Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

DHS Chief Janet Napolitano Resigns

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the so-long-and-thanks-for-all-the-cavity-searches dept.

United States 192

schwit1 writes with news that the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, has resigned her post. Napolitano entered the office at the beginning of President Obama's first term, and she was only the third person to hold the position since it was created in response to the September 11th attacks. In a statement, she said the Department of Homeland Security "has improved the safety of travelers; implemented smart steps that make our immigration system more fair and focused while deploying record resources to protect our nation's borders; worked with states to build resiliency and make our nation's emergency and disaster response capabilities more robust; and partnered with the private sector to improve our cybersecurity." Napolitano will be taking over the presidency of the University of California's 10-campus education system. "UC officials believe that her Cabinet experiences –- which include helping to lead responses to hurricanes and tornadoes and overseeing some anti-terrorism measures — will help UC administer its federal energy and nuclear weapons labs and aid its federally funded research in medicine and other areas."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

University of Califonia? Oh, they'll love her. (5, Funny)

Picass0 (147474) | about a year ago | (#44261377)

"They said 'California is the place you outta be' so she loaded up he spooks and she moved to Beverly..."

OFFTOPIC: Slashdot Kremlin story just pulled? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44261503)

Anyone know what happened? The last story:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/07/12/1322248/kremlin-security-agency-to-buy-typewriters-to-avoid-leaks [slashdot.org]

Seems to have been pulled. Message: "The item you're trying to view either does not exist, or is not viewable to you."

Just me or is it everyone?

Re:OFFTOPIC: Slashdot Kremlin story just pulled? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44261599)

I think it was a dupe anyway.

Re:OFFTOPIC: Slashdot Kremlin story just pulled? (1)

rickb928 (945187) | about a year ago | (#44262347)

And now we're duping the comments.

Brilliant!

Re:University of Califonia? Oh, they'll love her. (5, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#44261545)

Except the beverly hillbillies got rich first then moved to Beverly Hills. In this case, UC is currently paying their president $600K and will probably pay her. Which is odd, because last I heard, the UC system was still cutting scholarships, teachers, and classes due to budget problems.

But I'm sure that money is well spent: I mean, if Napolitano can bring the same magic to the UC system that she did to DHS, then maybe the UC system will be safe from imagingary threats from Al Quaeda. And isn't that more important than students getting an education? We decided it was more important than the constitution, so yes, the answer is yes whether you like it or not.

/s. This is idiotic. Why is a taxpayer supported institution wasting money like she's a CEO?

Re:University of Califonia? Oh, they'll love her. (4, Interesting)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#44261639)

The theory is that you get what you pay for. A $150,000 salary might attract someone who can save $5 mil. A $600,000 salary might attract someone better who can save $10 mil. In the end, taxpayers might be better off with a higher paid person if they can bring in the benefits. Professors at research universities operate on a similar principal... they might get paid $250,000 because they bring in $10 million in grants.

Of course, that's the theory.

Re:University of Califonia? Oh, they'll love her. (5, Informative)

poetmatt (793785) | about a year ago | (#44261745)

that may be, but Napolitano didn't save any money. She increased costs substantially, caused economic turmoil for the country with the policies she supported [economist.com] , and spent over 200 million bucks on those scanners which have saved us approximately $0. Did I mention the amount of tourism lost because people were like "Fuck this country" over things like claiming we can randomly stop people in 3/4 of the country. You may think it's a TSA thing, but TSA and DHS go hand in hand. Plus DHS harassing the shit out of foreigners, as well. [thinkprogress.org]

So does that mean she's working gratis? sadly, no.

Re:University of Califonia? Oh, they'll love her. (4, Insightful)

anagama (611277) | about a year ago | (#44262207)

Yeah, but for the scanners we wasted money on, that was revenue and probably a lot of profit for the manufacturers. You do realize that the entire sole purpose of the Federal government, is to subsidize a select few friendly mega-corps at our expense (monetary expense, freedom expense). Napolitano did that job perfectly.

