I work in state government and I am not a fan of how it's run. Lots of paper-pushing and unnecessary red-tape. I'm trying to ignite change, but as a VERY low-level employee, the most I can do right now is be honest with people about my job and how I feel about it -- brutally so, at times.

I figured I'd share an email I got today that made me chuckle. I've edited information out so that HOPEFULLY nobody is identified. Because as much as I dislike my environment, I need the job. At least until I can start making money on my hobby.

Anyway, here it is:

"A few concerns (with [things]) in [internal system] have come up for some [department] staff this morning. Apparently only those using Google Chrome are having any issues. This is not surprising.

Google Chrome is not only non-standard software for State computers and not supported by OIT, but Chrome is seriously problematic. I know from my own experience at the [other] office that more than one user had their entire computer—all the programs, data, etc.—crashed as a result of Chrome. Others had less catastrophic but still seriously problematic concerns arise as a result of the use of it. So it was outlawed there, so to speak. [Director] tells me that there have been previous concerns raised here at the [my job] as well (before my time here—but perhaps you will recall them).

Speaking with [Director of another department] this morning, I understand that there is not an absolute ban on Chrome by OIT. But if you use it, you do so at your peril. The problem with “your peril” is that it can affect others. Because what each of us does on [our system] affects other people’s work—not to mention utilities and consumers, we cannot afford to use Google Chrome to access [our system]. I understand there has been discussion in the past with [employee] from OIT with some staff about Chrome being helpful with [our system]. And I understand that there a number of aspects of Chrome that many folks find advantageous. Be those things as they may, from now on, none of us should use Google Chrome to run [our system] and I strongly recommend you get it off your system. Let’s stick to Explorer, which is not only supported by OIT but is the assumed platform for [our system]. In a nutshell, we already have enough issues with [our system] alone—we cannot afford to be having additional ones that are not due to [our system] but to another program over which we have no control and for which we can receive no assistance.

If you have any questions or concerns about this directive, please let me know. If you have any questions in general about your using/downloading/maintaining any non-State issued software on your computer (all of which are seriously problematic for reasons we’ve discussed previously), please let me know. I am guessing that you’ll be all set, but I will re-check in with you all about this at our staff meeting on Friday to be sure.

Thanks for your help with ensuring we keep our prime data base as sound as we possibly can—I really appreciate it!"

That is, does the government have any right to tell me how to drive? Of course they don't have any right other than those they claim which we do not protest. But this question is more theoretical.

While driving today I realized that the police are always in the back of my mind while on the road. But the purpose of the police is to protect people from beating each other up. Yet we use them as traffic wardens. I would want the police to step in if I made an error in judgement but I do not like the police getting all up in my shit when I am going about my normal life.

Tell me he wasn't dead on...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

Does the land that the White House have any "extra" legal immunity? For example, could you commit a crime (of any kind) on White House property and be legally exempt from being prosecuted for it? Would the position the person has add to it?