Killing the Fourth Amendment and accountability for its violations (after promising to filibuster to protect it) was certainly change we can believe in, but it just wasn't enough, was it?
Even if it's legal to spy on everyone, every way, all the time, for whatever reason, it's just so damn time-consuming. And perhaps you don't have access to enough such resources as a sitting Senator, while you face a two-month wait for the mohel who will trim the "elect" off of President-elect.
But not to worry. In this market, and for the chance to work in a transcendent movement, you can ask applicants just about anything.
Requirements for applying for a job with the Obama administration include submitting e-mails you sent and blog posts you wrote that might be considered "embarrassing" to the new Prez, and much, much more.
That e-mail you sent to Zak about the three-way you had in Schenectady? Make sure you print out the whole thread and send it in, including the part where you wonder about those sores on your manhood. Of course, you didn't call it "manhood" in the e-mail. While those sores turned out to be nothing, that e-mail's apparently going to haunt you for the rest of your life. And no fair holding it back, because the part where you found out Ashley's friend Kim was a guy, someone might find that embarrassing, so you owe it to the 44th President.
That blog post you wrote under some pretentious Greek name or other, where you called Obama a weasel for changing his position on campaign-financing? Stand and deliver, buddy. Not to worry, "weasel" isn't that bad, is it? But, still, if you'd only thought to censor yourself! What the hell were you thinking?
Before you settled on "Heroicus," you used to post as "Bongmeister420." Inquiring minds want to know:
The application also asks applicants to “please list all aliases or ‘handles’ you have used to communicate on the Internet.”
Hmm, maybe there were a couple of times when you tweeted the answer to "what are you doing?" that perhaps you just shouldn't have said anything.
Oh, and make sure you give your Facebook page a good scrub, since you need to send them the link to it. Wouldn't want those Halloween pix to, y'know, embarrass anybody.
When you don't get the job, maybe it wasn't any of those awkward, and entirely germane, revelations that ruined it. After all, you had to tell them about your sister's gun. Yeah, it makes her feel safer walking home at night, but how dare she complicate your application like that!
Let us all wish we'd heeded the words of the great American, Ari Fleischer: "they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is."
NOTE: I see that Lambert already posted on this topic. Early birds and all that.
- vastleft's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[CSE]+#b94+
Front page
Comments
I think it's called "vetting"
Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. This isn't the same as a Fourth Amendment violation. You have no inherent RIGHT to hold a federal job, so the prospective employer may ask any questions that are legal to ask.
It's rather standard for a government entity to vet prospective candidates for anything embarrassing in their backgrounds that could reflect on the administration or compromise their ability to do their jobs without scandal. This is just a modernized version of vetting and a background check. I may not like it, but I fail to see where it's a 4th issue.
I didn't claim it was a 4th Amend. violation
OTOH, the FISA bill that Obama greased the skids for was.
This "vetting" approach is, however, extraordinarily intrusive, at a level that is bound to put a chill on people's exercise of their First and Second Amendment rights.
"Vetting"
...by people who still believe the Internetz are a series of tubes, not trucks. They want copies of ALL the posts AND COMMENTS applicants have ever made on blogs. And diaries. Wow, my pre-computer days 5th-grade ramblings are scintillating. But not nearly as juicy as later.
*Disqualifying Statement (DQS): Buncha a freakin voyeurs.
And the "are you now or have you ever been a communist" clause: Have you or your spouse ever been associated with an individual or association that might, ahem, cause us "embarrassment"?
Surprised they don't ask about complete health records--mental and physical. And perhaps a reference from an acceptable televangelist.
Meet the new boss, as progressive as the old boss.
Obama is demanding to know all associations of possible hires?
Bcz they might embarrass him? He of the Ayers' association, Rev. Wright, Felon Retzko???
This is too precious!
Oh, they have learned the gotcha game, haven't they?
I guess I shouldn't send in my resume, then?
Actually, I probably shouldn't; that is definitely not "bloom where you're planted" material.
I see the need for "vetting" -- but the potential for abuse is rife, too. I guess what I'm looking at is the creation of the inner, inner circle.
And it's also noteworthy that apparently, since John Brennan made it through, it's OK to advocate torture and warrantless wiretapping. But if you said something mean on the Internet? Forget about it.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
your unity pony
won’t get you into the inner circle anymore.
it was inevitable, so I'll say it
Prospective hires are being vetted more thoroughly than the candidate was.
Mindreader.
Even if something is discovered down the line, they covered up for Bush. I guess they can do it for this one, too.
Oh, yeah. Don’t think the
Oh, yeah. Don't think the irony escapes me. Just because I don't think it's a 4th amendment issue doesn't mean I think it's a suck-free zone or anything.