Re:University of Califonia? Oh, they'll love her. (4, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#44261789)

Above a certain level, though, you start to pull in the wrong kinds of people. You can definitely get a better professor for $100k than $60k, and probably can get a top one for $200k. But if you're paying an administrator $600k? Now you start pulling in people who don't care about academia, and are just in it for the money. I think it might be better not incentivizing them to jump to academia; academic administration is becoming a revolving door of people from industry and government doing 3-year stints to put on their CV, when it would be better served by people with some kind of actual knowledge about, and commitment to, research and education.

Re:University of Califonia? Oh, they'll love her. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44262081)

The difference is salary isn't based on any skill other than negotiations. I've known too many alleged "top professors", who were useless in a university, while other professors were let go because their course work was too tough for the students.

Re:University of Califonia? Oh, they'll love her. (3, Interesting)

davydagger (2566757) | about a year ago | (#44262407)

I think the whole math of paying someone more thant $75k/year to attract top talnet starts to go haywire.

A a point you tend to attract people who either cheat, game the system, or have connections, more than skill.

Re:University of Califonia? Oh, they'll love her. (1)

operagost (62405) | about a year ago | (#44261945)

That's funny-- the anti-capitalists keep telling us that doesn't work for private companies, and criticize companies for their high-paid CEOs.

I think few execs in universities were brought there for their frugality.

Re:University of Califonia? Oh, they'll love her. (1)

phrostie (121428) | about a year ago | (#44262213)

In the 60's they called it CO-INTEL-PRO, She'll be starting a new program called COIN-TEL-PRO.

where better to start than a college campus.

Re:University of Califonia? Oh, they'll love her. (4, Interesting)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#44261995)

/s. This is idiotic. Why is a taxpayer supported institution wasting money like she's a CEO?

Why do you get a CEO? Sometimes it's only for the connections. And Janet Napolitano has a lot of connections. The key is this quote:

"will help UC administer its federal energy and nuclear weapons labs and aid its federally funded research in medicine and other areas."

There are groups in the government that want to take those programs away from UC, and privatize them (or whatever). UC wants to keep them because they bring in a lot of money from the federal government. Janet will help with that because of her connections.

Re:University of Califonia? Oh, they'll love her. (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#44262131)

There are groups in the government that want to take those programs away from UC, and privatize them (or whatever). UC wants to keep them because they bring in a lot of money from the federal government. Janet will help with that because of her connections.

A simple solution here would be to get rid of the facilities in question. Then you don't need to employ someone like Napolitano. You know, don't lie down with dogs, don't get up with fleas.

Re:University of Califonia? Oh, they'll love her. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44262179)

Getting rid of UC's medical research facilities is indeed a very simple answer.

Didn't "simple" used to be one of the euphemisms for "mentally retarded"?

Re:University of Califonia? Oh, they'll love her. (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about a year ago | (#44262485)

Getting rid of UC's medical research facilities is indeed a very simple answer.

Didn't "simple" used to be one of the euphemisms for "mentally retarded"?

I think the GP was referring to the military contracts, not necessarily the medical research. Be that as it may, it seems wasteful (and ... cronyish) to hire a powerful Federal administrator that can use influence and connections to obtain grant money rather than allow the grant applications to pass or fail based on the merits of the research involved. They've already gotten too focused on "monetizing patents", which can bring in a lot of money for treating things like sexual dysfunction and balding, than on work to actually cure diseases that cause suffering and death.

Re:University of Califonia? Oh, they'll love her. (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#44262289)

What does that solve?

Re:University of Califonia? Oh, they'll love her. (2)

bjdevil66 (583941) | about a year ago | (#44262039)

if Napolitano can bring the same magic to the UC system that she did to DHS, then maybe the UC system will be safe from...

If by "magic" you mean her using her DC connections to get more federal dough into the UC system one way or another, then probably. This reeks of hiring a DC insider to get cash...

Re:University of Califonia? Oh, they'll love her. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44262451)

You're thinking about it all wrong. They're not paying her to work there, they're paying her NOT to work at DHS!

