#2 2008-11-13 04:57:10
Not surprising. Most of the last administration’s functionaries committed a great deal of electronic fuctardary, were incompetent and had conflicts of interest. There’s also the matter that those who wish to gut and discredit his administration are already sharpening their knives.
Offline
#3 2008-11-13 09:09:50
fnord wrote:
There’s also the matter that those who wish to gut and discredit his administration are already sharpening their knives.
I agree--this is probably more a reflection of the large, profitable Democrat-destroying industry that's been around since the 90s. And giving Barack the benefit of the doubt, the purpose of these questionnaires might just be to prevent unpleasant surprises, rather than disqualifying people for work.
Offline
#4 2008-11-13 09:13:37
Heh, When Hillary met in private with Obama at Diane Feinstein's house to discuss her possibility of being VP pick, she told him flat out that she was not going to answer Obama's questionaire unless she was seriously being short listed for the job.
Offline
#5 2008-11-13 10:33:04
"The application also asks applicants to 'please list all aliases or ‘handles’ you have used to communicate on the Internet.'"
So, being known as CockKnocker69 will prevent you from being an abassador?
Offline
#6 2008-11-13 19:00:05
This sounds exactly like the traditional vetting process for Federal jobs, especially jobs that involve sensitive areas/classified data. My brother-in-law went through this kind of background check--and I'm sure many High-Streeters have also done so.
The bottom line is, as long as you have the abilities they want, they don't care if you've done...questionable things. They only care about them if you care. If you have dark secrets, you can be compromised by them; but if your dark secrets are out, you can't be. (C.f. Obama's remark about drug use in his youth: "Yes, I inhaled. Wasn't that the point?" With all the silly shit his opponents used to try to slander him, I never heard that they even tried to bring up drug use.)
Offline
#7 2008-11-13 19:24:58
George Orr wrote:
This sounds exactly like the traditional vetting process for Federal jobs, especially jobs that involve sensitive areas/classified data. My brother-in-law went through this kind of background check--and I'm sure many High-Streeters have also done so.
The bottom line is, as long as you have the abilities they want, they don't care if you've done...questionable things. They only care about them if you care. If you have dark secrets, you can be compromised by them; but if your dark secrets are out, you can't be. (C.f. Obama's remark about drug use in his youth: "Yes, I inhaled. Wasn't that the point?" With all the silly shit his opponents used to try to slander him, I never heard that they even tried to bring up drug use.)
McCain's strategist Schmidtt wanted to use the drug use in true Atwater fashion to advance the dangerous black boogieman angle, but he was talked out of it by the rest of the campaign team as something that would not play. Probably because Obama had already deflected it.
Offline
#8 2008-11-13 20:10:50
George Orr wrote:
This sounds exactly like the traditional vetting process for Federal jobs, especially jobs that involve sensitive areas/classified data. My brother-in-law went through this kind of background check--and I'm sure many High-Streeters have also done so.
The bottom line is, as long as you have the abilities they want, they don't care if you've done...questionable things. They only care about them if you care. If you have dark secrets, you can be compromised by them; but if your dark secrets are out, you can't be.
True. It's always been this intrusive, but they're a little saner now about how they disqualify applicants for federal clearance.
I'm not surprised to see this extend into political positions. I'm of two minds about it... while political appointees deserve a measure of privacy, so many of them turn out to be such hypocritical slime that I tend to support putting them through the wringer first.
Offline
#9 2008-11-13 20:30:44
I was listed on a friend's application, and some of the questions the investigators ask are really trippy.
Like does the person have financial troubles (presumably if they did, they'd be more likely to sell information).
Offline
#10 2008-11-13 20:45:28
I hope that no one that I know is applying; I would likely be poison to their career. There is a very large, LARGE flag on my files.
Offline
#11 2008-11-13 21:36:02
sic wrote:
"The application also asks applicants to 'please list all aliases or ‘handles’ you have used to communicate on the Internet.'"
So, being known as CockKnocker69 will prevent you from being an abassador?
Being CockKnocker69 will prevent you from being hired by me - wake up people.
Offline
#12 2008-11-13 21:39:17
George Orr wrote:
This sounds exactly like the traditional vetting process for Federal jobs, especially jobs that involve sensitive areas/classified data. My brother-in-law went through this kind of background check--and I'm sure many High-Streeters have also done so.
The bottom line is, as long as you have the abilities they want, they don't care if you've done...questionable things. They only care about them if you care. If you have dark secrets, you can be compromised by them; but if your dark secrets are out, you can't be. (C.f. Obama's remark about drug use in his youth: "Yes, I inhaled. Wasn't that the point?" With all the silly shit his opponents used to try to slander him, I never heard that they even tried to bring up drug use.)
Ground rules for a Top Secret(SBI) clearance. It's not what you've done, it's what you haven't told us you've done. Secrets and secret lives are the key.
Stole a few cars - OK
Protested the war - OK
Forgot to list that affair with your secretary - Fail/Fired
Offline
#13 2008-11-14 06:20:00
The background information and tolerance for past activity change with the level of clearance. A simple TS clearance was not that difficult to obtain. It is when the clearance includes access to SCI and SAPs [and the like] that it can get hairy. I have taken several polygraphs in the past.
Up until the early 1990's [the last time I signed my 70 year "deal"] the government knows more about my past then I probably remember today.
Offline
#14 2008-11-14 08:37:14
It would be a full time job for me to answer all of the questions fully. I'd never finish. Do you think several years of soiling the nest on Cruel/High-Street would be a problem?
Offline
#15 2008-11-14 09:51:30
MSG Tripps wrote:
The background information and tolerance for past activity change with the level of clearance. A simple TS clearance was not that difficult to obtain. It is when the clearance includes access to SCI and SAPs [and the like] that it can get hairy. I have taken several polygraphs in the past.
Up until the early 1990's [the last time I signed my 70 year "deal"] the government knows more about my past then I probably remember today.
on the plus side this gives you a resource to reference once the lights in the old memory banks start flickering.
Offline
#16 2008-11-14 12:41:34
Fled wrote:
It would be a full time job for me to answer all of the questions fully. I'd never finish. Do you think several years of soiling the nest on Cruel/High-Street would be a problem?
There's no pardon or clemency for your banner crimes against humanity.
Offline
#17 2008-11-14 12:47:44
Dmtdust wrote:
I hope that no one that I know is applying; I would likely be poison to their career. There is a very large, LARGE flag on my files.
My brother insists I cost him any hope of spook employment and for the life of me, I can't imagine a better blessing. Didn't cost me nothing, neither.
Offline
