Wherein I show bad taste in jokes
You know the Bush Administration? The people who put anti-feminist men in charge of women's health issues? Who appoint representatives from industries to the government watchdog agencies assigned to keep those industries within the law? Who appoint lobbyists to the positions they used to lobby?
Add this to the list. A man arrested for exposing and masturbating himself in front of a 16 year-old girl used to be the guy in charge of...wait for it...Homeland Security's "Predator." That's the agency designed, yes, to bust child sex criminals.
I suppose, in their own way, the Bush Administration thinks of this as appointing "experts in the field" to various positions.
I know. This entry is wrong on so many levels.
Posted by AnneZook at 06:22 PM
I can't be the only one who's unhappy about Homeland Security, ostensibly created to protect us from terrorists, using resources to chase sex criminals instead.
We already had, and still do have, multiple agencies to handle that.
The only justification I could see would be if there was enough methodological overlap between terrorist and pedophile organizations to justify applying their expertise (what expertise?) to both tasks.
As for the original article, I'm nearly speechless. Talk about taking your work home with you....
That is the second arrest in two days of DHS employees for a sex crime involving a minor. What exactly did we get for the money spent on background checks?
I can't believe, Ahistoricality, that there's actually someone capable of making a worse joke about this than I made. :)
As for your point about methodological overlap? I'm thinking...not.
Bryan - We all know what we got for the money we spent. Republicans. Not, I think, the best value.
And, Walter, no, you're not alone in that. The only thing dumber than creating a "homeland security" department, instead of funding the estalished departments and agencies who should be dealing with security issues, is the way they're rolling every piece of the government they can touch into the stupid thing.
"Background checks" were an imperfect filter at their best, and they've been getting worse over the last twenty years as the number of people processed by increasingly civilian contract employees (lots of former military/police types in "retirement") rises and the kinds of questions the checkers can ask have been severely restricted.
You can vet the guy all you want; you're not going to discover a propensity for sex crimes if he hasn't comitted them yet, and even if you do, there's real questions about what you can do about it, in terms of employment.
That's quite true, Jonathan.
I hesitated about making the post because I don't want anyone to think that I believe the government (or anyone) should be should be responsible for spotting an incipient criminal. (In the end, the chance to take a cheap potshot at the Bush Administration was just too much to resist....)
Obviously no one could have known that these guys had or would develop these problems.
I'd caution the Lefthand world o'blog against making too much of this, though. That can backfire.
The Right is already blowing the McKinney thing 'way out of proportion to distract the public from these sex scandals (and she's playing right into their hands). there's not much that's "beneath" the current Administration.
Also? The Left is not immune. We have no ideas what skeletons might lurk in our own closet.