Draining the Swamp

[Shapley]

Mr Bush has had 8 years to earn that treatment.

The treatment started with the 'stolen' 2000 election, and has been relentless since, with the possible exception of a brief period following the incidents of 9/11/01.

[jamiebk]

You know....I am all for due process and speedy trial and everything we are guaranteed by our constitution, but honestly...what doubt can there be about this man's guilt? They have him on tape...clearly, plainly "selling" the Senate appointment. Blagojavich's comments here are laughable. He's delusional (and he's a crook).

###################################
CHICAGO - Gov. Rod Blagojevich said Wednesday he is ready to tell his side of the scandal to the people of Illinois and that he would do so no later than Thursday.

"I can't wait to begin to tell my side of the story and to address you guys and, most importantly, the people of Illinois. That's who I'm dying to talk to," he said as he left his home Wednesday morning for a jog.

"There's a time and place for everything. That day will soon be here and you might know more about that today, maybe no later than tomorrow." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28277848/

[piqaboo]

Why does anyone expect the Gov of Ill to do the right thing or even the dignified thing?
If he were that kind of person, he wouldnt be in this position now.
Just enjoy watching it play out, and enjoy the righteous indignation.

[jamiebk]

Why does anyone expect the Gov of Ill to do the right thing or even the dignified thing?
If he were that kind of person, he wouldnt be in this position now.
Just enjoy watching it play out, and enjoy the righteous indignation.

This will be better than Judge Judy.

[Haggis@wk]

Why does anyone expect the Gov of Ill to do the right thing or even the dignified thing?
If he were that kind of person, he wouldnt be in this position now.
Just enjoy watching it play out, and enjoy the righteous indignation.

What disturbs me is the idea that he must of thought he could get away with this because someone else got away with it in the past???

[Shapley]

Agency Director Resigns After Spying on 'Joe the Plumber' on State Computers

Department of Job and Family Services Director Helen Jones-Kelley said in a statement accompanying her resignation that she won't allow her reputation to be disparaged and that she is concerned for her family's safety.

"This decision comes after a time of pause, in which I realize that I continue to be used as a political postscript, providing a distraction from urgent state priorities," she said in her statement.

She could not be reached for additional comment Wednesday night.

What seems to be missing is any acknowledgement that she acted improperly. She seems to be claiming that she is some sort of victim here.

Investigators could not confirm that Jones-Kelley accessed the records of Wurzelbacher with political gain in mind. His report did indicate that she had used her personal Blackberry to send the Obama fundraising requests — though it was synched up to state equipment.

Intersting....

[jamiebk]

So...What crime has been committed here?

[Shapley]

So...What crime has been committed here?

It is illiegal to access records except for official business. She did access the records, and there apparently was no official business with her department involving Mr. Wurzelbacher at the time, so the access was improper. The investigation did conclude that she accessed them, but could not conclude that she did so for political gain, thus the suspension. Whatever her reason, the access was wrong.

When we entrust people with sensitive personal data, we expect that they will utilize that data on an 'as needed' basis. This is why banks, credit card companies, and other institutions entrusted with personal data go to the trouble and expense of posting and sending 'privacy policy' notices. When one violates that trust, they are in the wrong. I'm not saying it is necessarily a dismissable offense, as that depends on what is done with the data obtained. However, I do expect an acknowledgement that one has violated that trust. Failure to do so indicates that the person who has done so lacks an understanding of the sensitive nature of the data with which they are entrusted, and thus are unqualified to be so entrusted. Had she merely seen his name on television and, out of curiosity, decided to check the records under her care to see if he was in them, she might be forgiven had she said "it was wrong, I'm sorry, and I won't commit such an error again.". She didn't, or at least has not been reported to have done so. Instead, she seems to be claiming that she is being victimized for her actions.

I merely noted that I found the fact that she was communicating with the Obama fundraising team at the time 'interesting'.

[jamiebk]

Her boss is probably a Republican...

[Haggis@wk]

So...What crime has been committed here?

Crime? probably none. Most government agencies state/federal/local have procedures in place that restrict access to government online data to official use only. There does not appear to be any justification for accessing Mr. Plumber's data except for unofficial reasons.

I saw an article this morning that he plans to sue everyone involved and, for once, I think that's a good idea.

Obamamania seems to make otherwise normal people think that anything that furthers his image/agenda is acceptable. For instance, his website that encourages questions from the public is being zealously monitored by his supporters and any question that seems remotely critical is buried under a flurry of "inappropiate" inputs, driving the question off the list.

All Americans shoul be a little concern that he has his own electronic "brown shirts" who determine what is and isn't acceptable.

[Shapley]

There is a lot of that sort of thing that goes on. Personal data is 'leaked' about people who ruffle feathers. I had a small dose of this when I was in city politics. My stepson's financial data somehow found its' way from the bank into the hands of a political operative who I had ticked off over a certain political issue. I didn't bank in town myself, so my own data was not accessed. I'm sure some bank employee was just 'curious' as to his financial status after seeing my name in the papers, and I'm sure that data just happened to be mentioned in casual conversation with the political operative (just as I'm sure pigs were on the wing at the time).

Having a privacy policy in place help to prevent this. By restricting access of data by the 'curious', we minimize the probability that such data will accidentally find its' way into the hands of those who have no need to know it.

