Octopus Overlords

Posted: **Fri Oct 25, 2019 12:40 am**

Greatest biggest recession ever.

Posted: **Fri Oct 25, 2019 9:56 am**

Kraken wrote: Thu Oct 24, 2019 11:21 pm
El Guapo wrote: Thu Oct 24, 2019 10:23 pm
Kraken wrote: Thu Oct 24, 2019 6:03 pm Oddly, we don't seem to have a thread that covers Trump's war on the US government, so I guess this goes here: Trump move could spark another exodus of US jobs researchers.

Donald Trump has called its work “phony.” His Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney warned that President Obama was “manipulating” its numbers. Economic adviser Larry Kudlow termed one of its reports “very fluky.”

Is it a House oversight committee? A Democratic think tank? No, it’s the gold standard of research and impartiality on US inflation, employment, and productivity: The US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Now 70 percent of the bureau’s staff of 1,800 is likely to leave by 2022, according to a survey by the union that represents most of its workers. The reason: The administration plans to move the bureau’s current headquarters from Washington, near the Union Station transit hub, to an office complex in Suitland, Md.

Current and former government employees said they’re concerned the administration is seeking to drive out civil servants whose work could undermine the president’s agenda. These researchers are in a position to document, for example, a slowdown in manufacturing employment in part because of Trump’s tariffs.
...
“So far, the BLS has avoided politicization from the Trump Administration,” said Michael Havlin, an economist at the agency and union member. “But the economic data has been pretty positive the last three or four years — that might not be the case in a year or so.”
Shoot the messenger just in case you might not like the message?
That's definitely increasingly a thing. Strong suspicions that the administration has discovered that that's the quickest way to get control of an agency, by creating a lot of vacancies with something that's facially justifiable.

Though in this case, seems unlikely that 70% of the staff would leave over them moving from downtown DC to suburban DC.
The story explains that because of the way transit works, most will see their commutes increase by 1-2 hours even though the new location isn't far away. It also lists three or four other agencies that are suffering attrition due to thinly-justified moves.

In the case of the BLS, though, the move is likely to coincide with the recession's onset. If it does, a lot of those at-risk people will suck up the commute and hold onto their jobs. Which is ironic, come to think of it, since Trump wants to bag the agency to prevent it from documenting the recession.

I know, but I lived in DC, and I can't figure out where the hell they are living that this move would increase commuting by 2 hours. Getting from Union Station to Suitland is ~ 45 minutes by subway, and I would imagine that going direct from one's house (as opposed to going to Union Station and then going from there) would generally make the increase at least a little bit shorter.

I kind of wonder whether the percentage departing and the time estimates are padded a little to try to get management (not the political level) to pick a different site. Also, while I 100% get the suspicion that they are trying to get people to leave for political reasons...I would think that they would pick a different location if that were the goal. E.g., out of the DC metro area. At least pick a site in Baltimore or Richmond or something.

Posted: **Fri Oct 25, 2019 11:20 am**

A lot of feds are VERY particular about their commute, and large numbers live close to where their office is located. When the PTO was in Crystal City, for example, a ton of examiners lived there. Now that the office is in Alexandria, a bunch wound up moving down there.

When NSF moved from Ballston to Alexandria, there was a lot of complaining about increased commute times for a lot of employees who bought specifically to have reasonable commutes to Ballston.

That will likely be the case with a BLS move to Suitland from Union Station. There's a good chance a decent amount of the BLS workforce live near Union Station, so a commute to Suitland would be significant. And it's not like WMATA is the bastion of reliability these days.

Posted: **Fri Oct 25, 2019 1:00 pm**

Yeah - it isn't like more traffic load is what anyone wants or wants to deal with.

Posted: **Fri Oct 25, 2019 1:43 pm**

El Guapo wrote: Fri Oct 25, 2019 9:56 am
I kind of wonder whether the percentage departing and the time estimates are padded a little to try to get management (not the political level) to pick a different site. Also, while I 100% get the suspicion that they are trying to get people to leave for political reasons...I would think that they would pick a different location if that were the goal. E.g., out of the DC metro area. At least pick a site in Baltimore or Richmond or something.

You mean like moving the Bureau of Land Management to Colorado and Utah, and moving the USDA to Kansas City? Apparently the more damage he wants to do to an agency, the further away from Washington he moves it.

Posted: **Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:01 pm**

gilraen wrote: Fri Oct 25, 2019 1:43 pm
El Guapo wrote: Fri Oct 25, 2019 9:56 am
I kind of wonder whether the percentage departing and the time estimates are padded a little to try to get management (not the political level) to pick a different site. Also, while I 100% get the suspicion that they are trying to get people to leave for political reasons...I would think that they would pick a different location if that were the goal. E.g., out of the DC metro area. At least pick a site in Baltimore or Richmond or something.
You mean like moving the Bureau of Land Management to Colorado and Utah, and moving the USDA to Kansas City? Apparently the more damage he wants to do to an agency, the further away from Washington he moves it.

