4 ms·

I don't know about the others, but I've been reading Stewart Baker for years, at the Volokh Conspiracy and then later at lawfare blog. He's an authoritarian lo

I don't know about the others, but I've been reading Stewart Baker for years, at the Volokh Conspiracy and then later at lawfare blog. He's an authoritarian loon, and I don't agree with a word his ever written, but I'd be willing to bet he believes all of it. He's far too unreasonable to be playing a cynical PR game. Not to say that potential conflicts shouldn't be noted, they absolutely should.

ChuckMcM 12y ago
I was thinking something similar, which is that I felt the article was implying that if these people didn't have a financial connection to the NSA their opinions would be different, and I don't think that is the case. Until Senator Feinstien had her laptop hacked by the CIA I think she actually took what they said at face value and bought into the narrative. So I can certainly believe that folks donate money to representatives that hold opinions compatible with theirs. I certainly give money to politicians who I feel will represent my view of how things should be run. But when their opinions change, or they move away from what I would like I simply stop giving them money[1]. So what is the cause and what is the effect? That the NSA funnels funds to people who have both a megaphone and a compatible point of view? I don't find that particularly noteworthy. [1] and as we're talking small amounts of dollars here I am not sure its all that big a deal for them :-)
- bradleyjg 12y ago
  >> That the NSA funnels funds to people who have both a megaphone and a compatible point of view? I don't think you even need to go that far. The underlying phenomenon here is the revolving door. Senior government officials retire into government contractors for their former agencies because that's by far the most lucrative positions open to them. The exception would be if you were completely disgruntled, Snowden isn't going to end up at Booz Allen. What that means is that we have a shared underlying cause for the two things we are seeing: former senior officials that remain supporters of their agency end up at government contractors and former senior officials that remain supporters of their agency are happy to defend them publicly. As for the solution to the revolving door, I'd say first we need to raise the salaries of senior government administrators. Every study I've seen shows that low skill government employees are over-compensated and high skill government employees are under-compensated (both as compared to the private sector). Second, we should probably cut down on government contracting. I don't a good reason for it to have grown so large.

ChuckMcM 12y ago

I was thinking something similar, which is that I felt the article was implying that if these people didn't have a financial connection to the NSA their opinions would be different, and I don't think that is the case. Until Senator Feinstien had her laptop hacked by the CIA I think she actually took what they said at face value and bought into the narrative. So I can certainly believe that folks donate money to representatives that hold opinions compatible with theirs. I certainly give money to politicians who I feel will represent my view of how things should be run. But when their opinions change, or they move away from what I would like I simply stop giving them money[1]. So what is the cause and what is the effect? That the NSA funnels funds to people who have both a megaphone and a compatible point of view? I don't find that particularly noteworthy. [1] and as we're talking small amounts of dollars here I am not sure its all that big a deal for them :-)

bradleyjg 12y ago
>> That the NSA funnels funds to people who have both a megaphone and a compatible point of view? I don't think you even need to go that far. The underlying phenomenon here is the revolving door. Senior government officials retire into government contractors for their former agencies because that's by far the most lucrative positions open to them. The exception would be if you were completely disgruntled, Snowden isn't going to end up at Booz Allen. What that means is that we have a shared underlying cause for the two things we are seeing: former senior officials that remain supporters of their agency end up at government contractors and former senior officials that remain supporters of their agency are happy to defend them publicly. As for the solution to the revolving door, I'd say first we need to raise the salaries of senior government administrators. Every study I've seen shows that low skill government employees are over-compensated and high skill government employees are under-compensated (both as compared to the private sector). Second, we should probably cut down on government contracting. I don't a good reason for it to have grown so large.