NASA Knows How To Party 341
doug141 writes "NASA spends between $400,000 and $1.3 million on a party at every shuttle launch, according to CBS. Select personnel are treated to 5 days at a 4 star hotel. This year alone, they've spent $4 million on parties. NASA asked for, and was given, $1 billion more from the Senate this year. NASA proponents argue it makes more sense to give money to talented, productive people in exchange for scientific knowledge, than spend in on unproductive people in the form of straight welfare."
Nothing to see here... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
So, that's like, 3-4 times per year? Feh, they've got a long way to go before they reach Lohan-esque fete-tification.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I work in a large multisite NIH-funded research project. There are regular all-hands meetings which involve well over a hundred people, designed for sharing information. These are typically catered events on college campuses that last for almost a week. The block rates for hotels are generally booked in hotels that are around $200 a night. There are typically a couple minor dinners and usually one major event. This event could be, for example, the reser
Automatic disqualification (Score:5, Funny)
Morale booster? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Morale booster? No, contractor pleaser. (Score:5, Insightful)
While expensive, keeping the morale high at NASA means keeping the even more expensive astronauts alive.
Yah, except if the article is correct, most of the people at this party are NASA contractors. Why NASA is spending money on wining and dining contractors instead of the other way around, I don't really understand.
On the other hand I'm not sure I just immediately accept the truth of this article. It's written in a rather sensationalist tone, and presents NASA's side of the argument as a one sentence reply, no doubt taken out of context. That doesn't mean this isn't accurate of course, it's just a bit suspicious.
Re:Morale booster? No, contractor pleaser. (Score:5, Insightful)
Contractors wining and dining federal employees is illegal.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Contractors wining and dining federal employees is illegal.
Yah, but we all know this kind of thing happens all the time. I'm not saying it's right or even should be tolerated, but why are we trying to impress or reward the contractors we've already given billions of dollars to?
I can't get too upset at this of course. As a waste item this one is a tiny part of the problem.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Morale booster? No, contractor pleaser. (Score:4, Informative)
money for "scientific knowledge" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
SFA Honoree
This award is one of the highest presented to NASA and industry and is for first-level management and below. This award is presented to employees for their dedication to quality work and flight safety. To qualify, the individuals must have contributed beyond their normal work requirements to achieve significant impact on attaining a particular human sp
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well mainly it's because contractors wining and dining government agencies is illegal. It's called kickbacks and bribery.
I used to plan conferences and although $400,000 to $600,000 sounds like a lot, isn't really for meetings of a few hundred people (although it's definately first-class). These
Re:Morale booster? No, contractor pleaser. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's fairly routine for key consultants to be treated exactly like the true employees when it comes to celebrations.
Maybe. That doesn't mean they should be spending a million bucks on a celebration, airfare, etc.
If the real issue was fiscal responsibility, the reporters would be sorting the budget by largest to smallest amounts, and then examining each line.
I agree completely. This article isn't about fiscal responsibility, it's about "look at those guys that have a great big party and you don't! They used "your" money for it!" That's what all that "coconut fried shrimp, spring rolls, shrimp wrapped with bacon, 5-6 desserts" was all about, even though those big "luxuries" likely only cost a few thousand dollars, if that.
That's kind of a sad attitude, and I'm a bit sick of it. Do I think this is a waste? Sure. Do I think this is something to be really concerned about and start rolling heads and instituting dumb reforms? Hell no. In any organization there's always a certain amount of "waste", i.e. money spent on something that's not easy to justify, and might have been better spent elsewhere. Just keep those percentages low, and I'm happy.
Re: (Score:2)
You're confusing the people who compose the organization with the organization itself. NASA clearly has a number of management problems which, sadly, have contributed to the loss of missions and lives. However that does not prove or disprove the intelligence
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Morale booster? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes (Score:3, Interesting)
ME as manager at NASA: What do you engineers say about the launch of this mission.
Engineers who know what they are doing because that is what they been trained for AND are required to stand behind if they want those letters after their name: We say X.