[jamiebk]

There is a lot of that sort of thing that goes on. Personal data is 'leaked' about people who ruffle feathers. I had a small dose of this when I was in city politics. My stepson's financial data somehow found its' way from the bank into the hands of a political operative who I had ticked off over a certain political issue. I didn't bank in town myself, so my own data was not accessed. I'm sure some bank employee was just 'curious' as to his financial status after seeing my name in the papers, and I'm sure that data just happened to be mentioned in casual conversation with the political operative (just as I'm sure pigs were on the wing at the time).

Having a privacy policy in place help to prevent this. By restricting access of data by the 'curious', we minimize the probability that such data will accidentally find its' way into the hands of those who have no need to know it.

If it was a HIPAA violation, the person could go to jail for up to 10 years and/or face fines of up to $250,000.

[Shapley]

If it was a HIPAA violation, the person could go to jail for up to 10 years and/or face fines of up to $250,000.

True. And it may have qualified, but it wasn't worth the effort, and we weren't sure of the source, only that she had information that could only have come from the bank, or from the government agencies with which such information is filed. My belief is that, since it was a small town and she was 'small potatoes', the information was likely gathered locally rather than from goverment sources, but I could be wrong. No real harm was done with her access to the data. I do believe, however, that the employee that passed the data was unfit to be entrusted with such information.

[Haggis@wk]

JUDICIAL WATCH ANNOUNCES ITS LIST OF Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” for 2008. I don’t really want any of them.

Number Two is Chris Dodd:

Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT): Question: Which member of the U.S. Senate tookthe most campaign money from corrupt institutions Fannie Mae and FreddieMac? Answer: Chris Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. Given this fact there is little reason to wonder why Senator Dodd blocked reform proposals for Fannie and Freddie, calling them “ill advised.” Dodd’s willingness to protect Fannie and Freddie would alone merit a spot on the”ten most corrupt list,” but there is much more. Dodd was also nabbed for accepting preferential treatment and loan terms from Countrywide Financial.The Connecticut Senator admitted earlier this year that he was told in 2003 when he refinanced two properties that he was being placed in Countrywide’s”VIP Program,” but said he believed this was simply a courtesy that had nothing to do with his position in the U.S. Senate. This is either a blatant lie or horribly naïve for a man who has served in the Senate for more than 25 years and currently chairs the Senate Banking Committee that regulates the mortgage industry. We’re not buying it.

Don Young and Ted Stevens, though, only make positions 9 and 10. If I were them I’d demand a recount.

Oh wait, the list is alphabetical. D’oh!

[Haggis@wk]

Heh.
BLAGO VORTEX:

“Really, it’s fascinating how one crooked state pol can ensnare both the new presidential administration and Congress. The Obama team is lawyering up, the Senate will be sued, and the grand jury in Illinois will spend months reeling in more witnesses who, in turn, may implicate still more politicians. It’s hard to recall a single figure who has caused as much consternation and litigation.”

I suspect the only growth industry in Chicago will be trial lawyers.....

[Shapley]

Mr. Burris has apparently shown up in Washington demanding to be seated. Sen. Reid is softening his stance on the issue, and will probably end up seating him. After all, a Democrat Senator is a Democrat Senator, and Mr. Reid is on tape rejecting all three of Blago's black recommendations, while endorsing other, whiter, candidates. He appears to be afraid, now, that if he rejects Mr. Burris, his motives will appear racist.

Meanwhile, it appears that tax-cheating, poor-house robbing failed talk-show host Al Franken has won the recount In Minnesota. Minnesota law allows the loser to challenge the recount in court, and it is expected that Sen. Coleman will do so, delaying the seating. Sen. Schumer is calling on Reid to go ahead and seat Franken, though they cannot legally do so until the election is certified, which cannot happen until the legal challenge, if it happens, runs it course.

I wonder why no one finds it odd that they always find more Democrat votes than Republican votes in these recounts. Florida, Washington State, now Minnesota, all come to mind. No one ever seems to question that, as if it's a given that a certain number of Democrat votes will be 'lost' in the initial vote, only to reappear in the recounting. I assume that this means Republicans, more so than Democrats, know how to vote properly the first time...

[Shapley]

Funny Business In Minnesota

The Canvassing Board's decisions have been inconsistent, except that they seem to consistently decide in favour of any opinion that will give Mr. Franken the edge.

[Haggis@wk]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to re-write House rules today to ensure that the Republican minority is unable to have any influence on legislation. Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol, that any thought President-elect Obama has of bipartisan cooperation will be rendered impossible before he even takes office.

Pelosi’s rule changes -- which may be voted on today -- will reverse the fairness rules that were written around Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.”

[Shapley]

Well, good. I'm all for it. I want everything that happens over the next two years to rest solely and squarely on the shoulders of the Democrats. If they can turn the economy around, good for them, but I don't expect it. The deficit will rise at the fastest rate in decades (yes, even faster than it did under President Bush), Social Security will go into the red, Medicare and Medicaid will go further in the red, entitlements will have to be cut, businesses will leave America (despite not having "tax cuts which reward them for doing so"), and States, despite raising taxes on the middle class faster and higher than President Obama can cut them, will continue on their way to bankruptcy. The Democrats will try to blame this on the previous administration, but they have had control of the Congress for two years now, and will have control of the whole shebang for the next two. After Oct. 2009 (the end of President Bush' last budget), it is all in their hands. As it was in 1993.

'The people' voted for change. Bring it on...

Oh, and keep your powder dry...

[Haggis@wk]

Oh, and keep your powder dry...

Two local shops are out of 5.56mm and limit purchases of 7.62mm. I wonder what that means.