Comments on: Nexis Nexus

Nexis Nexus

unSane — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:06:23 -0800

[first name of a candidate] and pre/2 [last name of a candidate] w/7 bush or gore or republican! or democrat! or charg! or accus! or criticiz! or blam! or defend! or iran contra or clinton or spotted owl or florida recount or sex! or controvers! or racis! or fraud! or investigat! or bankrupt! or layoff! or downsiz! or PNTR or NAFTA or outsourc! or indict! or enron or kerry or iraq or wmd! or arrest! or intox! or fired or sex! or racis! or intox! or slur! or arrest! or fired or controvers! or abortion! or gay! or homosexual! or gun! or firearm!

By: jacobian

jacobian — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:08:09 -0800

Um, wow.

By: porpoise

porpoise — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:08:36 -0800

Eponhysterial.

By: nevercalm

nevercalm — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:09:06 -0800

My sentiments exactly. Also: FAIL.

By: unSane

unSane — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:09:07 -0800

hell, did I screw up the link? This is it: http://danieldrezner.com/blog/?p=3871 Could an admin fix if post is deemed worthy of survival? Tx.

By: Cool Papa Bell

Cool Papa Bell — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:09:18 -0800

Uhhh...

By: Cool Papa Bell

Cool Papa Bell — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:09:58 -0800

Did the Internet just fart or something?

By: amyms

amyms — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:10:31 -0800

If there were a contest for today's funniest front-page "oops," this would win first prize.

By: Flunkie

Flunkie — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:11:10 -0800

You ignore cubic math at your peril.

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:11:18 -0800

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:11:35 -0800

That's how you do the internet!

By: jfrancis

jfrancis — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:13:32 -0800

I had a friend in college who, while high, ordered some food and when it arrived he discovered the burger had no pattie. He looked at it for a long time, then looked up and said, 'What's the message?'

By: Jacqueline

Jacqueline — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:13:39 -0800

I can't stop giggling.

By: electricinca

electricinca — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:13:56 -0800

Thank you mr_roboto but after all that it was somewhat anticlimatic.

By: hellojed

hellojed — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:14:34 -0800

I think I asked in the 1st call in podcast what would happen if someone linked to the front page as a recursion joke. I guess we'll have the definitive answer now.

By: pombe

pombe — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:15:31 -0800

That is a pretty funny posting mistake. That said, the fact that LexisNexis logs searches back to 2005 is pretty interesting.

By: GuyZero

GuyZero — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:16:17 -0800

MetaFilter: blam!

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:17:07 -0800

Paging interrobang?!?

By: 5MeoCMP

5MeoCMP — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:19:52 -0800

Gezundheit?

By: never used baby shoes

never used baby shoes — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:20:57 -0800

Wow. I think we should all link to other comments in this thread, just to keep the recursion going.

By: Rangeboy

Rangeboy — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:21:26 -0800

We are through the looking-glass here, people.

By: iamkimiam

iamkimiam — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:21:36 -0800

I don't get it or I get it!

By: kid ichorous

kid ichorous — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:22:41 -0800

I like how 'spotted owl' is hiding in this cloud of toxic buzzwords, like it's been chased out of every physical habitat and is now leading a stealth existence on the internet. ORLY indeed.

By: Ambrosia Voyeur

Ambrosia Voyeur — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:22:53 -0800

Metafilter: The Internet can do what now?

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:26:22 -0800

I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, "I drank what?"

By: Free word order!

Free word order! — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:26:23 -0800

Right now! Right here!

By: ornate insect

ornate insect — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:28:12 -0800

unSane, are you LWI (linking while intoxicated)?

By: Cool Papa Bell

Cool Papa Bell — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:28:30 -0800

OK, now that I know what the post is about ... I actually read a related article earlier today, and it's an interesting story.

By: unSane

unSane — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:30:42 -0800

no, just plain old LWI (linking while idiot)

By: unSane

unSane — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:31:39 -0800

You can think of this as Metafilter's version of SPORE. Leveraging user created content and all that.

By: yoink

yoink — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:31:54 -0800

By: unSane

unSane — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:32:32 -0800

Also, I don't even know how I did it.

