Jacqui Chang of ARS Technica notes that 12% of employees surveyed admit to knowingly violating their companies’ IT policies to get work done. Chang attributes this to bad employees but I’m not so sure. It’s one thing if any percentage of employees, let’s say 100%, knowingly violate IT policies to avoid getting work done. It’s quite another if 12% knowingly do so (and presumably, at least as many unknowingly do) in order to get work done. At what point do we stop saying “bad employee” and start asking if there’s something wrong with the IT rules themselves?
March 27, 2010
All of California’s serious gubernatorial candidates plus Steve Poizner share my skepticism that California can smoke its way out of the budget deficit, but as one living nowhere near California I say hey, why not give it a try? Worst case scenario, y’all smoke yourself into forgetting about your deficit.
March 23, 2010
He violates the no dumbasses in Congress clause.
‘Hat tip: Tabitha Hale.
This headline on an article for cell phone bans says it all:
Don’t Let Research Distract From Safe Driving Efforts
Because everyone knows real-world, empirical evidence is, like, a distraction or something.
March 22, 2010
David Savage of the L.A. Times notes that with Justice Stevens’s expected departure, the senior Justice for the liberal wing will be … you guessed it. Heh.
March 19, 2010
Radio windbag Jeffrey T. Kuhner wants the House of Representatives to violate the hidden constitutional requirement that Congress actually vote on every bill they don’t want to become law before being allowed to vote on the one they do, and then turn around and impeach President Obama for the high misdemeanor of signing their own bill into law. O-kay.
March 18, 2010
If this account of Nancy Pelosi’s “deemer” trick is accurate, then I’m not really sure what all the fuss is about. According to the story, no one is talking about “deeming” the House to have passed the Senate bill so that the Senate bill can become law without a vote. Rather, they’re considering “deeming” the House to have voted for a bill they don’t want in its present form, so that the House can then go on to vote for the version it actually wants. I realize this is cutting corners under House rules, but as a constitutional matter, why should anyone outside the House even care what is “deemed” about any version of the bill other than the final one? Unless you’re a diehard fan of House rules, great, but the only thing the rest of us should care about is whether a majority of sitting Representatives and a majority of sitting Senators actually voted for the final version of each bill that ends up on the President’s desk for his signature. There is no earthly reason to care what anybody “deems” or doesn’t “deem” about anything else.
That said, ObamaCare is a stinker on substance, so if all this pseudo-constitutional hand-waving is what it takes to keep a bad bill from passing, I’ll take that result.
March 16, 2010
Apparently, the real policy on gays in the military is don’t ask, don’t tell, and hope to God some other jerk doesn’t tell, either.