Feds can't say whereabouts of those whose visas were revoked over terror threatLet's see; at two per slaughter, that's slightly under 5,000 slaughters, potentially. At roughly 10 per slaughter, that would be just under 50,000 American citizens massacred. I guess that's the government's acceptable number of Americans killed in order to claim "tolerance".
"Bond initially said the U.S. has revoked more than 122,000 visas since 2001, including 9,500 because of the threat of terrorism.
But Chaffetz quickly pried at that stat, pressing the witness about the present location of those individuals.
"I don't know," she said. "
But that's OK:
Obama Reassures Americans No Credible Threat of Terror......that he's read about in the newspapers.
Carry, or be a potential victim.
4 comments:
An old story about political processes and the accompanying narrative:
In the beginning was the plan for a very careful vetting process.
And then came the assumptions about the abilities of government to actually conduct very careful vetting.
And the assumptions were without form.
And the plan was without substance because of the assumptions.
And darkness was upon the face of the DHS and FBI workers.
And they spoke among themselves saying,
"A very careful vetting process is a crock of shit; the existing process stinks."
And the DHS and FBI workers went unto their supervisors and said (being mindful of the politically correct phrasing required in all government language),
"Careful vetting is a pail of dung and none may abide the odor thereof."
And the DHS and FBI supervisors "improved" the wording (since every level of government must massage the wording, in order to make it more politically palatable as it goes up the chain of command) went unto their managers and said,
"It is a container of excrement and it is very strong, such that none may abide by it."
And the DHS and FBI managers went unto their deputy directors, saying,
"It is a vessel of fertilizer, and none may abide its strength."
And the DHS and FBI deputy directors spoke among themselves, saying to one another,
"It contains that which aids plant growth and it is very strong."
And the DHS and FBI deputy directors went unto the Vice President, saying unto him,
"It promotes growth and is very powerful."
And the Vice President went unto the President, saying unto him,
"The new plan will promote the growth and vigor of the economy, with powerful effects, by reducing carbon emissions."
And the President looked upon the plan and saw that it was good.
And the plan became policy.
This is how shit happens.
HAR! Wait... that's not funny, it's TRUE.
While employed in the U.S. Civil Service, I was astounded on many occasions to watch this process repeat.
A worker would provide actual data on a particular subject as directed.
The first-level supervisor would rewrite the report, using language that could be understood upline, removing some of the actual data because it wouldn't be read by the busy upper levels of management.
The second-level supervisor would repeat the process, changing the language to be more politically correct, and removing more of the actual data to avoid appearing too verbose to senior management.
Lather, rinse, repeat as the "report" (now devoid of any real content) worked its way up the chain of command.
Eventually, it reached the top level (who had directed the data collection in the first place), totally devoid of any possible value, in other words, nothing left but "shit" with a euphemism in place of "shit." The person at the top then made decisions based on that filtered (and often totally useless) data.
The fascinating thing to me was that each level of management prided itself on having its "finger on the pulse." They were uniformly certain that they KNEW the "real truth" of what was going on in the trenches. Not once did they ever acknowledge that if they were "doctoring" the report before sending it upline, then in all probability, someone downline was doing the same thing to them. When confronted publicly about their abysmal ignorance, they would feign righteous indignation at - you guessed it - the workers for "lying."
I once generated a Powerpoint presentation (as directed) and deliberately used totally bogus data and results. I presented it upline and was congratulated on an excellent job. When I explained that none of it was real, there was a uniform sense of outrage by those who had accepted it hook, line and sinker. This was in an organization staffed with computer software professionals. All I said before I left the room was, "Garbage in, garbage out."
Sad, but TRUE.
THAT is how "shit" happens in any bureaucratic organization. And that is why bureaucratic organizations (large corporations as well as government at all levels) appear to be totally drain-bamaged to those outside those organizations.
Oh, that reminds me of something Admiral Grace Hopper said (not verbatim). She observed that the attention span of an Admiral was approximately as long as it takes for electron flow down a 9-inch piece of copper wire. An report that made it to the Admiral-level had to be reduced to no more than 3 paragraphs MAXIMUM, no matter what the subject. Otherwise, those very busy people would just toss it aside without reading it.
SHIT HAPPENS!
Post a Comment