Given some of my postings across the Intertubes, I won't be applying for a position there in this lifetime.
completely!
exactly right.
but that's how it always is with power and closed communities like DC--those that are approved by them can get away with murder or worse--it doesn't matter. It's those who want access or benefits from those in power who have to turn themselves inside out -- and prove themselves cleaner than the ones deciding on their fates.
also inevitable?
When Cheney interviewed prospective VP candidates, he got all the dirt on them. That must have come in handy.
I'm foggy on this-but didn't a potential VP candidate say things
were used against him which could only have come out of the vetting process? I'm sure it was a Repub.
Can't recall if it came from Cheney or someone up to be McCain's VP.
So foggy I'm not sure how to search for it...anyone recall?
they're wary, bec of the bloggers they hired early on--
who was it? Shakesville?
remember?
(also-- they're control freaks)
oops-- it was Pandagon and Shakesville for Edwards--
http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/?p=1478
Common sense
Who in their right mind wouldn't do the same?
Part of the structural end of the political process is that new administrations get to stuff the government offices with those they find compatable. Every administration does it, since the beginning of time. Suddenly the Dems are supposed to be different? Why? If they weren't doing this, I'd say something is seriously wrong with them.
BushCo vetted applicants on the basis of association and positions, but did it in secret and made decisions not on merit but affinity even when the law forbid it. Obama is doing his vetting right out in the open, fair warning for all concerned, and no evidence has been presented that in doing so any laws are being violated. There will always be vetting; an open admission of the process is as good as it gets.
I couldn't imagine asking prospective employees to...
divulge their anonymous online identities, to fork over all potentially embarrassing e-mails, or whether their relatives own guns.
I guess that's one more sign that my mind isn't "right."
Are you vetting federal employees?
because that would be the difference.
Slinging hash or pouring drinks or whipping up a latte not so much; federal policy and administration, good idea to know what people think and have done. You think this is intrusive, ought to see what a high-level security clearance vet is like; they will, literally, crawl up your ass.
Please ease off a bit on the personalization, VL; "in their right mind" would apply to the Obama recruiting team, not to you. Assuming of course that you aren't in RL a deep insider....
"not on merit but affinity even when the law forbid it"
you have no proof Obama's not doing exactly the same.
this is not for security checks and clearances--this is before that--this is the campaign/transition staff alone demanding information -- that is intended not to prove merit at all--it's intended to knock out those who may not meet whatever non-substantive litmus tests they have -- and to discover affinities both pro and con.
Oh Noes! Once again I have failed to prove a negative.
a: "you have no proof Obama’s not doing exactly the same"
You'd think I'd get the hang of that. Still, the use of a double negative in a demand for proof of a negative, Bonus Points!
Of course they are vetting for philosophical/political compatability - why ever would they not do that? What kind of a fool would go to all the trouble to get elected president and them just open the hiring to anyone who wanders in?
All administrations, for ever and ever, have done this to the best of their ability; adding internet info is nothing more than a recognition that the medium exists and can be a source of both information about the applicant and of potential embarrasment. Vetting candidates is to be expected; this is what we call normal behavior.
you're agreeing with me--it's affinity, not merit.
If you're ok with it when Obama does it, why not when Bush did it?
I agree they all do it--and should do it. But i'm partisan, and divisive, and a fighter.
It's not out in the open at all if we don't know exactly what the criteria are for exclusion and inclusion-- it's beyond naive to somehow contrast Obama's actions to Bush's without knowing exactly what they're looking for/at -- and why.
plus-is this for career positions too?
that was the problem with Bush doing it--that he did it for all positions--not just political appointments.
He placed thousands in career positions thruout the Exec. Branch and all Agencies/Depts--who are still there, and who are not leaving when Bush does--and who we know are "loyal Bushies" for sure.
No, don't get your hopes up
No agreement here.
Of course there will be affinity decisions. Do you really think the Dems are going to bring in Ron Paul as Secy of State? In much, maybe most of the administration, affinity testing is perfectly fine and normal and even desirable; elections, as it were, have consequences.
At higher levels it is often far and away the overiding concern and most presidents/CEOs go overboard, creating a bubble of self-affirming reflection that in the end hampers their ability to make informed decisions. That isn't, from all accounts, Obama's style, nor is there evidence here that the vetting questions will be used to universally select away from responsible dissent. They could as easily be read as a way to keep out full-on loonies and Christianist
infiltrators, and as a means to plan ahead for dealing with any embarassments rather than having to do so reflexively. Absent evidence, deciding it must mean something bad is simply a symptom of Obama Sux Syndrome (OSS).
What BushCo did, everywhere, was select only on the basis of affinity; competence and skill were disregarded. In the DOJ instance, this practice was against all guidelines and custom, and probably illegal.