Re:University of Califonia? Oh, they'll love her. (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#44261611)

That's the name of her Wife?

Re:University of Califonia? Oh, they'll love her. (3, Interesting)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#44261813)

and a cry went up from the dark corners of campus, "woo-hoo, strip-search the co-eds."

Re:University of Califonia? Oh, they'll love her. (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#44261967)

FWIW the police in Berkeley have long had a reputation for being strict and unkind. They are virtually the figurative personification of the man. So she'll fit in that niche.

Re:University of Califonia? Oh, they'll love her. (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#44262061)

FWIW the police in Berkeley have long had a reputation for being strict and unkind. They are virtually the figurative personification of the man. So she'll fit in that niche.

Plus, being California, the vast majority of people who have the balls and/or means to fight against such authoritarian bullshit are already in prison.

Should make completing the fascist takeover a fairly straightforward manner.

Re:University of Califonia? Oh, they'll love her. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44262155)

I heard, if the next round of immigration reforms pass through the Capitol Building`s wifi (Focomm), she might get a free one-way trip to Naples, Italy to oversee the new University of Waste-Management...

R.E. "Off-Topic",
The conclusion was that slashdot editors/mods are censoring peoples comments, and their "electricity"-provider has been experiencing some stux-flux-in-currency

Re:University of Califonia? Oh, they'll love her. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44262249)

She might get deported (discreetly), to find a place at the University of Waste-Management in Naples, Italy.
If the new round of immigration reforms pass through the Capitol Building`s wirelessnetwork (Foxcomm>Corning), that is.........
anonymous senator- "did you or did you not eavesdrop on members of congress?" Waste-Managment OffiCIAl "uhh, the terrorists did it."

Time to whip out the old electric-typewriter, the dungeon-keeper needs a new stuxwhip......

Re:University of Califonia? Oh, they'll love her. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44262471)

The office of president for UC system is located in Sacramento, CA. This is a bit surprising location, but when you factor in the state capital it makes perfect sense.

And not much changes... (2, Insightful)

robinsonne (952701) | about a year ago | (#44261379)

I'd say "good riddance!", but I'm fully confident that the administration will find some crony just as eager to continue our security theater.

Re:And not much changes... (1)

brian1078 (230523) | about a year ago | (#44261407)

I'd say "good riddance!",

So would I. But now she's my new boss. Great.

Re:And not much changes... (2)

Penguinisto (415985) | about a year ago | (#44261777)

Fun question: What did UC get in the exchange? We know what the quid is, but what's the quo?

Re:And not much changes... (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#44262073)

Venereal disease.

Re:And not much changes... (2)

Feyshtey (1523799) | about a year ago | (#44261763)

You took the words right out of my mouth. For a fraction of a second I felt like celebrating. But I have no doubt that this administration is capable of finding a replacement that's worse.

dont let the door hit you in the ass (0)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year ago | (#44261383)

on your way out!. actually, yeah, let it

high priced lobbyiest...... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44261385)

to make sure the cash keep flowing........

Immigration? (4, Informative)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | about a year ago | (#44261395)

Its going fantastically after $100 BILLION/10 years spent. Well done results are fantastic. See immigration reform = surveillance reform as military tactics move inland from US borders [nakedcapitalism.com]

Re:Immigration? (2)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | about a year ago | (#44261571)

How can this be modded off-topic: DHS is all about immigration control. The story even says "make our immigration system more fair and focused while deploying record resources to protect our nation's borders;". 100 Billion certainly sounds like "record resources", but the real story [nakedcapitalism.com] certainly does not sound like it is more fair.

Re:Immigration? (2)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about a year ago | (#44261963)

How can this be modded off-topic

A troop of macaques on LSD got access to an account with mod points. It happens, just wipe the poop off and move on.

Re:Immigration? (1)

HangingChad (677530) | about a year ago | (#44262091)

as military tactics move inland from US borders

So you're saying highly armed SWAT teams with tanks driving around on city streets, breaking down doors in residential homes and slaughtering house pets doesn't make you feel safer?

