“We’ve got to do something . . .”
“. . . to protect our (future) phony-baloney jobs!”
A Senate committee yesterday rejected a bipartisan proposal to establish an independent office to oversee the enforcement of congressional ethics and lobbying laws, signaling a reluctance in Congress to beef up the enforcement of its rules on lobbying.
I am tempted to say that intelligence work is too important to be left to the politicians, but in light of recent posts it is clear that even certain insiders can’t be trusted as far as one could throw them.
I am ill-qualified to discuss issues related to term-limits, but on the surface it would appear that something other than the good of the people is at work here. For those who would call out “naïve!” let me offer that there is a difference between going down swinging like Andy Dufresne and welcoming with open arms the tossed salad man.
It would seem that the most common alternative to fighting the status quo is leaking, but where does that get us? Is there such a thing as a good leak as some would have us believe? Even if one is operating with the purist of motives, given compartmentalization, does anyone know enough to really say they’re doing the right thing? Perhaps if you are at the top of the heap the answer is “yes”; but then if you were really concerned why complain now? Why not when you had a chance to actually make a difference? Again we come down to motive.
Maybe it is time to unionize, or at least take a page from the labor playbook and walk- or sick-out when things get too egregious. Personally, I can’t think of a more irresponsible act given the role that IOs play. Nevertheless, how desperate do things have to get though before people start considering desperate measures?