ME as manager at NASA: Okay, we do X.
Doesn't sound too hard, can I have my fat salary and golden parachute and parties now?
The two disasters were warned against by NASA owns personel, had the managers listened to their rocket-scientists then those 'accident
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The two disasters were warned against by NASA owns personnel, had the managers listened to their rocket-scientists then those 'accidents' would not have happened.
Excuse me? The rocket boosters were warned against, but the piece of foam was studied by NASA's engineers, ran two simulations on it, and the engineers studying it decided it was safe to reenter.
There were some comments by other people at NASA about "what about the foam" a couple days before landing, and a "why are you bringing this up now and not last week" somewhere in there, but the study was done.
Granted, the study was flawed, but it was not a management decision. It was sad watching the press conferen
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Literally, yes.
It's hard to even imagine how anybody, even amateurs, could design a launch system that's more expensive, fragile, dangerous and overweight than the space shuttle.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's not like it hasn't been tried before [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
These armchair rockets you speak of intrigue me. Are they available for purchase?
Re:Morale booster? (Score:5, Insightful)
Quite the contrary. Getting that bucket of bolts off the pad without a fireball is enough of a miracle to warrant a million-dollar party.
There's no funding for a new shuttle design. A billion goes missing in Iraq and that announcement barely lasts a single news cycle. Spend it on NASA and you'll hear people bitching about it for years and years.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no funding for a new shuttle design. A billion goes missing in Iraq and that announcement barely lasts a single news cycle. Spend it on NASA and you'll hear people bitching about it for years and years.
I'd have modded you insightful, if I had points.
This is largely the issue with NASA, and that is when things are going well, frequently programs like the climate monitoring one are axed or cut back because it would threaten the world view of a few fundamentalists that don't want to acknowledge the climate change happens. And so to protect that world view the studies that would answer the question are axed so that they don't have to worry about being contradicted by scientific evidence.
It amazes me how much
Re:Morale booster? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So you see, it actually isn't all that $emotion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, we all know by now that a throwaway engine, indeed a whole throwaway vehicle, would be cheaper and safer. When "reusability" requires over-engineering things, burning huge amounts of fuel to put a massively overweight vehicle into orbit, and having to rebuild all the propulsive components betw
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, there're also Ph.D.s in medicine...
And this is news why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And this is news why? (Score:4, Insightful)
As had been mentioned here many times, NASA has an important and worthwhile job yet lacks funding for many things. Is this how they spend their funds instead of spending it to do what they are mandated for? As you said, they are getting things done, so why should their budget increase (or in fact decrease) when they can just easily cut back the big budget parties?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The approving-by-line-item analogy is dangerous. How would funding for Iraq be if you could choose not to pay for it?
By comparison, the enormously small amount spent on NASA parties would be irrelevant to the average taxpayer.
Re:And this is news why? (Score:5, Insightful)
While technically true it would have no bearing.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly why doesn't this have any bearing? Isn't it the small things that generates bigger rewards. Isn't Recycling movement based on this? Isn't micro-loan banks like Grameen Bank, another example? Also, NASA own programs need money (see below).
What is the issue here is the question of is this a wise and responsible use of NASA's budget within its mandate? Its your taxpayer's money so its a valid question. "It doesn't matter" is an answer only gover
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Careful with the absolutes -- I work at a 3-employee startup that's been around for a couple years and so far we've spent $0 of the company money on parties.
But that's beside the point. NASA isn't a private company. They're paid from my tax dollars, so we're supposed to hold them to a higher standard. We're talking federal tax money, so this is cash that could have otherwise gone towards, say, paying down the crippling debt our country has sunk into.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the Constitution refers to a different kind of welfare than the one the NASA Party Proponents are talking about. Anyway, I doubt they're changing, so assume the party submission position and give up your tax dollars.
I'm all for NASA having a nice party every once in a while, as it
Re: (Score:2)
NASA proponents argue it makes more sense to give money to talented, productive people in exchange for scientific knowledge, than spend it on unproductive people in the form of straight welfare.