By: yoink

yoink — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:32:59 -0800

Oh, and I meant to say: the mods should fix the link--the story's important.

By: Science!

Science! — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:34:45 -0800

Another take on the matter.

By: etc.

etc. — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:39:03 -0800

Nice use of the norealllythatswhattheyused. The extra L is for emphasis! It'll be fun to see who uses that tag next.

By: empath

empath — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:42:31 -0800

Also, I don't even know how I did it. You did it by not putting anything into link text.

By: AwkwardPause

AwkwardPause — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:42:32 -0800

I see what you did there.

By: empath

empath — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:42:41 -0800

(err, link url, rather)

By: JaredSeth

JaredSeth — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:43:41 -0800

[first name of a candidate] and pre/2 [last name of a candidate] w/7 charg! or accus! or controvers! or racis! or fraud! or investigat! or bankrupt! or indict! or arrest! or intox! or racis! or intox! or slur! or arrest! or fired or controvers! Edited for relevance

By: JaredSeth

JaredSeth — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:45:28 -0800

You know, I just noticed that intox! is in there twice. Why pick on the drunkards?

By: ijoshua

ijoshua — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:47:01 -0800

let's do the "fork in the garbage disposal"

By: brain cloud

brain cloud — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:48:23 -0800

Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich.

By: ericb

ericb — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:50:21 -0800

hell, did I screw up the link? I'd say "yes."

By: unSane

unSane — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:51:01 -0800

You did it by not putting anything into link text Thanks. Should I file that under bug or feature?

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:53:41 -0800

Nice. Essentially the story is that White House liaison Jan Williams, asked to research candidates for the National Advisory Committee on Violence Against Women, used Lexis-Nexis to find out political affliations, religious beliefs, and the sexuality attitudes of those candidates. She then shared her search techniques with Monica Goodling. When confronted with this abuse of power (and quite possibly a wholly illegal abuse at that), she lied her face off, and was subsequently caught-out. The Administration needs to be purged. I'd advocate a Stalin-style purging, with the guns and the bleeding and dying and all, but that seems to upset people, so an old-fashioned jailing would probably have to do.

By: ericb

ericb — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:54:25 -0800

Oh, and I meant to say: the mods should fix the link--the story's important. I think a re-try/repost might be in order, since this thread will continue to slip-and-slide, shift-and-"shiggle" beyond the intended topic and hoped-for discussion.

By: baphomet

baphomet — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:56:53 -0800

Is this post supposed to be some kind of sick, cruel joke?

By: loquacious

loquacious — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:58:12 -0800

ARGOT INKLING FLATFISH BLUE, WOMBAT NIBBLES, MARINATED BOOTS.*waves hands meaningfully* CROSSED BROCOLLI! YOU EAT THE LLAMA, THEN FIND THE WOMAN THEY CALL CROW. MOONLIGHT WILL CALL. WATCH OUT FOR ORCHIDS

By: swell

swell — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:01:34 -0800

We didn't find any results for "[first name of a candidate] and pre/2 [last name of a candidate] w/7 bush or gore or republican! or democrat! or charg! or accus! or criticiz! or blam! or defend! or iran contra or clinton or spotted owl or florida recount or sex! or controvers! or r" Some reasons might be... * a typo. Please check your spelling. * your search includes a term that is very rare. Try to find a more common substitute. * too many search terms. Please try fewer terms. Finally, try to think of different words to describe your search.

By: cortex

cortex — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:02:07 -0800

HEY I FIXED THE LINK

By: JaredSeth

JaredSeth — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:04:20 -0800

yoink's right...this story is interesting enough to warrant fixing the link.

By: JaredSeth

JaredSeth — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:04:51 -0800

Figures.

By: BrotherCaine

BrotherCaine — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:05:04 -0800

They forgot: alleg! or islam! or muslim! or oil! or petrol! or impeach or shred of compassion or humani! or decen! or geneva conv! or human right! or respect constitution! or respect bill of right! and so on and so forth.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:08:08 -0800

The exclamation points just make it so special. Like an angry search query.