Yes, exactly like that.

Posted: **Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:56 pm**

El Guapo wrote: Fri Oct 25, 2019 9:56 am I know, but I lived in DC, and I can't figure out where the hell they are living that this move would increase commuting by 2 hours.

On Wednesday, with no inclement weather or accidents, it took my Uber just under 70 minutes to get from Old Town Alexandria to the National Mall. Left the hotel at 7:45, got there just before my meeting was supposed to start at 9:00.

I can easily see a move from Union Station to Suitland adding very significant time to a commute.

Posted: **Fri Oct 25, 2019 3:32 pm**

Trump is enabling a whole cadre of Republicans that are hell bent of killing federal agencies by moving them, or just making working there a living hell for any brave soul who decides to try and stay. And a lot of the measures are not cost friendly at all. I also know that many federal agencies are banning telecommuting altogether in another move to help their workers find the exits.

Posted: **Fri Oct 25, 2019 3:51 pm**

Enough wrote: Fri Oct 25, 2019 3:32 pm Trump is enabling a whole cadre of Republicans that are hell bent of killing federal agencies by moving them, or just making working there a living hell for any brave soul who decides to try and stay. And a lot of the measures are not cost friendly at all. I also know that many federal agencies are banning telecommuting altogether in another move to help their workers find the exits.

One of the agencies I work with was told last year that they would be moving to a "100% telework" model, and were given 10 days to implement it. No advance notice to IT, none to the policy shop, nothing to leadership...just a mandate to make the shift immediately. It ended up being, predictably, a complete disaster.

6 months later (right about the time everyone was figuring out how to operate in the new reality), they were told that due to the inability of their leadership to effectively implement the change (

), that they would be moving completely away from telework, except for a few certain roles.

The whiplash of these policy changes has utterly decimated both morale and productivity, which I can only assume was the intent of the entire thing from the beginning. Especially now that leadership has starting looking at hiring out lots of their work to third party contractors.

Posted: **Fri Oct 25, 2019 5:24 pm**

Skinypupy wrote: Fri Oct 25, 2019 3:51 pm
Enough wrote: Fri Oct 25, 2019 3:32 pm Trump is enabling a whole cadre of Republicans that are hell bent of killing federal agencies by moving them, or just making working there a living hell for any brave soul who decides to try and stay. And a lot of the measures are not cost friendly at all. I also know that many federal agencies are banning telecommuting altogether in another move to help their workers find the exits.
One of the agencies I work with was told last year that they would be moving to a "100% telework" model, and were given 10 days to implement it. No advance notice to IT, none to the policy shop, nothing to leadership...just a mandate to make the shift immediately. It ended up being, predictably, a complete disaster.

6 months later (right about the time everyone was figuring out how to operate in the new reality), they were told that due to the inability of their leadership to effectively implement the change ( ), that they would be moving completely away from telework, except for a few certain roles.

The whiplash of these policy changes has utterly decimated both morale and productivity, which I can only assume was the intent of the entire thing from the beginning. Especially now that leadership has starting looking at hiring out lots of their work to third party contractors.

This is also one of those scenarios where it's really hard to tell whether it's incompetence, malice, or grift (for the contractors).

Posted: **Fri Oct 25, 2019 5:26 pm**

Porque no los tres?

Posted: **Fri Oct 25, 2019 8:44 pm**

I see where the orange moron refused to throw out the first pitch at the world series. My guess is he has never thrown a sports ball and throws like a girl and didn't want to be embarrassed when it hit the dirt in front of him.

Posted: **Sat Oct 26, 2019 1:11 pm**

Daehawk wrote: Fri Oct 25, 2019 8:44 pm I see where the orange moron refused to throw out the first pitch at the world series. My guess is he has never thrown a sports ball and throws like a girl and didn't want to be embarrassed when it hit the dirt in front of him.

He didn't refuse. He wasn't asked - it was the Nationals' decision.

Posted: **Sat Oct 26, 2019 5:34 pm**

pr0ner wrote: Sat Oct 26, 2019 1:11 pm
Daehawk wrote: Fri Oct 25, 2019 8:44 pm I see where the orange moron refused to throw out the first pitch at the world series. My guess is he has never thrown a sports ball and throws like a girl and didn't want to be embarrassed when it hit the dirt in front of him.
He didn't refuse. He wasn't asked - it was the Nationals' decision.

Oh it was opening day when he refused the Nationals. Think 2017.

Posted: **Sun Oct 27, 2019 10:25 am**

CBP buys 33M handgun bullets (cartridges for you purists). Not all that remarkable but they paid about $0.29 each. Seems high but they may be JHP rounds I guess. That'd be a lot of hollow points.