You have no evidence that anything similar is happening under Obama. Until you do, trying to conjure up wrongdoing only dilutes any ability to focus on areas of real concern, where real events are taking place. It is crying "Wolf!" and will have the same effect, a numbing towards and diminishment of concern for real danger.
Partisan
does not have to equate with kneejerk, divisive does not have to be an OCD manifestation, and being a fighter is only valuable if the fight is righteous and neccessary. Randomly picking partisan fights for the sole sake of engendering divisiveness is not of benefit, to anyone.
no it's ALL Politicians Sux Syndrome--
and it's based on real politicians of both parties and what happens when they get power. it's based on reality and history.
it's about looking at all pols with a skeptical eye -- and not ever thinking any are better simply because they are D instead of R.
it's that none of them ever deserve the benefit of the doubt--ever. not one.
all humans suck, then
I am blessed with a large number of decent politicians around me, and have worked from time to time with decent politicians all over the country and around the world. They're just human, with the same range of feelings and failings as the rest of us. Most of them, in my experience, are mostly decent people trying to do a decent job at a difficult task. I know I couldn’t do it.
Angry and suspicious all the time, without demonstrable reason, takes away from my mellow and I have precious little of that as it is. Not interested for my self and IMNSHO it does no good to treat every single act by every single other person as a potential affront. Too exhausting, and takes away from the ability to muster support for real and big problems. Way too much ObamaSux happening, way too little measured analysis, but that is just my opinion.
decent is as decent does--
most especially for those who are public servants that we have given great power and the ability to affect our lives in all ways.
and people wonder why some
and people wonder why some of us become crazy cat ladies . . . .
one of the really good things about living almost all my life among conservatives [and having a handful of politicians in the family too] has been knowing-without-realizing-it that people aren't "the enemy" just because they can be grouped under a hated label [politician, lawyer, liberal, conservative, nra member, christian, _______].
definitely not the enemy--
But when Presidents and other pols approved of by the media and Village
are treated as above the law, and protected and lied about consistently -- and we're getting information about those pols from that same media (or not getting it)--people who have proven themselves untrustworthy--then a clear record has been established and the pattern is all too recognizable, no? Trust in politicians and those telling us about them is eroded -- overall and as groups -- the whole country (and world) has been harmed way too much for us to ignore history.
this is a perfect example of what i mean--Greenwald: Post-partisan harmony vs. the rule of law -- http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/13/partisanship/index.html
most people are trustworthy
and most of us have points beyond which we're not, or certain subjects on which we're not trustworthy.
present-day media outlets [as well as most of the big bloggerz] have proven themselves to be especially unworthy of the trust we've placed in them in the past, haven't they?
i've always considered politicians to be my employees [though i like bio's construct too, thinking of them as tools]. the notion that they're our leaders has always struck me as odd, even unworkable.
if they're looking for "loyal Obama-ies",
like Bush only hired "loyal Bushies", that's one thing--and lame but expected. (And totally opposite to the lies all along about bipartisanship, bla bla bla.)
if they're looking to eliminate all who could be used against them and is potentially politically embarassing, like the stuff that made Amanda and Melissa have to quit, that's just pathetic --and an indication of how they'll govern and make policy--like spineless cowards.
if they're looking for proof of some stupid worldview that's against "partisan", "divisive" fighting and "old politics", etc -- that means no fighters at all will be hired or approved. No one who believes in issues strongly enough to fight for them can pass that test.
related--"disclose all meetings with lobbyists"
"... At a minimum, President-elect Obama must deliver on campaign pledges to require political appointees to disclose all meetings with lobbyists, to bar appointees from working on issues involving former employers and to block departing appointees from lobbying the administration for its duration. This is the sort of change voters are counting on. Mr. Podesta vows that they will not be disappointed. Even if tough ethics bar the service of a lobbyist with valuable expertise, “so be it,” he said. Erring on the side of caution is the only hope for managing the lobbying throngs. ..."
-- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/opinio...
let's see if ALL employees/appointments are held to the same standard they're using for folks who have been online. i doubt it.
Public versus private venues
I understand disclosing online identities. You shouldn't post something publicly if you don't stand by it and are not willing to have your identity revealed. Its also easier to be a complete ass when you are anonymous. (OK, personal contact and address info are a different beast, particularly for the small potatoes folks.)
But having to divulge emails? Do those racy emails sent to your significant other or current fling have to be sent in? This sort of intrusive policy suggests that only saints should apply. You can't do anything anymore, it seems.
Only tyrants rig elections.
All the better to keep you in line, my dear
I don't know if this stuff will disqualify, I think it more likely, that if you don't tow the line, your online indentity will be leaked, Plame-style, and a media frenzy over your online postings will begin, allowing the Obama admin to throw you under the bus.
I think online anonymity serves a valuable purpose, and should be protected.
i can haz hillary nao?