Land of the free, baby! At least for very small values of free.

I speak for all of us when I say (4, Insightful)

Gothmolly (148874) | about a year ago | (#44261397)

GFY Janet, you fascist, power-grabbing hooligan.

Re:I speak for all of us when I say (2)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year ago | (#44261469)

On the fascist timeline we have reach ~1934. No more simple Blueshirts.
Welcome our new political police and security services that will ensure the internet stays packet pure with every more vigilant "network hygiene"

Re:I speak for all of us when I say (1)

DeathToBill (601486) | about a year ago | (#44261567)

A bit over the top, no? The night of the long knives was in 1934 - I don't think we're up to mass murder of political opponents yet.

Re:I speak for all of us when I say (1)

jasper160 (2642717) | about a year ago | (#44261665)

No we force feed them and hold them without trail.

Re:I speak for all of us when I say (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about a year ago | (#44262033)

Which political opponents are being held without trial? Hint: those held at Guantanamo (a shameful thing) are not political opponents.

Re:I speak for all of us when I say (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44262425)

"hold them without trail"

Is hiking now a human right?

Re:I speak for all of us when I say (2)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year ago | (#44261787)

We seem to be moving to a merger of corporate and government security.
The private sector seems to be in the news wrt cybersecurity in the past few days.
A new view on cyber offense http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/?p=110420-ga [wired.com]
Terms like network hygiene http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/28/us-army-blocks-guardian-website-access [guardian.co.uk] .
The internet seems to be taking on a whole new role wrt to security from the desktop to corporate to the role of media.
The fun of "citation needed" to many of the bigger questions around private contractors just to 'look after' as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A [wikipedia.org] seem to have become more clear to many people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempora [wikipedia.org]

Re:I speak for all of us when I say (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44261929)

Oh.

"GFY" does NOT mean "Good For You" - does it....

Re:I speak for all of us when I say (5, Insightful)

bjdevil66 (583941) | about a year ago | (#44262237)

With her resigning her post, this day is a great day for the entire country.

While governor of my home state (Arizona), she was a friend of big government and an enemy of libertarian views. She ran up the Arizona state budget by billions, starting new and costly programs, with no long-term plans on how to pay for them in leaner times. She also pushed hard for planting the roots of a surveillance state, led by state-wide photo radar on state highways.

Then in 2008, seeing the writing on the wall - she was term-limited and couldn't run again, the state's economy/budget was about to tank as the first signs of the housing collapse were appearing - she sucked up HARD to Barack Obama on the 2008 campaign trail and grabbed the first government post thrown her way as payment.

Many of us here in Arizona cheered when she left, but quietly shuddered when we realized what position she'd taken, knowing her views. IMO, we're lucky we've only had to deal with naked body scanners and that enough people pushed back against her, "to hell with privacy - we need to keep these idiots safe," mentality to keep her in check. Maybe we're also lucky she was generally incompetent and became more of a DC bureaucrat that became too politically paralyzed to push for her grand views of what she would've really wanted to implement?

And you've gotta wonder what changes she could possibly bring to a university system. She was part of a sprawling bureaucracy in DC - I guess the UC system wants a bigger bureaucracy? Maybe they just want to capitalize on her connections in DC to get federal funds (making her a de facto lobbyist)?

On the future DHS replacement - here's to hoping the president doesn't pick another bureaucrat. Maybe the president will live up to some of his campaign promises now on openness in government when picking her successor? Realistically, I'm pretty sure it won't be a Ron Paul type...

Re:I speak for all of us when I say (1)

bjdevil66 (583941) | about a year ago | (#44262383)

I forgot to add that the state government and her replacement (Jan Brewer) did a great job of managing the fiscal disaster Napalitano bailed on for her cushy job. Instead of accounting gimmicks like what Janet did (selling state government properties and leasing them from new owners, etc.), they tightened their belts and got the job done by raising revenue and cutting costs. Even hard core, liberal Democrats that hate Jan Brewer for wagging her finger at President Obama have to appreciate what she did to beat down the more extreme elements of her own party in the GOP-led legislature to fix Arizona's books and manage the state through the tough times. The governor helped lead the people to a three year, temporary sales tax (that just expired). They also painfully cut many services to the bone. The state still needs to do more work to stabilize its long-term prospects, but we're long since off of life support.