Yeah, I'm OK with that. Perish the thought that we actually reward those who contribute to society, since we already lavish multi-zillions on pop stars, athletes, and CEO's who get fired.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what we are talking about.
We are talking about a party.
And you can take offense all you like. Your appreciation comes in the form of your paycheck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would rather have the company that pays more. A party a few times a year is not going to get rid of any nightmares during work hours 8 hours a day, 5 days a week.
With the extra money I can afford to throw my own party a few times a year with people I like, not forced to spend more time with
making sense (Score:3, Insightful)
~Phil
Contractors? (Score:4, Interesting)
But in the big picture, it's not that big a deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The dollar amounts? Not really, you're right. But in terms of mindset
Otoh (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Otoh (Score:5, Funny)
And then you divorce them, get into girls (Score:2, Offtopic)
And then you divorce the bloodsucking demon, discover girls all over again, on the internet.
Setup a date, and get a heart to heart with Chris Hansen from dateline.
Eh, or so I heard. Say, you ain't an undercover agent are you?
As a previous boss once told me... (Score:2)
Women. Can't live with them, and it's illegal to kill them.
Somehow, though, I thought his viewpoint was a bit jaded...
Re: (Score:2)
Vaild for NASA, not so for TSA (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand, the TSA hosted a $500K party for its top employees a few years ago. I interact with TSA employees about 100 times per year, and they are generally lazy, sloth like goons. They are a disaster that does nothing to improve air safety.
In the real world, a company run like the TSA wouldn't have a spare $500K to throw a party because they would be out of business, replaced by a more efficient contractor that does a better job. There is no mechanism for rewarding achievement and punishing failure in the government. Nearly all programs (yes, even under Bush) live on and expand despite proven failure.
The problem with NASA throwing parties for its deserving employees is that it justifies throwing parties for the far more typical ineffective government hack that should really be let go.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Blackwater, perhaps?
Honestly (Score:5, Insightful)
I add this last bit because if the wisdom of the free market indicates that a little money thrown away is a good investment, how can those low life in government be so arrogant as not follow suite.
I certainly agree that it would be good if everyone would be deny themselves every available luxury. My food would be cheaper if the owner of my local restaurant would not own a hummer, not to mention my tax bill. My city could afford better education if they did not pay for downtown luxury offices and did not subsidize luxury sports arenas. School taxes would be much lower if we did not have luxury classrooms with lights and air conditioning. But everyone of us knows human nature is to do better work when on is appreciated, and when the environment is conformable. And if it takes .1% of the project budget to encourage the people to do a better a job, that might be a good investment. I would sooner see the parasites that leech off the education and military budget cut off than a single nasa party be canceled.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Million dollar parties just strike me as a bit excessive, even if they are just a tiny fraction of the budget.
Re: (Score:2)
If we ever want to get the budget under control we have to look at every little thing and ask, is this really worth the money we're spending on it?
There's a limited amount of attention and oversight available. We simply just CAN'T look at every little thing. Do you sweat every single purchase, no matter how trivial (5 cents extra for toilet paper) and wonder "is it really worth it?" I doubt it, because you've got bigger concerns.
If you really want to get the budget under control, you'd identify the bigge
Re: (Score:2)
Even when its right in front of you, on the evening news of a major network? Thats not carefully preserving your valuable time and energy; thats just lazy.
If you let those things that are right in front of you go, then you teach people thats its ok to waste and then it gets bigger and bigger. Thats how you get into the budget troubles what has been mentioned.
>you'd identify the biggest places where we're spending tons of money, and not getting anythin
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Even when its right in front of you, on the evening news of a major network?
And what am I going to do about it? Call up my representative and waste his/her time on this minor waste, when there's much larger waste going on? So what if it's on the evening news. That doesn't make it any less of a distraction to the larger problems.
If you let those things that are right in front of you go, then you teach people thats its ok to waste and then it gets bigger and bigger.