By: Devils Rancher

Devils Rancher — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:14:10 -0800

yoink: (recusion added for emphasis) I'm surprised this story isn't a bigger scandal. I guess the Justice Dept. is so completely rotten, it's practices so clearly utterly corrupted by party-political machinations, that we all just sigh and say "well, of course they did that." But, really--this is in many ways bigger than Watergate. It was front page of the Austin American-Statesman today. If any newspaper was going to ignore a Bush-admin scandal, this is the one it'd be, so I was pleasantly surprised to see it there. Monica Goodling and others could get brought up on perjury charges at the very least, if we get lucky. Oh, and let's just get this over with now: Devils+Rancher+Spotted+owl+sawed+off+shotgun+ COMMUNISS!!+ecology+environment+DaBomb!+Obama+ Osama+ if/and/or TERROR! Screw it --I can't afford to fly, anyway.

By: unSane

unSane — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:15:08 -0800

thanks, Cortex

By: netbros

netbros — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:19:17 -0800

he discovered the burger had no pattie Once in Big Chimney, WV I ordered a chili dog at the local Dairy Queen. When served, I had a hot dog bun with chili on it ... no tube steak. I took it to the counter and inquired about where my hot dog was. To which the counter clerk replied, "That's how we do a chili dog around here." That wasn't the only thing missing in Big Chimney that day.

By: rocket88

rocket88 — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:26:07 -0800

This post needs to be yanked and replaced with a new one that makes sense. I'd suggest using five fresh fish's comment.

By: Maias

Maias — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:45:52 -0800

I think everyone is so overloaded with Bush scandal and economy terror and terror terror that no one really wants to read this stuff until there's a new administration and then we'll be like, ok, we can deal with it now that it's over. Of course, this depends on what new admin it is. but i do get the sense that people really want to be in denial right now and read about chandra levy or something other than Bush screwups because it's so scary to think that he's still got months and look how much he did in the short time he's had so far. i mean, completely wiping out a surplus and torture and the justice department and contractors and science and and and...

By: The Light Fantastic

The Light Fantastic — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:16:52 -0800

Don't worry, we couldn't possibly charg! or accus! or criticiz! or blam! you for your mistake - it could have been any one of us (while drunk).

By: tkolar

tkolar — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:22:48 -0800

Nice. Essentially the story is that White House liaison Jan Williams, asked to research candidates for the National Advisory Committee on Violence Against Women, used Lexis-Nexis to find out political affliations, religious beliefs, and the sexuality attitudes of those candidates. She then shared her search techniques with Monica Goodling. When confronted with this abuse of power (and quite possibly a wholly illegal abuse at that), I have to admit I'm confused here. How is doing a literature search for background material on a potential political appointee an abuse of power? I don't care which side of the political fence you're on, if someone has been commenting publically on any of those topics I would damn well want to know what they said before appointing them to anything....

By: tkolar

tkolar — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:24:01 -0800

[thinks a bit] ... *especially* sense that search is going to be the first thing the NY Times runs after you make the appointment.

By: tkolar

tkolar — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:24:15 -0800

sense-->since

By: krinklyfig

krinklyfig — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:46:58 -0800

I'm surprised this story isn't a bigger scandal. I guess the Justice Dept. is so completely rotten, it's practices so clearly utterly corrupted by party-political machinations, that we all just sigh and say "well, of course they did that." But, really--this is in many ways bigger than Watergate. Well, the thing about the DoJ is that it's explicitly non-partisan, or it's supposed to be. Until Bush, that's pretty much the way it's been. The stuff they did was just blatantly, egregiously illegal and unethical. Nobody's really done quite this much damage before now, as far as I know. It's impossible to ask the AG to do anything about it, so it's pretty corrupt. We can't fix it until these guys are gone, or at least there is no political will to kick the goddamn lying bastards out of office right the fuck now. But there should be, truly.