OTOH, who's to say what kind of gridlocked mess we'd be in as a state if Janet had remained governor when everything ultimately collapsed here in the fall of 2008...

The truth is out there (1)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about a year ago | (#44261423)

Napolitano is heading out there to ensure that the Sharknado [imdb.com] does not come to pass. She's going to take flying lessons so she can hover a helicopter 50 feet away from the up-coming EF4 tornado and "blow it up".

Re:The truth is out there (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44262375)

I think she would need to first learn how to use 'email'. What a disaster to have somebody in her position that does _not_ use email.

Hope all of you UC students (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44261435)

Will enjoy the TSA contract she must be dying to implement at the schools!

Wasted funds on an epic scale (5, Insightful)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | about a year ago | (#44261439)

"implemented smart steps"

With the huge pile of body scanners sitting unused in warehouses thanks to DHS's wild (and illegal) binge on ineffective and invasive scanning technology, I have a hard time with their using the phrase "smart steps". In fact it's so bad, it almost seems like an inside joke. Not funny. And Janet? You make me sick

Re:Wasted funds on an epic scale (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44261579)

"implemented smart steps"

With the huge pile of body scanners sitting unused in warehouses thanks to DHS's wild (and illegal) binge on ineffective and invasive scanning technology ...

Security breach [southparkstudios.com] !

No scandal??? (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year ago | (#44261441)

It's so dull when a public figure resigns for reasons other than "to spend more time with my family".

Re:No scandal??? (1)

MarlowBardling (2860885) | about a year ago | (#44261619)

Obviously she was actually doing the right thing then.

Re:No scandal??? (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about a year ago | (#44261943)

My guess is it's coming up in the queue of Snowden leaked docs or something similar.

tellingly 'relevant' experience (5, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#44261443)

"UC officials believe that her Cabinet experiences –- which include helping to lead responses to hurricanes and tornadoes and overseeing some anti-terrorism measures — will help UC administer its federal energy and nuclear weapons labs and aid its federally funded research in medicine and other areas."

It's a good thing there's no need to have the head of a university system have experience in anything like education or research. All that matters is those security-industry connections!

Re:tellingly 'relevant' experience (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44261791)

This is the UC, not your local community college. Your jibe would make sense if she were to head one of the schools (eg, UC Berkley). Her experience is inline with her new job, head bureaucrat of bureaucrats - Reagants of The University of California, and its role administering some important federal lab programs.

Re:tellingly 'relevant' experience (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#44261887)

Her experience is inline with her new job, head bureaucrat of bureaucrats - Reagants of The University of California

Were you misspelling Regents or Reagents? Because I'd like to see them used as the latter in a dramatic reaction.

Re:tellingly 'relevant' experience (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#44262115)

This is the UC, not your local community college.

True, they should be hiring Kiefer Sutherland for his extensive acting experience in these matters.

I've got this one (4, Insightful)

grasshoppa (657393) | about a year ago | (#44261445)

has improved the safety of travelers;

Prove a negative. Nice.

implemented smart steps that make our immigration system more fair and focused while deploying record resources to protect our nation's borders;

So...nothing. No, wait! Nothing, but we spent "record resources" achieving it.

worked with states to build resiliency and make our nation's emergency and disaster response capabilities more robust;

So..nothing again. At least, nothing quantifiable, which is pretty much the same thing.

and partnered with the private sector to improve our cybersecurity.

Did...she just list PRISM as an accomplishment on her resume?

Stunning.

Re:I've got this one (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44261483)

Regardless of the fact that I do not like her, she was just the government lapdog assigned to implement the policies of law. If it wasn't her, it would be someone else. Blaming the person who implemented the laws instead of blaming Congress for passing laws and allowing these programs to be created in the first place is silly.

