Unless you have worked in government, you cannot appreciate how truly inefficient it is. I have to laugh when socialists like Michael Moore talk about how good our government is at providing services. If most people only knew how bad it truly is.

Auditors Can't Find Veterans Affairs Computer Equipment Worth $6.4 Million

Tuesday , July 24, 2007

from the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON — 

More than a quarter of the computer equipment at the [script removed]Washington could not be found by investigators, government auditors reported Tuesday.

Three other VA facilities showed slightly better results but still could not locate between 6 percent and 11 percent of their equipment, including computers, hard drives, monitors and other devices. In all, the four facilities audited by the [script removed]Government Accountability Office reported more than 2,400 missing items originally worth $6.4 million.

Aside from decrying potentially wasted tax dollars, lawmakers said the report raises fresh questions about the security of the agency's information, including sensitive medical records and Social Security numbers.

The audit follows a series of computer data security breaches at the agency that exposed millions of veterans and medical providers to possible identity theft.

"It has a very corrosive effect on trust in the VA in general," said Rep. Tim Walz, D-Minn. "I think all of us up here are sensing the frustrations of our constituents and our veterans."

For the audit, the GAO sampled equipment inventories at medical centers in Washington, San Diego, Indianapolis and at VA headquarters offices.

The auditors said much of the equipment that could be found was not where inventory records said it should be. Equipment often was moved or set aside for discard without documentation. As a result, it was difficult or impossible to determine what had happened to the missing equipment, the report said.

Equipment slated for disposal — some containing sensitive records — often sat unprotected in storage rooms for months or years, the report said.

"Essentially no one was accountable for IT equipment," it said.

The GAO found similar weaknesses in a survey of six VA facilities in 2004. GAO officials testified at a House hearing Tuesday that the VA has made some improvements since then but still has not established effective inventory controls or held users accountable for equipment.

VA officials did not dispute the findings, but said they were making progress. Since the three-month audit was completed, officials said they had located much of the missing equipment or had verified that it was sent to surplus.

Robert Howard, VA's assistant secretary for information and technology, said he did not believe the agency has enough manpower to keep up with the problem.

"It is a situation that we are working hard to remedy," he said.

The VA has been under intense scrutiny in the past year over the quality of its care for veterans and a series of information technology blunders.

Last year, the VA lost data on 26.5 million veterans when computer equipment was allegedly stolen in Maryland. In January, a VA hospital in Birmingham, Ala., lost sensitive data on more than 1.5 million people when a hard drive went missing. A recent internal review of that incident found that the medical center repeatedly failed to follow policies and regulations to protect information — including in storing the hard drive.

VA Secretary Jim Nicholson announced his resignation last week.

In private industry fraud when uncovered someone is almost always held accountable. In government nearly no one is ever held accountable. You project your own arguments onto mine
"he belief that somehow accounting fraud or missing property is limited solely to government is a massive failure of analysis at best, and highly dishonest at worst."
and then you accuse me of using strawman tactics. Where did I state that only government only has fraud or missing property. I only know that when people are allowed to act in their own best interest it makes a huge difference.
For example the two higher ups in the ATF who were fired for Waco were reinstated six months later,with back pay! 
Civil Service rules make it nearly impossible to fire government employees. Dispute the overwhelming evidence of the failure of socialist or big government effects on a countries economy those who live in theoretical land still call for more and more government.

The big difference between you and I is that I have been you. I have argued the same things that you argue. I have had the same beliefs. But experience changed me. You have lived nearly your entire life in a protected environment separated from the real world. It is easy to live in a theoretical world when that is all that you have known. I cannot convey my experience. It is something that cannot be adequately conveyed. It can only be experienced. If you do not spend your entire life in academia (which seems unlikely) then you will also gain such experience. I was in India in 1988 and then again in 1998. They difference was incredible. During that time frame India adopted free market policies and their economy exploded. Because you have been gifted with a keen intellect you can easily think that you have it all figured out. You have received multiply rewards for spewing out facts on demand. Therefore without any real world experience only theoretical you are sure of yourself. Reinforced by professors who have lived their own lives in an artificial environment, thus the cycle continues. When can argue like this forever. Why do you think it necessary to respond to my every post. Why don't you make your own? It is far easier to snipe from the sidelines than to gain the field. A sure sign of your arrogance is that you believe it necessary to counter whatever I have to say, with your wisdom. That is arrogance by difinition.