By: krinklyfig

krinklyfig — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:58:48 -0800

I don't care which side of the political fence you're on, if someone has been commenting publically on any of those topics I would damn well want to know what they said before appointing them to anything.... Taken in isolation, maybe. But the DoJ is not supposed to be basing their decisions on political affiliation, and, under Bush, they have been. That's very clear now. This is just part of the whole pattern, and it didn't come out of nowhere.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 20:49:22 -0800

How is doing a literature search for background material on a potential political appointee an abuse of power? IIRC, public employees are protected from discrimination against race, religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation, etceteras. That the DoJ would break its very own laws is appalling. There are a lot of people in positions of government power who should be going to jail. Important laws were broken and democracy essentially overthrown. It's simply stunning how complacent your representatives are about the whole debacle.

By: humannaire

humannaire — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:05:12 -0800

THis post reminds me of on old original Flash Gordon strip where he is trapped in another dimension, one which is inescapable and which is actually a round room in which he will live forever, and it's with a woman who is totally goo goo-eyed over him—but Flash is of course in love with Dale.... ...then what?

By: tkolar

tkolar — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:44:35 -0800

How is doing a literature search for background material on a potential political appointee an abuse of power?
IIRC, public employees are protected from discrimination against race, religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation, etceteras. That the DoJ would break its very own laws is appalling. Uh, not to be all contrary here but doing a literature search is not discrimination. It could turn *into* discrimination, but in itself it looks like a wise precaution. Do you really want to appoint a person to head the Violence Against Women advisory committee who has taken a public stand that lesbians deserve to get raped? More importantly, as much disdain as we share for the current administration, would you expect Obama's administration to *not* do background checks? It would be sloppy as hell to appoint someone without knowing what sort of controversial stands they may hold. I'm not sure about the mindset that says that less information is better when making political appointments.

By: billyfleetwood

billyfleetwood — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:15:57 -0800

tkolar, it's not about "doing background checks" it's about what was done with the information gained from said checks. For example, if the background check shows that someone is married to a democrat That's not a reasonable or legal reason to ignore that person's job qualifications. There's a big difference between searching for extreme views, and searching for opposing views. I'm not sure about the mindset that says that less information is better when making political appointments. These weren't political appointments. These were government jobs. Not every government job is political in nature. I don't care what the guy in charge of prosecuting terrorists thinks about gay marriage. I just want him to be good at prosecuting terrorists. If you hire people to look for terrorists based on their views on the environment, you end up with a list somewhere that says "terrorists" across the top in big bold letters followed by a bunch of names of people who vocally disagree with the administration's views on the environment.

By: tkolar

tkolar — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:34:03 -0800

tkolar, it's not about "doing background checks" it's about what was done with the information gained from said checks. I agree, which is why I'm confused that the outrage appears to be centered around doing the checks. Once again, would you expect the Obama administration *not* to run that search, or at least a very similar one with "Kerry" swapped for "Bush" and "spotted owl" swapped for "tobacco"?

By: mek

mek — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:55:40 -0800

Researching political affiliation / opinion before hiring someone for a non-partisan desk job is not reasonable in any case.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:56:49 -0800

Do you really want to appoint a person to head the Violence Against Women advisory committee who has taken a public stand that lesbians deserve to get raped? I wouldn't, but the Bush government did. Or, if not someone who took a public stand that women deserve to be raped, someone who took a public stand against prescriptive birth control. Heck, the Bush administration has been notorious for putting the most wildly inappropriate people into these positions. Anyhoo, point is that they were using these search terms to eliminate candidates on the flimsiest of excuses: reject this qualified person because they're married to a Democrat; eliminate that qualified person because they spoke out about global warming; eliminate another because they have a gay friend. That is what the controversy is about: yet more evidence that this government didn't hire based on competency, but on trite vendettas. This road to hell hasn't been paved with good intentions.

By: billyfleetwood

billyfleetwood — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:12:14 -0800

Once again, would you expect the Obama administration *not* to run that search, or at least a very similar one with "Kerry" swapped for "Bush" and "spotted owl" swapped for "tobacco"? I cant speak for anyone else, but it's not the search that pisses me off, it's the intent. I would not expect an Obama administration to run that search with the *same intentions* of the current administration. Not because I think Obama is perfect or above politics. I just haven't seen anything in his words or actions to lead me to believe he will run a Bush-style administration. Considering the many failings, both criminal and otherwise of this administration, I am not prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt on anything. If the news reported tomorrow that The White house ordered bagels for breakfast, I would assume that both bagels and breakfast were very bad things.