Posted: **Sun Oct 27, 2019 6:25 pm**

LawBeefaroni wrote: Sun Oct 27, 2019 10:25 am CBP buys 33M handgun bullets (cartridges for you purists). Not all that remarkable but they paid about $0.29 each. Seems high but they may be JHP rounds I guess. That'd be a lot of hollow points.

Maybe just inflated prices benefiting the right contractor? The graft must flow.

Posted: **Wed Oct 30, 2019 9:51 am**

After right wingers more or less forced Katie Hill to resign over consensual sexual relationships with a) women and b) her subordinates, guess who's now running for her newly vacant House seat?

That's right, George Papadopoulous! Freshly out of jail, straight to running for Congress. What a country.

https://twitter.com/girlsreallyrule/sta ... 4264755200

Posted: **Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:01 am**

She was definitely in the wrong, but I'm amazed she resigned over it given the state of modern politics. I guess in a world where an Al Franken resigns and a Roy Moore doubles down, this is what you get. Nothing makes any sense anymore.

Posted: **Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:03 am**

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:01 am She was definitely in the wrong, but I'm amazed she resigned over it given the state of modern politics. I guess in a world where an Al Franken resigns and a Roy Moore doubles down, this is what you get. Nothing makes any sense anymore.

There's more and more evidence coming out that while what Hill did was wrong (don't sleep with subordinates!), this whole thing was a right wing hit job.

https://www.twitter.com/AlexThomasDC/st ... 5671063558

Posted: **Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:14 am**

Ugh, that's so gross but why am I not surprised?

Posted: **Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:17 am**

I agree but...I'm not totally sure what the significance is of this being driven by the right wing here. It doesn't change what Hill did, or whether it was wrong.

How did they get the images? The potentially bigger issue is if there's some sort of crime involved in the sharing / distribution of them.

Posted: **Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:35 am**

Hill has called it revenge porn and claims her estranged ex husband is part of the plot, so there's a better than zero chance the photos came from him.

Posted: **Wed Oct 30, 2019 11:31 am**

pr0ner wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 9:51 am After right wingers more or less forced Katie Hill to resign over consensual sexual relationships with a) women and b) her subordinates, guess who's now running for her newly vacant House seat?

That's right, George Papadopoulous! Freshly out of jail, straight to running for Congress. What a country.

https://twitter.com/girlsreallyrule/sta ... 4264755200

FWIW, she has denied the sleeping with subordinates portion of this accusation. Doesn't mean it didn't happen (need more info), but that's the claim.

Posted: **Wed Oct 30, 2019 11:41 am**

Pyperkub wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 11:31 am
FWIW, she has denied the sleeping with subordinates portion of this accusation. Doesn't mean it didn't happen (need more info), but that's the claim.

I thought that was the whole scandal here - that she was sleeping with her subordinates. Am I missing something?

Posted: **Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:05 pm**

El Guapo wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 11:41 am
Pyperkub wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 11:31 am
FWIW, she has denied the sleeping with subordinates portion of this accusation. Doesn't mean it didn't happen (need more info), but that's the claim.
I thought that was the whole scandal here - that she was sleeping with her subordinates. Am I missing something?

There are nude photos and a jilted ex husband and bisexuality and all sorts of tawdry stuff going on here.

Posted: **Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:07 pm**

pr0ner wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:05 pm
El Guapo wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 11:41 am
Pyperkub wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 11:31 am
FWIW, she has denied the sleeping with subordinates portion of this accusation. Doesn't mean it didn't happen (need more info), but that's the claim.
I thought that was the whole scandal here - that she was sleeping with her subordinates. Am I missing something?
There are nude photos and a jilted ex husband and bisexuality and all sorts of tawdry stuff going on here.

So nothing out of the ordinary then..

Posted: **Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:11 pm**

she was nude and ripping a bong. Hard to go back to the House with that, I am thinking...

Posted: **Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:12 pm**

pr0ner wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:05 pm
El Guapo wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 11:41 am
Pyperkub wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 11:31 am
FWIW, she has denied the sleeping with subordinates portion of this accusation. Doesn't mean it didn't happen (need more info), but that's the claim.
I thought that was the whole scandal here - that she was sleeping with her subordinates. Am I missing something?
There are nude photos and a jilted ex husband and bisexuality and all sorts of tawdry stuff going on here.

But so did she actually do anything wrong here? I guess beyond cheating on her husband?

Posted: **Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:17 pm**

El Guapo wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:12 pm I guess beyond cheating on her husband?

It's not clear whether even that is accurate.

