DIEing in Nice Red Tape by Francis Turner

Posted on by Sarah A. Hoyt

DIEing in Nice Red Tape by Francis Turner

In which I partly agree with David Brooks and Mark Edmundson

Thanks to Stuart Schneiderman1, my attention was drawn to this NY Slimes column by David Brooks (it’s an archive link) in which he points out that there are a lot of bureaucrats in government and business and they seem to mostly subtract value rather than add it.

Brooks in turn links to an article by Mark Edmundson, a professor at the University of Virginia. In that article, which I read as a rational lefty in the process of being red-pilled and fighting to maintain his delusions, the prof tries to explain that the DIE bureaucrats at his university are nice people who are trying to make the world a better place even if they do so by means of mandatory DIE in academic annual reports.

… I had just learned that there would be a new aspect to our annual reports. We would be asked to tell our overlords how each one of our activities contributes to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

Teaching? How did it advance DEI? Scholarship? How did it help speed DEI on its way? If you get an honor or an award, you are to say how it contributed to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Outside consulting: did it do any DEI duty? And what does the university mean by Diversity, by Equity, by Inclusion? The university doesn’t say. There are no official definitions out there to consider. 

So I had a lot to tell my friend about administrative interference with academic freedom. I didn’t want the university deans and DEI enforcers setting the agenda for my teaching or my scholarship, or for anyone else’s. At the same time, I couldn’t really argue with my friend’s observation: the people in the dean’s office and the DEI enclaves are decent sorts. I like them…

DIE is one of those things that sounds nice and which no one should complain about, but which is in fact built on a lie. Edmundson, as a self-confessed Bernie Bro and literature professor, may lack the desire or the tools to prove it, but it remains the case. But I digress, because Edmundson does show some signs of detecting the over-reaching problem

The good people who came up with this notion are — without knowing it, I suspect — softly tyrannizing us. They are also softly tyrannizing themselves. And what they are up to isn’t only a university matter. It is happening in corporations, medical centers, primary and secondary schools, foundations, and NGOs. Surveillance and discipline, carried out almost exclusively by good people, are becoming pervasive.

Now again, we can perhaps question whether DIE bureaucrats are good people or not, but they undoubtedly see themselves as good people who are doing all this for our good. Moreover each one is a good little cog in a machine.

Instead, we find ourselves within a web of power whose influence is everywhere and whose center is nowhere. And who administers this power? Not the king, or the duke. And not even — this will matter in what’s coming — the president. Power is now administered by everyone in what we might call an administrative position. The ones who design, vet, and disseminate the mandatory work surveys; the ones who have a hand, or just a finger, in getting the annual reports out to the workforce, whether a faculty or a corporate population; they are the ones who evaluate the students for intelligence, grade them for performance, collect data on their likes and dislikes. These administrators of power include marketing people and advertising people and public relations people — all the people who count and characterize, and whose work manages to shape the lives of their subjects.

All these people — most of whom are no doubt good people — are watched and counted and measured in turn. Do some have more disciplinary power than others? Do some have more surveillance power? Maybe — but it probably doesn’t really feel that way to any individual. They are just doing their jobs. A certain amount of such bureaucratic calculation and observation is critical to the functioning of a mass society, certainly. Yet I think the collective effect of these jobs done by good people is more discipline. The collective effect is less freedom. One is observed more. One is judged more. 

[… very very long …]

In truth, there is no center of power to take possession of. If Trump wins the next election, the forces of discipline, which are deployed by no one, in the interest of no one, will continue to compound themselves. The college-educated will get to push more of the buttons, but they too will be subjects of discipline, constantly evaluated, scrutinized, regimented, and regulated. At least they will feel as though they possess some power and some dignity. The non-college group, by contrast, will stroke many fewer keys and see that their lives are being run, though they will think they are being run by those goddam liberals, not by the disciplinary regime. They will not recognize the power that expands for its own sake and functions, finally, for nothing and no one. Its only interest is its own blind growth.

This is the problem. And this harks back to Brooks and the death of 1000 papercuts.