Huh? We've already wasted a trillion dol
What a scandal! (Score:2, Insightful)
The news media is just hyping this out of proportions; we're spending close to three billion a week in Iraq - most of it wasted on dishonest and inefficient contractors - and we raise eyebrows at a few million spent on rewarding people who work in a difficult and thankless job?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you love sensational summaries (Score:5, Insightful)
There is an awards banquet for flight safety held, apparently, at each launch, which occurs about three times a year. The awards cover 750 of what is likely tens of thousands of employees working for NASA and the contractors in the shuttle program. We're talking about a 1.5M awards banquet for an $8B/yr operation, or somewhere in the 0.01% range. Now I'm not saying that it's not a waste, though I'm curious where the seating costs of $20,000 for the shuttle launch come from, but the costs are not all that outlandish. Remember that one shuttle launch can really mean 4-16 different payloads, so there are a lot of people involved.
Go figure out what a similar party costs just about anywhere. Flying someone in coach is going to run about $300-500, minimum, if you book in advance and choose non-refundable. 4 nights hotel (we assume you are travelling on day 1 and day 5, day 2 is the banquet, day 3 is the launch, day four is a cape tour and the show), $120/night is bare minimum in a metro area unless you like sleeping with roaches. You get a night banquet at a banquet hall - nice dinner, dessert, a little entertainment. Hell, my high school reunion was $80 a head, and it was pretty basic. $150 is probably more reasonable for the service. One night you get a free show. Wow. Somebody call the fun police. Cirque tickets are $200; a broadway production in an off town is $80. Transportation to/from/between - you aren't going to walk to the cape from Orlando - would you have preferred we rented them a car for $300?
Where am I?...$300 plane + $480 hotel + $150 banquet and awards + nice show $120 + $300/2 for the car (we'll make them share) = $1200. Now, they came up with 400k-500k per banquet with 750 people...that's only $675 a person. I'd say they got a pretty good deal. $675 for 5 days and 4 nights plus a shuttle launch, dinner, and show? That's a freakin' bargain if you ask me.
Anyway...you go find out what the budget is for the awards banquet of any 10,000 person company. Go find out what just the CEO and his/her spouse spend. This really will look like chump change.
Re:Don't you love sensational summaries (Score:5, Interesting)
Full disclosure. I'm a low level NASA manager. I also have been a recipient of the award in question (it's called the Space Flight Awareness, or SFA). I won it years ago when I was a line engineer for a contractor (managers usually cannot get these awards).
The article is unfairly one sided. NASA overall has very little "morale money", which is used to reward outstanding employees or significant contributions - things that are commonplace in the private sector. When we have an office party, or I bring in dinner for my guys that have to work on Christmas, it's out of my pocket. All my colleagues do the same. I can assure you that the sum total of this across the agency is a lot more than what the SFAs cost.
They also made it out like some extravagant party - it really isn't. They pay for the flight (you have to cover your spouse, though), get you a hotel at the Day's Inn Cocoa Beach (or similar) for a few days, they drive you around on a tour, and feed you a few nice meals and let you meet some astronauts and agency officials.
The reason why most of the recipients are contractors is that most of NASA employees are contractors. The way most contracts are billed with NASA is cost plus, and employee expenses (including the small awards that are given out) are billed back to the government. The contractors also do spend on some other awards out of their profits (which are relatively small on NASA contracts, in all fairness).