No, you are misrepresenting my position: I don't say that my *thoughts* are irrelevant from who I am. I say my *arguments* are (which is a colloquial way of saying that the truth value of my premises and the validity of the various inferences and conclusion that I draw from those premises are independent of any status that affects my personality or physical existence).
I will have certain value-sets because of my experiences, and thus I'll be dispositioned toward various different positions because of those experiences, but ultimately in matters related to empirical analysis and logical analysis (matters related to the soundness and validity of an argument), the soundness and validity are not contingent upon my personal history at all unless our subject matter directly relates to it.

Of course there is a separate logic outside of my experiences: As a chemist, you should know that: When you do an experiment, you are confirming that there is a logic outside of your own experience of the world. Otherwise, what is the point of doing the experiment when you can just look to your own beliefs? That is why science exists at all: If we simply said that a thing were true or false based on personal belief, we wouldn't need scientific inquiry at all to test anything. If I came to you and said "Hey, if we all drink formaldehyde, we'll all become filthy rich!" and you tell me to prove it, and I say "Oh, well, its just what I believe", would you EVER consider doing it? Would you say that this is scientifically rigorous at all? Of course not: My own experiences and beliefs do not serve as a substitute for logic and empirical data. The statement "X=X" is true regardless of my own beliefs or perceptions. Mathematics is fundamentally just an extension of logical reasoning, and we obviously wouldn't say "there is no mathematics outside of my experiences": That skyscraper was built using mathematics, and your experiences don't affect its existence in any way whatsoever. Similarly, again, your experiences don't affect "X=X" or "for every x, if x is p, then x is q, a is p, therefore a is q" or anything like that.

How you choose to apply logic is dependent on your experiences: I attempt to apply logic to support values of equality and liberty, whereas someone else might choose to apply logic to support order or theology. As well, various biases and preconcieved notions you might hold are dependent on your experiences. However, logic itself is fundamentally not dependent on my experiences: Once we agree on a set of value assumptions, the discussion exits the realm of the subjective and enters the realm of the objective: If you believe in certain values, then logical rigour can be applied to them. It would be inconsistent, for instance, for a person to place a high value on liberty but to also support slavery. They are either being illogical (and thus contradictory), or they have an unstated copremise that places an anti-value on whatever group is being targetted (Thus, in their minds, liberty ought be preserved, except for X because X are intrinsically bad). Now, if two people fundamentally disagree on VALUES, because values are subjective to experience, neither logic nor reason assist us at all (in fact, nothing can, since it is a fundamental disagreement). Take arguments on gay marriage (A subject I enjoy speaking about because generally the opponents of such give bad logic in defence of their arguments). If we accept the assumption of "Liberty", then gay marriage flows from it unless it can be demonstrated that it significantly infringes upon another, higher value or that it doesn't actualise liberty. In the absence of demonstrating either of those, logically speaking gay marriage flows by necessity. Many people often present the following argument:

ARGUMENT 1
1. Marriage without procreation between participants is immoral.
2. Gay marriage cannot result in procreation between participants.
3. THEREFORE: Gay marriage is immoral.
4. Things that are not moral ought to be opposed.
5. THEREFORE: Gay marriage ought to be opposed.

Whether you accept 1 or 2 is a subjective matter that depends on your own experiences. However, the argument is valid: If we assume that the premises are true (in this case, if we assume 1 is true), then the rest does flow. The argument is VALID regardless of our experiences, because validity is defined as "whether the argument flows given the premises". In this sense, logic exists outside of our perceptions and can be applied objectively.