Posted: **Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:17 pm**

El Guapo wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:12 pm
pr0ner wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:05 pm
El Guapo wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 11:41 am
Pyperkub wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 11:31 am
FWIW, she has denied the sleeping with subordinates portion of this accusation. Doesn't mean it didn't happen (need more info), but that's the claim.
I thought that was the whole scandal here - that she was sleeping with her subordinates. Am I missing something?
There are nude photos and a jilted ex husband and bisexuality and all sorts of tawdry stuff going on here.
But so did she actually do anything wrong here? I guess beyond cheating on her husband?

A Democrat congresswoman acting like a Republican congressman? Black is white, down is up, sky is beige...yeah, this could bring down the entire nation.

Posted: **Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:34 pm**

Unagi wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:11 pm she was nude and ripping a bong. Hard to go back to the House with that, I am thinking...

Unless you are Trump of course.

Posted: **Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:39 pm**

She's only at one divorce. You really need to hit 3 or 4 before you can enjoy the safety and security of being a a conservative GOP politician.

Posted: **Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:57 pm**

El Guapo wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:12 pm
pr0ner wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:05 pm
El Guapo wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 11:41 am
Pyperkub wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 11:31 am
FWIW, she has denied the sleeping with subordinates portion of this accusation. Doesn't mean it didn't happen (need more info), but that's the claim.
I thought that was the whole scandal here - that she was sleeping with her subordinates. Am I missing something?
There are nude photos and a jilted ex husband and bisexuality and all sorts of tawdry stuff going on here.
But so did she actually do anything wrong here? I guess beyond cheating on her husband?

I don't care about the cheating (and whether that was is up in the air, as mentioned), but sleeping with a subordinates is a pretty big no-no. Of course, also as mentioned, it seems that only Democrats that do these sorts of things are the ones who end up resigning.

Posted: **Wed Oct 30, 2019 1:46 pm**

El Guapo wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:12 pm
pr0ner wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:05 pm
El Guapo wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 11:41 am
Pyperkub wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 11:31 am
FWIW, she has denied the sleeping with subordinates portion of this accusation. Doesn't mean it didn't happen (need more info), but that's the claim.
I thought that was the whole scandal here - that she was sleeping with her subordinates. Am I missing something?
There are nude photos and a jilted ex husband and bisexuality and all sorts of tawdry stuff going on here.
But so did she actually do anything wrong here? I guess beyond cheating on her husband?

As stated, possibly not even cheating on her husband (don't know the divorce, bisexual affair timeline). My impression is that while there was going to be an ethics investigation to see if she actually did sleep with a subordinate, which she denied and was going to fight, as soon as all the photos were leaked, she chose to resign instead.

given that the current theory is that the estranged husband was the leaker (and apparently doing whatever he can to take her down - including allegations she got him jobs he wasn't qualified for), it could well be wise to resign and just focus on the Divorce proceedings.

Posted: **Wed Oct 30, 2019 4:17 pm**

pr0ner wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 9:51 am After right wingers more or less forced Katie Hill to resign over consensual sexual relationships with a) women and b) her subordinates, guess who's now running for her newly vacant House seat?

That's right, George Papadopoulous! Freshly out of jail, straight to running for Congress. What a country.

[...]

Hill won by 12% against an incumbent in 2018, and her district went 7% for Clinton in 2016.

Papadopoulous will be running as a Trump loyalist trailed by clouds of treason in what is possibly another blue-wave election. This is obviously some sort of grift.

Posted: **Wed Oct 30, 2019 4:27 pm**

Holman wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 4:17 pm
pr0ner wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 9:51 am After right wingers more or less forced Katie Hill to resign over consensual sexual relationships with a) women and b) her subordinates, guess who's now running for her newly vacant House seat?

That's right, George Papadopoulous! Freshly out of jail, straight to running for Congress. What a country.

[...]
Hill won by 12% against an incumbent in 2018, and her district went 7% for Clinton in 2016.

Papadopoulous will be running as a Trump loyalist trailed by clouds of treason in what is possibly another blue-wave election. This is obviously some sort of grift.

Yeah, I desperately want Papadopoulous to run. He's not going to win, and it would be wonderful to have his name in the headlines (generating some additional reporter investigations).

Posted: **Wed Oct 30, 2019 4:35 pm**

Twitter to stop accepting political ads

Twitter announced Wednesday that it will no longer take political ads, a major step as tech companies work to deal with misinformation ahead of the 2020 election.

The ban will go into place in November.

Posted: **Wed Oct 30, 2019 5:03 pm**

Here's the Tweetstorm from Jack Dorsey:

We’ve made the decision to stop all political advertising on Twitter globally. We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought. Why? A few reasons…

A political message earns reach when people decide to follow an account or retweet. Paying for reach removes that decision, forcing highly optimized and targeted political messages on people. We believe this decision should not be compromised by money.

It's a pretty thoughtful read.

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:21 am**

Of course, both Russia Today and the Trump campaign went off on Twitter's decision.

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:43 am**

There's a difference?

Octopus Overlords

Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness

Re: Political Randomness