While you may have some negative opinions about how well NASA is doing as an agency, we've got a lot of really outstanding line employees who do great work, and in any enterprise you need to reward that. When I got my SFA, I was 28 years old and had spent a year of 60+ hour weeks getting an avionics package on the Space Station working. I didn't get paid overtime for that...the SFA was a nice token from my management. Another guy on the trip won his for finding a problem that saved the government $12 million dollars. As a percentage of the overall workforce, very few people ever win this award (where I work, maybe 1 out of 50 has gotten this in the last 10 years, you have to do something exceptional). It's definitely worth the tax dollars that are spent on it - and I hope other federal agencies are using my tax dollars in similar ways.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The shuttle program costs BILLIONS of dollars. The only entity that has BILLIONS of dollars available to spend is the federal government. And maybe Microsoft. And since we're on Slashdot, I'm pretty sure you don't want Microsoft
They deserve a party (Score:5, Insightful)
Sad that Slashdot chooses to be relentlessly negative about NASA, while touting the lilliputian efforts of Russia and China. The STS-120 repair mission on the ISS I saw last week was about the most amazing thing I have ever seen. Russia or China won't be able to build something like that for 50 years! NASA deserves a party.
No they deserve a war (Score:3, Insightful)
My father attended one of these 'parties' (Score:4, Interesting)
When you spend *billions* (Score:2)
That's nothing... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
NASA's business is stars (Score:3, Funny)
Strawman (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, of course it makes more sense to reward productive people than unproductive ones but that isn't the issue. Those productive people are being given a million dollar party in exchange for nothing, they got their salaries and great benefits in exchange for their knowledge. There are numerous places that money could go that have nothing to do with welfare. It could be left in the hands of the productive people who earned it. It could be used to raise the ridiculous federal poverty level a few dollars so that those who are BOTH productive AND poor in this country can breath a little easier and maybe scrounge together enough to start to make something of themselves and easily repay that debt in taxes later. It could be used to partially fund a federal medical/prescription/vision/dental insurance program that is a fundemental public service, not welfare.
govt/contractor relationship (Score:2)
I'm all for NASA rewarding their hard working contractors and government personnel.
NASA can do no wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
coconut shrimp vs. bombing Iran (Score:2)
Since I don't see the military-industrial complex going away anytime soon why don't we re-purpose it? Shift it towards a space-industrial complex. We could be spending just as much on space and making those same companies rich while benefiting Americans and the world at the same time. Alas hope doesn't
So what? Where does the money go? (Score:3, Insightful)
Caterers bringing the food get paid. They got their food from somewhere, so whoever that is gets paid. That food was trucked in by someone, who gets paid. Farmers supplying the food get paid. And thats just the food.
People seem to think its a total waste of taxpayer money.
1.3 million on a party? (Score:2)
At our office we're lucky if we get pizza or donuts after a big release.
Re: (Score:2)
This is just cover for the stargate program (Score:4, Informative)
Money versus Value (Score:3, Interesting)
hmm.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds better than throwing a huge party for a bunch of crappy musicians to give awards to each other for recycled music.
Everybody has an Entertainment Budget (Score:3, Interesting)
If your total budget is in the billions, and you spend just one percent on entertainment, your entertainment budget is in the tens-of-millions.
People are people, for cryin' out loud. At companies I've been that don't have an entertainment budget, executives understand that and pay out of their own pockets for parties. It boosts morale. It also switches people into a different mode of thought where little nuggets of ideas come from. You might spend 95% of your time there just BS'ing, but then somebody comes up with an idea that they wouldn't have come up with if they had just been sitting in a cube or a regular meeting.
Nevermind that though. Even if you never discuss a single aspect of the business at a party, you are a human being. As such, you have certain needs, like eating and seeing other human beings. It has to be paid for, one way or another.
Welfare, the gift that keeps on killing. (Score:3, Interesting)
You can't fix broken people. Some people are losers and always will be no matter what you say or do. These people are a very small minority. Then you have other people who have the potential to be something other than losers, but only when environmental and cultural factors are sufficiently good. There are a fair number of people like this. Welfare, and the culture of dependency that it creates, locks these people into being losers. People who might otherwise live modest but productive and happy lives are stuck in a syndrome of idleness and dependency from which no good can come. As I said before, this is entirely intentional. Creating losers whose existence can then be blamed on the larger society gives the left a powerful propaganda tool that they then use to attack capitalism and the liberal democracy upon which it is founded.
