To lower the hackles a bit, we readers are getting sucked into rhetoric that really isn't representative, based on a few key words and little proof, despite what we all want to be outraged about.

She wasn't fired for being gay. Sensational headlines aside, her contract was not renewed. I am a government contractor also. I have had several contracts not renew. That doesn't mean I was ever fired. The stilted, half-story is that this nice, defenseless (maybe gay) woman was suddenly, unexpectedly jobless. We do not know if this is true, and as such, this is a Faux-news style report that unfortunately we readers have become too good at picking apart. In reality, we have a sharp, knowledgeable DOJ-experienced (maybe gay) lawyer that would sue the crap out of the place if there was actual civil rights infringement or labor law violation.

Speaking from experience, there is not a federal contractor in the country that should expect long-term status with a client beyond the term of the existing contract. That is defined as an employee. I doubt the reason cited for non-renewal was "gay", though no reason needs to be given. Could actually be that no government need continued or that a government employee was able to take on the task.

I just reread your story sources... A person that knew a person suggested that some other person remembered that someone said that she had a problem with someone else's sexuality. That's what you are running with?? And no investigation by you about contract, follow-on by someone else (or government employee), who was cited present at this meeting, etc.? You are just seeking a reaction, not reporting news. The DOJ, nor most courts cannot use this as evidence, nor sourced as such. So why is a huge headline here about Gay Firings at DOJ? That's not even accurate. Perhaps you folks are putting on a bow-tie and we are gonna see a TPM 360 soon?

I don't like supporting Gonzo cronies, so please stop this. There is enough actual illegal activity out there. You don't need to stretch for this.

Posted at April 2, 2008 8:21 PM in response to DoJ Investigators Probing Whether Goodling Fired Lawyer Due to Gay Rumors

Let's compare a bit--

The FBI has a contractor that access some data inappropriately... Name and company are discussed openly in the article immediately. Same true for TSA when that happened there. Remember those lost laptops? names and companies discussed immediately there too. Strange that this is not getting the same play. Especially when people are screaming for the info that is usually offered up. Contractors get tossed under the bus every day, usually for things more defensible than this.

So State has 3 contractors that reviewed data, from 2 companies, that tripped a sensor... all of a sudden? And State reps won't say who it is? Sounds to me like they need to erase more than a hard drive. Memories of contractors when subpoenaed can be very clear, since they don't have the same issues of government workers regarding insubordination, federal consciences, etc., It seems a remarkable coincidence.

Perhaps more likely (to go conspiracy theory for a moment) that someone told someone to check out his passport history. The contractors did so, not knowing the "celebrity policy" that both State and IRS maintain for personal records. They get tripped up, but are happy to say who instructed them. Whoops!

Posted at March 21, 2008 8:11 PM in response to State Won't Release Names of Contractors... Just Cuz

Technology update: if five-year-old computers are still being used by senior staff, we have a completely different problem in the Executive Administration Buildings! Worse, the PCs in 2003 were (most likely) the new-issue computers they got in 2001, when they arrived. Think those computers are still around? Average Joes get theirs replaced every three years. Think Cheney is using a Pentium III?

Of course another rhetorical question: Why was this broadcast to the world? A gag order would be far more effective to actually preserve data,also remotely pulling all data from the computers can be done overnight, without ever touching a machine. No one has the chance to delete anything!

Forensic backup can be later, but why tempt fate by telling everybody that there will be local backups turned over to authorities, "sometime soon...really soon...almost ready...(as people are rabidly swapping out hard drives).... OK.... Now!"

Kinda like keeping the cops from a shooting scene until the next day, when everyone had their lines memorized.

Posted at March 18, 2008 8:11 PM in response to Judge Presses White House on Emails

Wow. I can't believe I am typing this. I completely agree with John McCain. I need to shower now.

Also, thanks to the posters that recognize there is more at play than Boeing vs. EADS. The prime contractors and subcontractors are all affected by wins/losses. Trying to oversimplify to down to locations of (some of) the hardware manufacture also minimizes the roles of the evaluation teams that picked the winning proposal and their multiple priorities.

Posted at March 12, 2008 9:54 PM in response to McCain is Right on Boeing Deal