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
Gentle reminder: one toes the line politically, but tows a car
...or the line that pulls a barge or boat, for examples.
Easy to type the wrong one--but it's a pet differentiation I try to bring attention to bcz so many don't know the distinction.
I debated which one
And IMHO it still seems that tow works better.
i can haz hillary nao?
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
and people wonder why some
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
You've heard of ratings?
That's what's going on.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
apologies
that was a duplicate post, and it appeared to disappear when i tried to edit it. probably a feature/bug of having cats help me with blogging.
speaking of cats, here, have some kittens.
Oh, pwnd
by the kyootness!
Full text of Obama job application questions
Here, a PDF.
looks like question 31
has 'clinton' written in the margin beside it.
obama has struck me from the beginning as being awful gosh-darned puritanical, and this doesn't do anything to dispel that impression. otoh, it can be useful to know ahead of time if any of your appointees or associates are going to embarrass you.
i can't imagine any person worth their salt being able to pass all 63 of those with flying colors.
And we're the ones who can't "get over it"?
Sheesh. Trace that little lagniappe, and you've traced the source of the PDF.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
I thought that was metaphor
When you said "had Clinton written next to it".
Just one more kick in the teeth to somebody who did everything asked of her. Then again, maybe it was written there sardonically by a Clinton supporter, who then leaked it.
-----------------------------
Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites
-----------------------------
I'm not such a bad guy once you get to know me.
Source of the PDF is the NYTimes
Link was from their web page with the feature story; who knows where they got the original.
Odd, the reaction here to the notation. I just scrolled through the pages to make sure it was intact and legible, meant to came back and look at the note but damn, old age and all, by the time I got to the last question I'd forgotten all about it. Apparently my curiosity trigger is not permanently set off by "Clinton."
Perhaps those who are triggered could explain why to the rest of us; what is it about this anonymous one-word scribble that gives meaning? I haven't the faintest idea what, either to the person who made the notation or to the people at the Times who didn't clean it up or to anyone reading it.
Why does it mean anything at all, to anyone except the person who wrote it, and how can we know what it meant to them? Was it written by the source, or by the reporter who first laid hands on it, or by some editor before it was scanned?
How is one word on the margin of a large document in any way a negative towards Hillary? How do we know it was Hillary being referred to and not Bill? If it is Hillary, in what context and with what regard?
This questionnaire isn't for the likes of the Hillary Clintons of the world, but for lower level people who have not been fully vetted before. There isn't anyone on the planet who has had their affairs more thoroughly scrutinized than the Clintons, and there are no surprises left to find that would have any meaning.
My guess, on reflection, is that it was a quick scribble meant to remind someone that during the campaign Bill was a little cagy about where all his foundation money originates, and maybe there's a story in that. Otherwise, I don't see how it could mean anything at all.
I think we can safely say Obama wouldn't pass all 63 questions.
I love this job!
I love this job!
Not a pass-fail exam
We don't have the grading key, so we don't know what would be bad or good in the way of answers. If it were mine to administer, I'd be looking to exclude the crazys and those with problems too big to paper over. For the rest it is praemonitus praemunitus, forewarned is forearmed; almost anything can be spun, it is a matter of how much effort will be required versus the benefit of the hire.
Would any private employer be allowed to ask job applicants
these questions?
Shouldn't many of these be asked when the decision is made or when narrowed down to one or two for a position? Yikes!
Not a private employer
The comparison is not apt.
Part of ther reason for the length and depth of the questioning is precisely to weed out in advance as many applicants as possible. There is only so much time and only so many applications can be reviewed; having potential applicants remove themselves because they cannot or will not answer is a feature, not a bug.
These sorts of questions are the ones necessary to avoid
repeating the Sarah Palin implosion.
Theoretically the Dems shouldn't need to ask them.
But there it is.
We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18
Sarah Palin didn't implode
She was a political lightweight who punched beyond her weight class, due to her charisma and the blowback from moronic culture-war attacks on her from the left.
McCain's campaign was dead, dead, dead until he flung that Hail Sarah pass. The addition of her made his ticket nearly viable.
Spelunking through her Facebook page wouldn't have changed anything. She was obviously incurious and inexperienced re: national and international issues, and she was chosen in spite of (and perhaps to some degree, because of) that.
Missing the point on purpose?
I beg to differ that Palin's effect on the ticket was anything other than catastrophic. National polls consistently ran to a majority saying she was unqualified or unready as VP.
Sexist you can call me if you want but I agree with them.
The woman the GOP picked to run was not chosen because she was qualified on the bases of experience, savvy, or policy. She was picked because (1) she was female and (2) she was "hot" -- from the point of view not merely that she was under 50, under size 6, and anti-choice, but also because she was telegenic (if you could script her).
She was a sacrificial lamb on the altar of pandery.
We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18
We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18