Of all the things that this nation lacks, opportunity is not one of them. Poverty is a temporary condition for those who are willing to work hard and make wise decisions. Wealth is not assured, but economic security in a safe and sane community is all but guaranteed.
That being said, what NASA is doing needs to be looked at. There are times when it is necessary to schmooze various people. NASA pays private companies for a lot of the things that it needs to function. Being able to schmooze some of the heads of those companies can make a difference when it comes to the terms of contracts. If spending a million entertaining some people saves 30 million on contracts, then that is money well spent.
However, if this money is being wasted, then that needs to stop. Wasting tax money hurts the country twice over. First when the money is taken out of the economy, and second when it is not put to good use.
Re:The truth hurts. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, taking care of citizens surely is the antithesis of "forward" progress. Oh, that silly congress!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, taking care of citizens surely is the antithesis of "forward" progress. Oh, that silly congress!
Paying out welfare does not contribute to the forward progress of our country. The judgments of many people are hindered when they have a fall back plan that they are entitled to for simply being United States citizens. For example, my sister had a job as a dental assistant and decided to quit because she would be eligible for food stamps, subsidized housing, and she could live off of the child suppor
Re:The truth hurts. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of those who approach welfare from a libertarian perspective don't want people to suffer. Nor is it about a small amount of money. (And compared to overall spending, welfare in most parts of the world is indeed relatively modest).
Sometimes, it's appropriate to spend significantly; for example, care for the seriously mentally-ill or severely disabled. (And yes, many mentally ill and disabled peopl
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We can all agree (even some serious libertarians, I think) that in the acute case of a natural disaster, we like a government that is equipped to take care of pressing needs.
It's those chronic concerns, where the concept of "victim" occasionally becomes ambiguous, that a bring about the bulk of the debate.
Re:The truth hurts. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know about you, but I've done the maths. My "tax burden" in Norway was about the same as it is for me now in the UK, and both of them are pretty much the same as what it would cost me to live in
Re:The truth hurts. (Score:4, Insightful)
The real problem is that corrupt Republican congressmen like Ney and Cunningham received millions of dollars in bribes while kicking hundreds of millions of dollars of business to their corrupt contractor friends.
And part of the reason it went on so long is the fact that Bush's Attorney General Gonzalez sacked the Federal Prosecutors who brought prosecutions against corrupt GOP pols (some were sacked for not bringing trumped up charges against Democrats).
And that is just the illegal corruption, there is also the legal corruption of billions of dollars wasted on 'defense' projects like the Osprey that simply do not work.
That said, the whole shuttle program is a farce at this point. The space station is pointless and should be shut immediately. Put the money in robotic exploration. Hubbel is worth the money and the risk, the ISS is not.
Re:The truth hurts. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd rather my tax money go towards throwing parties for NASA employees than towards food stamps for joe-blow white trash McFatty who uses them to buy cigarettes and alcohol on the way to the unemployment line to pick up his (or her) check for being worthless.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, right, you're just another Slashdot libertarian f
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You buy tangible goods with the stamps and trade those goods (for about 1/4 of their retail value) for black market items.
This is a regular thing you could see for yourself if drove in from the burbs. You'll want to practice hiding your obvious unsuitability from the locals though, because they just traded most of their half-month's food supply for an 8 ball and you don't want to look like a second income to them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That was your first error. Unemployment insurance is based on continuing job searches while welfare isn't to the same extent. Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 (commonly called the Welfare Reform Act although to my knowledge no such act is in existence) made sweeping changes. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_reform [wikipedia.org]
"One of the bill's provisions was a time l
Re:The truth hurts. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The editiorial! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Dept X kills baby bunnies!"
Then, in order to give the appearance of fairness, you find (or just fabricate) some kooks who generally support the works of Dept X who will assert something fun, like the following:
"Supporters of Dept X argue that killing baby bunnies is often quite pleasurable, especially if it is done slowly."
See? Both sides have been presented, and it's obvious that Dept X is the spawn of Satan. Surely you're not on THEIR side, right?
Re:Somethings Never Change (Score:4, Insightful)