Re:I've got this one (4, Insightful)

grasshoppa (657393) | about a year ago | (#44261497)

There's more than enough blame to go around.

At least Snowden had the integrity and honor to do something about it.

Re:I've got this one (5, Insightful)

bhlowe (1803290) | about a year ago | (#44261517)

Our borders are so secure, we're only going to have to give amnesty to 30 million.

Re:I've got this one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44261663)

Where's the damn like button?

Re:I've got this one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44262261)

Where's the damn like button?

MyFace or Facecrook or whatever the hell's using you kids these days. Where's the damn *plonk* button?

Re:I've got this one (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year ago | (#44261637)

Did...she just list PRISM as an accomplishment on her resume?

Stunning.

No silly. PRISM is NSA. Janet is DHS. Get your TLA's straight.

Re:I've got this one (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | about a year ago | (#44261687)

Damn it, you're right.

Re:I've got this one (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#44261709)

Personally, I'm a bit surprised she (are we sure of that?) didn't brag about how, under her(?) leadership, the DHS acquired enough guns, tanks, and ammo to wage war on the American people for a solid decade.

Re:I've got this one (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year ago | (#44261891)

and partnered with the private sector to improve our cybersecurity.

Did...she just list PRISM as an accomplishment on her resume?

Maybe she was talking about HBGary and Stratfor

Re:I've got this one (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#44261927)

has improved the safety of travelers;

Under Napolitano not a single passenger has been mauled by a tiger in American airspace.

Re:I've got this one (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about a year ago | (#44262051)

You overlooked her assertion that the failure of the underwear bomber (or was it the tennis shoe bomber?) was evidence that the system worked, even though there were only two reasons he failed to blow up the plane, neither one of which involved anyone from her department. The two reasons were
  1. 1) the bomber was incompetent
  2. 2) the other passengers on the plane swarmed him as soon as they realized what he was up to

The second may not have been necessary because of the first one, but it ensured that he did not have a chance to correct his mistakes. Neither of these is any indication that the invasive procedures used to screen passengers was of any use in preventing the bombing of a plane.
There are reasons that someone started referring to her as Janet Incompetano (I no longer remember where I first came across that manner of referring to her).

Re:I've got this one (1)

neo-mkrey (948389) | about a year ago | (#44262273)

I wish /. could give +6s for exceedingly clear comments such as yours. Good job Sir or Madame!

Re:I've got this one (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44262323)

worked with states to build resiliency and make our nation's emergency and disaster response capabilities more robust;

So..nothing again. At least, nothing quantifiable, which is pretty much the same thing

I wouldn't say that. Thanks to the DHS, billions have been dumped into police department budges across the nation which has been used to purchase military style equipment and counter-terrorism assault training. It has effectively turned police departments--even in little podunk towns--into paramilitaries with the culture conducive of an occupying military force rather than a civilian law enforcement agency. [thedailybeast.com]

I'll drink to that! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44261459)

I'll drink to that!!

http://youtu.be/ACgJhE2L7Ms?t=46s

I hope the door hits her on the way out.

uc system (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44261515)

when will the official groping policy be implemented on the campuses?

Re:uc system (1)

sociocapitalist (2471722) | about a year ago | (#44261969)

when will the official groping policy be implemented on the campuses?

Freshman year of course

Re:uc system (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44262113)

dibs on the security detail job outside the sororities!

Turn off the fusion centers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44261527)

They don't even have a purpose.

Napolitano is proof (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44261551)

This woman is proof that if you are stupid, it doesn't matter how hard you work, nothing you do makes any logical sense or helps anything.

Typical blow-hard career politician.

"has improved the safety of travelers" (5, Funny)

spacefight (577141) | about a year ago | (#44261569)

[Citation needed]

'nuff said.

Re:"has improved the safety of travelers" (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year ago | (#44261605)

Mod way up.

