Or apparently members of congress could use some " further training" and I'd suggest drug and alcohol testing. If zero tolerance is good enough for pilots it should be good enough for those make the laws.
Or apparently members of congress could use some " further training" and I'd suggest drug and alcohol testing. If zero tolerance is good enough for pilots it should be good enough for those make the laws.
If God had intended man to fly He would have given us more money!
Several problems there. First, you have the issue as to *who* actually does the investigation. What happens if the investigation claims that the opponent of an incumbent president isn't qualified to serve? There's an obvious conflict of interest, since security investigations are under the control of the president (executive branch). How do you resolve that?
Second, this does tend to politically bias the selection process. An individual might be denied a security clearance because, for instance, they were arrested during peaceful political protests. But would that truly make them unsuitable for high office?
A lot of people don't understand that most of the "laws" governing security are implemented as presidential executive orders. Those executive orders can be changed on a political whim, and could obviously be used as political weapons.
Ron Wanttaja
When I worked for the Navy in the 1980s (civil service engineer) the security officer told us, "we don't care about weed, it's the beer of the 80s." Of course that was an era where having a couple of beers with lunch at the officer's club before going back to the office was routine.
I had two other jobs left that required pre employment drug screening, no random testing after hiring. I got the impression they were trying to weed out (no pun intended) people without the self control to abstain for a few weeks, but didn't much care beyond that if it wasn't a problem or on the job (one guy was fired for drinking in the parking lot on his lunch break).
As for drug testing for politicians, great idea! Give 'em a shot of sodium penthothal once a week and ask "what laws have you broken this week?"
Ron, I don't believe this is a problem at all as historical precedents have dealt with this issue very well in the form of the Office of the Independent Counsel and/or Special Counsel for investigations. Watergate, Bill Clinton, Enron and now Trump administration are high profile examples. Canada appoints Royal Commissions usually headed by a former Supreme Court Justice to do it's independent investigations of wrongdoing and illegal activities.
Last edited by Floatsflyer; 11-25-2017 at 09:33 AM.
The problem there is that Special Counsels (and probably Royal Commission) are Very Big Deals. They're complex, disruptive, and still liable to claims of political bias. They also generally take a long time, and are not conducive to deadlines (e.g., voting day). If a Special Counsel reports that Candidate XXX is unfit two weeks before the election, there'll be hell to pay and no pitch hot.
The only alternative would be to start early...and then you'd be running a dozen or so Special Counsels in parallel to be able to cover all the candidates. And you'd STILL have the deadlines of the party conventions.
I tend to put sodium penthathol into the same bin of tools of mythical utility as lie detectors. If sodium pentathol actually *worked*, why the big deal setting up foreign sites to physically torture Taliban prisoners? Why go though all the effort to hire sadists to run waterboarding sessions, when, supposedly, a prick of a needle will get anyone blabbing?
Ron Wanttaja
You are very right to say that SP's deal only with Very Big Deals or as I like to point out only those events and issues that are of the highest public interest. And you point out some possible drawbacks but the positives in terms of independence, integrity, usual unimpeachable reputation of the lead investigator and the absolute least political bias possible outweighs, IMO, those limitations. Also, there is no time limit to produce findings and the budget is big to allow for the hiring of the best and brightest lawyer investigators.
Your wife picked the company with the best upside IMO to work for. I just read this morning that as a result of Amazon shares surging on optimism over holiday sales, Bezos saw his net worth climb to over $100 Billion as of yesterday's market close. According to Bloomberg, this is the first time the $100 Billion threshold has been crossed since Bill Gates in 1999. Time for your wife to negotiate for more options.
Full disclosure: I own 14 shares bought 7 months ago(most I could afford at the time). Net profit is about $6K US to date or $100K Canadian :>)