By: benzenedream

benzenedream — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:55:48 -0800

Once again, would you expect the Obama administration *not* to run that search, or at least a very similar one [first name of a candidate] and pre/2 [last name of a candidate] w/7 bush or reagan or creationis! or asskiss! or yesman! or college roommate or faith-bas! or halliburton or no-bid! or cocaine or cheney or hunt! or shoot friend in face or incompeten! or fraud! or american peso! or deathbed sign! or bankrupt! or bin laden free! or ghraib or sycophant! or north korea diplomacy or abramoff or deficit! or oilman! or abstinenc! or voter cagi! or vindictiv! or exit strategy or chalabi or war profite! or anti-scienc! or raptur! or rumsfeld or wiretapp! or neocon! or arrest! or born-again! or AEI or pageophilia! or robertson or clean air act! or toe-tapp! or we are fully prepar! or katrina or presidential librar! or liberator! or libby or wipe ass with constitution or controvers! or horse judg! or incompetent! or braindead or schiavo or nuklear!

By: bjrubble

bjrubble — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:13:21 -0800

Just for the record, if the Obama administration ran the same search, I would be pissed and disappointed. I don't think you need to guess at intent here. What legitimate reason is there for including terms like "spotted owl" or "iraq" or "homosexual" in the search? How is this different from asking a job applicant what church they attend, which in the real world would lose you the discrimination suit right there?

By: aiq

aiq — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:36:27 -0800

"What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?"

By: rough ashlar

rough ashlar — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:08:06 -0800

I saw the mess, noticed it was a link to somewhere and went 'meh'. Slashdot did a better job of telling me WHY I should care about the link. Slashdot.

By: yoink

yoink — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:00:05 -0800

tkolar--you're missing the point about the nature of the jobs that people were being vetted in this way for. No one expects the President to appoint someone as part of his/her administration who has publicly advocated positions opposed to the President's or which might embarrass the President. But these searches were used on people who were being hired for non-political administrative positions within the Justice department. I would be completely outraged if, in an Obama administration, someone was turned down for a position as an "assistant US Attorney" (for example) because they donated money to the Republican party. This has not been the norm in previous administrations, and it is quite rightly condemned as illegal by the Justice Dept. Auditor.

By: mrgrimm

mrgrimm — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:54:17 -0800

benzenedream, thattsa pretty good list, or at least the start of one. It was front page of the Austin American-Statesman today. If any newspaper was going to ignore a Bush-admin scandal, this is the one it'd be... Really?!?! Part 2. Slashdot did a better job of telling me WHY I should care about the link. Metafilter is not your mother.

By: tkolar

tkolar — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:53:01 -0800

yoink writes... tkolar--you're missing the point about the nature of the jobs that people were being vetted in this way for. The article writes... Williams used the search string to research 25 people, of whom 23 were candidates for the National Advisory Committee on Violence Against Women. Are you going to suggest that a National Advisory Committee is not a political position?

By: inigo2

inigo2 — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 21:40:09 -0800

Do you really want to appoint a person to head the Violence Against Women advisory committee who has taken a public stand that lesbians deserve to get raped? And if the person running for Official Strawman Of America was found in a search to have commented on strawmen, do you really want to appoint them? And also if they were a Democrat.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:14:07 -0800

After reading this link, I'm convinced Monica Goodling should be in prison.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:14:08 -0800

After reading this link, I'm convinced Monica Goodling should be in prison.

By: tkolar

tkolar — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:18:11 -0800

It just seems to me that this administration has a list of indictable crimes about half a mile long. There's really no need to stretch our outrage out to cover marginal shit that probably indicates wrongdoing, but is in itself rather banal.

By: tkolar

tkolar — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:19:49 -0800

After reading this link, I'm convinced Monica Goodling should be in prison. Now *that* is some nasty shit.

By: tkolar

tkolar — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:22:20 -0800

Although I'm a little disturbed that the bottom of the Washington Post article features links to The Onion.