In this specific example, the question is typically on the soundness of the argument: Of course it flows if we assume the premises are true, but are the premises in fact true? And so the debate tends to take place on 1.

Here too, we can demonstrate the "nonsubjectivity of logic": There are many people who, because of their experiences, would put forth 1. as a premise to us. However, often these people would oppose, variously: A) Condeming nonfertile straights, B) Condeming straight couples that choose not to have children, C)
Defining marriage as only the union of two parents.
1. is testable by A, B, and C. Hence, if an opponent of gay marriage who offers Argument 1 also affirms A, then we get:

ARGUMENT 2
1. Marriage without procreation between participants is immoral.
2. Marriage between infertile straight couples is not immoral.
3. THEREFORE: Marriage between infertile couples need not be opposed.

This argument is invalid: We cannot assume the premises are true because the premises are *contradictory* to each other. Premise 1 invalidates Premise 2, because Premise 2 carries property "marriage without procreation". Logic tells us that, REGARDLESS OF OUR EXPERIENCES, *at least* either 1 or 2 in Argument 2 are false. Either it is false that "Marriage without procreation between participants is immoral", or it is false that "Marriage between infertile straight couples is not immoral", or they are both false.

Since Argument 1 Premise 1 rests on Argument 2 Premise 1 being true, then logic tells us, REGARDLESS OF OUR EXPERIENCES: Either we must oppose infertile- straight marriage (thereby accepting Argument 2 Premise 1), or gay marriage is not immoral and ought not be opposed (Because Argument 1 Premise 1 is invalidated by Argument 2 Premise 2). If we do not accept that we must oppose infertile-straight marriage, but we must still oppose gay marriage, then Arguments 1 and 2 have fallen and therefore other arguments need to be brought in to save what we are trying to prove. (An aside: If someone says that not having children is bad, but not bad enough to ban a thing, then some other mechanism needs to be added to explain the unequal standard: This can usually be demonstrated to be an unstated copremise that states, effectively, "Gay people are bad." - most people don't want to admit to such homophobia, though)

So, we can see here that:

1. A person may believe marriage is about procreation because of their own SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCES, and thus they oppose gay marriage.
2. A person may support infertile straight marriage because of their own SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCES.
3. If they do believe marriage is about procreation but also support infertile straight marriages, however, their subjective experiences become irrelevant:

They can still hold both beliefs, but it is no longer *LOGICAL* because it no longer corresponds to truth: Both statements cannot be true because by assuming one we must assume the other is false (by definition of assuming one). This holds regardless of how strongly someone opposes gay marriage: It is WHOLLY independent from them. Logic exists OUTSIDE of them.

Their APPLICATION of logic differed because of their experience, but LOGIC ITSELF did not. Arguments 1 and 2 fail no matter how badly the person in question wants them to suceed: No matter if the person giving them was in the navy, a sports hero, a fascist, a murderer, a Frenchman, an American, a Martian, a chemist, a lawyer, a homeless person, a homosexual, an evangelical, an atheist...None of this changes anything.

In regarding to your unfortunate propensity toward ad hominem attacks, consider the following situation:

Boris and John are having an argument as to what city is the capital of Russia. Boris says the capital of Russia is Moscow, whereas John says it is Petrograd. Now, the experiences of Boris and John are subjective. Boris grew up in Russia and thus was taught that the capital of Russia is Moscow: Because of his experiences, he has subequently come to believe this.
John grew up in rural Zaire. He was taught, from his 150 year old history textbook, that Petrograd was the capital of Russia. Their THOUGHTS and BELIEFS are SUBJECTIVe to their EXPERIENCES.

Now consider the following argument:

ARGUMENT 3
1. Boris is a good man.
2. Boris says the capital of Russia is Moscow.
3. If the Constitution of Russia designates a city as the capital, then it is the capital of Russia.
4. The Constitution of Russia designates the city of Moscow as the capital.
5. THEREFORE: Moscow is the capital of Russia.