Re:"has improved the safety of travelers" (1)

isorox (205688) | about a year ago | (#44261987)

[Citation needed]

'nuff said.

I don't see any tigers around, do you?

Re:"has improved the safety of travelers" (2)

Tablizer (95088) | about a year ago | (#44262135)

Re: [Citation needed]

I can personally vouch that inspections have detected prostrate cancer at an early enough stage to save lives.

UC students can look forward to improved security (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44261573)

... milimeter wave scanners at the entrance to every academic building and mandatory patdowns before entering their dorms. Please allow up to two hours before class to clear security.

Oh thank God. (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year ago | (#44261597)

The day seems a little brighter.

two comments (1)

ArcadeX (866171) | about a year ago | (#44261623)

1. better the enemy you know.... who's the next terrorist, i mean head of the dhs? 2. i only fly when i absolutely have to thanks to the tsa oil checks, what types of security 'improvements' will be increasing the drop-out rate of UC in the future?

The real disaster (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44261695)

is yet to come at the University of California.

Good (3, Interesting)

PPH (736903) | about a year ago | (#44261705)

We need someone to keep an eye on those hippies over at UC Berkeley.

UC admission process (4, Funny)

TheUglyAmerican (767829) | about a year ago | (#44261721)

I understand the UC admission process will now include fully body cavity searches.

Re:UC admission process (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | about a year ago | (#44262301)

The body cavity search was just a deposit. For the actual fee, they charge and arm and a leg.

Big Sister is gone (1)

Squidlips (1206004) | about a year ago | (#44261867)

Will be get a Big Brother to run it? How about Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria or just plain old Stalin?

Re:Big Sister is gone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44262183)

I vote for Stalin. He'll do a much better job than someone alive.

DHS Secretary looks like a roadblock (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44261999)

I remember when Tom Ridge was an up-and-comer in the GOP. I always figured that GWB put him in charge of DHS because he felt threatened by him. You can't really say no to a cabinet-level position; but running for office from it is probably harder than running for office from a governorship. Since then, it's like Ridge doesn't exist.

UC President? It's not a national office, it's not a political office. I don't know if she wanted to further any political ambitions anyway. Probably not. Nothing wrong with being UC president. I'm just saying... if I had designs on the White House, or a more prestigious office, I'd look at nomination for DHS Secretary as my party's way of saying, "we like you; but we don't like like you".

Sounds like an opportunity (1)

fnj (64210) | about a year ago | (#44262019)

So one of the regime's big thugs is out. This would be a good time for the president to declare DHS a failed idea and abolish it. Of course he wouldn't phrase it that way. he would laud this thug's accomplishments and declare the department's ten year reign of terror a grand success and say it was no longer needed due the regime's advancements, and he will be able to save a lot of money due to his superior administrative skills with DHS' duties performed by some of its components, and other activities not performed at all, same as the situation for the 214 years prior to 2003. Not in exactly those words; his speechwriters could make hay out of the wording.

Re:Sounds like an opportunity (5, Insightful)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about a year ago | (#44262053)

Never happen. Sadly, something like that would be the work of the Obama We Voted For, rather than the Obama We Got.

Revolving door (1)

steamraven (2428480) | about a year ago | (#44262049)

" will help UC administer its federal energy and nuclear weapons labs and aid its federally funded research in medicine and other areas"

Revolving door much?

She should kill herself (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44262071)

There'd be more honor in ending her own life than wasting another breath preserving it.

Time To KIll DHS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44262337)

The House Repubs can sit on Obama's nom until Obama rots in his Kenyan grave. And if he tries a 'recess' appointment by dictatorial order, he'll be impeached and sent to rot in Gitmo.

Ha Ha.

Bloody Nazi Janet Planet Napolitano.

Not Suited (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about a year ago | (#44262355)

Do the "UC Officials" realize that J. does not use email? I suspect she doesn't even know how to use a computer. I'm not convinced someone like that is really suited to run a university system, where students should have those skills, and are in an environment where communicating electronically is essential.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?