then he trades favors for support of
Re:List of Obama appointees who've had to withdraw (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been told in Australia, members of Parliament are very well paid to encourage bright minds to work in government (as opposed to private sector failures), but at the same time, it is illegal for them to take any outside money.
Ross Perot suggested such a system a few years ago, and Congress responded by keeping him out of public debates.
People wonder why the government is so poorly run, and why our economy has issues, but when successful businessmen with a good mind for economics suggest common sense changes (like Forbes and Perot) Congress tries their best to make sure you never hear of it.
Everyone is caught up in the spin that the right is evil, or the left is evil to the point that they miss the message. No one in Washington is working for you. They all protect themselves and their special interests.
My concern is that there is so much hope and trust placed in an Obama administration, that Americans will tune out and assume everything is going to be fine.
No matter the leader, a democracy is best served with informed voters who pressure their government to serve them.
Re:List of Obama appointees who've had to withdraw (Score:4, Funny)
No wonder the Democrats always want to raise taxes. They don't pay anyway!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
After the FIRST guy getting outed on tax irregularities you would think they would be a LOT more careful. But no... another...
I would love to see the Obama administration succeed in many ways for many reasons, but mostly because his success might also lead to the nation's success. But with all this crap coming down, you would think that Obama would have a team of investigators to vet these appointees with a fine-tooth-comb. Can Obama really be that dumb?
My Take (Score:2)
The party rallied around him pretty quickly even though he is young and arguably inexperienced. Most of his opponents within the party went from criticizing him in the primaries, to standing behind him later. I don't know if he made promises to them, or he was just wants to take care of them for taking care of him.
Either way, he has been taking major players in Washington, and giving them jobs. He promises the cabinet would be new faces, and not typical Washington politicians, but that is exactly what he
Re: (Score:2)
I'd chalk all of this up to all long-term politicians being crooked as hell. I really, truly believe that Obama isn't. He hasn't been in the game long enough to have either changed his ways (for the worse) or gotten out of the game altogether. We, as a nation, jumped him into that position because of his refreshing naivete, and although I knew that it would be rough going and he'd have to change tack on a lot of things once he got started, I still think we made the right call.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, that's becoming the problem. The Obama team is being so careful in their vetting that some nominees are dropping out, getting fed up with the whole process.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I love that I get modded troll for DEFENDING the guy and saying he hasn't been arrested yet.
It is just common sense that if Obama's appointees are charged with corruption, that isn't good PR for him. How is that trolling to say Obama better hope he is clean?
Re: (Score:2)
> there does seem to be an early stigma on Obama's appointees and corruption
Whoa there buddy! Haven't you heard? Dissent is no longer the highest form of patriotism. Also, everyone remove your "if you're not outraged you're not paying attention" bumper stickers. All is well.
Re:Sigh... (Score:5, Funny)
Q: What is the difference between Jesus and Obama?
A: Jesus could build a cabinet.
Re:Sigh... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hey, from what I've been seeing and reading, IL politics make LA's look VERY clean and innocent!!
And say what you will about Jindal's TV thing the other night, but so far, he has done a great job down here...a lot of corruption has been ferreted out down here, many people on state and local levels going to jail. It doesn't feel quite like the 'banana republic' it used to be Pre-K.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Yes he is.
but if you deny it you are clearly trolling or obviously ignorant)
Speaking of disingenuous, you might also want to mention, in the interests of not trolling, of course, that the man was not convicted of any crime whatsoever and that thye word "Terrorist", thanks to the valiant efforts of team Bush, no longer has the same cachet it had 8 years ago.
Re:Terrorism? Bribery? What's next? (Score:4, Interesting)
Speaking of disingenuous, you might also want to mention, in the interests of not trolling, of course, that the man was not convicted of any crime whatsoever and that thye word "Terrorist", thanks to the valiant efforts of team Bush, no longer has the same cachet it had 8 years ago.
Why would we want to mention those things? Ayers admits everything he was accused of. Why would the important consideration be that he was never convicted, rather than the fact that he was guilty and admits it? And why would it matter that the term terrorist gets bandied around a lot and applied to some less-than-terrifying activities when Ayers himself was the genuine article - the kind of terrorist who wanted to randomly murder innocent people?
Re: (Score:2)
Because you still technically exist in a Nation of Laws. And his status under the law is the only one that matters, at least in general. That's why, you know, he's a professor, and not dead or in jail. If you don't like that, your problem's not with him, but the system.
randomly
Have you listened to or read Ayers at all? His goals and actions were not random: His objective and targets were clear.
Re: (Score:2)
Because you still technically exist in a Nation of Laws.
The rule of law means you don't go to jail if you don't get convicted. It does not mean that murdering people is fine so long as you don't get caught.
This is exactly why some people are troubled by Obama's association with Ayers. It indicates that, just like you, and far too many lawyers, he can tell the difference between legal and illegal, but he has no clue when it comes to the difference between right and wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
And thank fuck for that, say I. Once again, nation of laws, not nation of whatever random dispshit thinks is "right" and "wrong". (Hint: Yours are not mine, vice versa and double for everybody else.)
Thanks for playing.
Re: (Score:2)
People who believe otherwise usually forget that its possible all the people who disagree with their 'right and wrong' may end up with the power to make their own actions illegal.
While good strong moral behaviour has its benefits, it is not the purview of the legal system, and should not be.
The emperor's tailor couldn't have said it better (Score:2)
"Forgetting for just a moment that one of President Obama's best friends is a well known terrorist (not going to list all of the sources on this, but if you deny it you are clearly trolling or obviously ignorant);"
Actually, you're wrong on both counts. Bill Ayers isn't one of Obama's best friends and prior to the last presidential campaign, hardly anyone under the age of 55 had ever heard his name.
Re: (Score:2)
Does that work?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The wife of one of Bush's close friends helped to fund the 9/11 terrorist attacks, [cnn.com] and Bush has had dealings with Osama bin Laden's brother, Salim bin Laden. What does that tell you about Bush and terrorism, about Bush's involvement in 9/11?
You're correct, it tells you nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless, your parallel with Bush is not relevant, because it (for one thing) is much more indirect, and was only investigated as a possibility. Read the article you linked to: "An investigation by her office has found the princess sent money to a woman on her charity recipient list and that woman then sent the money to the students."
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty relevant, because while Ayers is a known terrorist, friendship between Ayers and Obama is conjecture based on the fact that they live in the same neighborhood and have met. While Princess Haifa has retained plausible deniability WRT 9/11 (as thin as it is, since Saudi "charity" organizations were well known pathways for rich Saudis to funnel money to terrorists), her friendship with the Bush family is well established.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't mind Anonymous trolls. Mainly because you can't stop crazy. But the fact that others apparently feel inclined to mod this informative points to crazy being more mainstream than I'm comfortable wtih.
The best part of the rant: collaboration between Nazis and Communists. The only thing missing in that attack on the Red White and Blue is gays and Mexicans. That's some delusion at work there.
Re: (Score:2)
How long before "news for nerds" includes fashion and beauty stories?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot race-baiting and gun-grabbing in your list of adjectives. Looks like there's something for everyone to dislike!