5 flows, doesn't it? If we assume that 3 is true, and 4 is true, then 5 must necessarily be true.
What about 1 and 2, though? Let us assume 2, but lets change up 1 a bit:

1. Boris is an evil communist who eats babies when he is not busy torturing innocents.
2. Boris says the capital of Russia is Moscow.
3. If the Constitution of Russia designates a city as the capital, then it is the capital of Russia.
4. The Constitution of Russia designates the city of Moscow as the capital.
5. THEREFORE: Moscow is the capital of Russia.

Now what happens to 5? Absolutely nothing! Even if we assume that ALL the premises are true: 1, 2, 3, and 4...5 still necessarily flows, because 5 flows from 3 and 4, not from 1 and 2. The argument over which city is the capital of Russia is independent of the sort of person that Boris is. Therefore, if John were to say to Boris "Well, you are an evil communist who tortures people and kills babies, so obviously you can't be correct", that argument wouldn't be valid, because no matter what we assume about the statement "Boris is an evil communist who eats babies when he is not busy torturing innocents", premises 3, 4, and 5 do not change. We *could* make it valid by saying:

ARGUMENT 4
1. Bad people are wrong in whatever they say.
2. Boris is a bad person.
3. Boris says statement 'X'.
4. THEREFORE: The statement 'X' is false.

This is a valid argument, in that if you assume 1, 2, and 3, 4 flows from it. However, it is not a sound argument in that 1 is not going to be accepted by most people. As well, you can demonstrate that 1 is a contradiction:

ARGUMENT 5
1. Bad people are wrong in whatever they say.
2. Hitler is a bad person.
3. Hitler said "Germany exists."
4. Germany exists.
5. THEREFORE: The statement 'Germany exists' is false.
6. A contradiction has resulted. Therefore, 1, 2, 3, and/or 4 are false.
7. It is agreed upon that Hitler is a bad person. Therefore 1, 3, and/or 4 are false.
8. It is agreed upon that Hitler said 'Germany exists' Therefore 1 and/or 4 are false.
9. It is agreed upon that Germany exists.
10. Therefore, 1 is false.

The only way to salvage this argument is to tack on a post-hoc assumption that nobody is going to find reasonable: 1. Bad people are wrong in whatever they say that contradicts what I say.
However, this post-hoc assumption undermines its own argument: The criterion being applied to people is no longer whether they are bad or not, but rather whether they agree with you or not, and therefore their "badness" or "goodness" becomes an *irrelevant consideration*: Thus, the only way to salvage the argument in terms of validity is to admit that it is not sound.

This is why ad hominem attacks tend to fail: By addressing the *PERSON*, rather than the argument, you aren't actually attacking the argument at all. We can assume that the person you are debating is evil (If you want, you can assume that I am the devil incarnate), but ultimately this doesn't logically translate into anything relevant to the discussion. You can *assume* that I am a 5 year old child whose parents make 20 million dollars a week and that I've never seen the outside world at all ever. But that doesn't change anything.

Hence, in most situations, it is best to treat an argument as if it was given to you by an anonymous source on a piece of paper, rather than personalising it by bringing in the personality or history of the opponent. My arguments have the same truth value regardless of whether they are given to you by Zasch, Fiery Darts, Hitler, Gandhi, God, or Satan. Or, to put it in a different way: YOUR Arguments have the same truth value regardless of whether they are given to me by Gunrights, Fiery Darts, Hitler, Gandhi, God, or Satan.

So, out of all of this, we have demonstrated:

1. Logic is not subjective - people's beliefs and experiences are.
2. Ad hominem attacks are not relevant.

Do you understand?

(An aside: Premise 4 of Argument 3 is, in fact, correct: Article 70 of the Russian constitution designates Moscow the capital)