The real problem is that DIE is embedded in bureaucratic administration. Administration makes regulations, some of which (e.g. DIE discrimination ones) are bad and most of which are merely questionable, but which end up making it harder to get things done. See the rant above about documenting whether your job helped the DIE cause. DIE is just the cherry on the cake of red tape that is strangling productivity and creativity. But the key point is the thing that various UK Tory ministers called the blob is in charge. It’s the administrative stuff, some of it government bureaucrats, some of it NGOs/charities, some of it organizational HR departments and so on. Each one of them come up with an idea that adds just a little more straw to the camel’s back. DIE edicts are just the last few straws before the poor camel collapses.

Then there’s Richard Hanania’s recent post2 on why DIE wokism won’t kill safety, which is, IMHO, overoptimistic but in the middle recounts an incident where bureaucracy gratuitously makes things worse and no one can fix it. This is what happened when in the mid Obama era the FAA decided to unilaterally make a change in pilot hours required to qualify as a commercial airline pilot:

In this particular case, we have if anything too much “merit” when it comes to hiring pilots. The US used to require only 250 flying hours before an individual could earn their license. After a crash in 2009 that doesn’t appear to have had anything to do with the amount of training the pilots involved had received, they upped that number to 1,500, making the US a global outlier.

And this has of course had all sorts of bad effects. As the Forbes article he linked to points out, prior to the 1500 hour rule, pilots typically had about 500 hours when they first sat behind the controls on a commercial flight and they were mentored over the next 1000 or so by more experienced pilots. This system worked just fine, and is in fact the system still used everywhere except the US and commercial airliners do not fall out of the sky on a regular basis. But now, in the US, would-be pilots need 1500 hours before they can start which radically limits the pool of potential applicants and raises the cost because if not military they have pay for that 1500 hours of flight time out of their own pockets.

The problem is that the effects of this rule change take years to be noticed (most of a decade I believe in this case) by anyone outside of a few subject matter experts who get blown off because “it’s for the children” or whatever.

This is all, IMHO, an expansion of Parkinson’s Law of Bureaucracy

DIE in fact meets one of the related laws too – the triviality one:

Parkinson’s Law of Triviality, also known as “bikeshedding,” is a phenomenon that occurs in organizations when a group of people spend a disproportionate amount of time discussing and making decisions about minor or insignificant details, while neglecting more important issues.

DIE is a classic bikeshed. It allows people of low competence and limited knowledge about the major subject manage to take up the time of others doing nothing of relevance. But because it is something even low competence people can have a viewpoint on they can argue about it, while decisions about the actual functiomn of the organization require rather more knowledge and competence so they shut up. See for example the Afrochemistry chick

Or the Johns Hopkins HR chick, though she may be just evil (or stupid, or both). Having said that she actually has a significant academic publishing record (far more significant than that of Gay, C – to pick a diversity hire at random) and many of them are about diabetes and seem (at a quick skim) to be reasonable. Mind you some appear to be less high quality:

Measuring Structural Racism and Its Association With BMI

Structural racism has attracted increasing interest as an explanation for racial disparities in health, including differences in adiposity. Structural racism has been measured most often with single-indicator proxies (e.g., housing discrimination), which may leave important aspects of structural racism unaccounted for. This paper develops a multi-indicator scale measuring county structural racism in the U.S. and evaluates its association with BMI.

etc. ad nauseam

I haven’t read the paper, but I’m pretty sure it’s blaming racism for African Americans being fat. Probably because African Americans are poor wittle children with no agency who are forced by the ebil white patriarchy to eat a poor diet and not get any exercise. I may be exaggerating, though I’m not sure because how else do we read the original explanation of ‘privilege’ that said that it was something white, male, cisgender, middle class people had. In other words male normies.

For the most part these people contribute nothing of value to their organization, but they need to justify their salaries and existence somehow so they attach themselves to the DIE bandwagon and play the RACISS card in order to show their power and authority.

And I have a slight tangent to insert here. A lot of the useless bureaucrats, both inside government and outside in corporate HR, NGOs etc., are “minorities” or “women” or were otherwise affirmative action/diversity hires picked for their original job mostly on the basis of their skin color, gender etc. with less concern for their ability to do a proper job. Originally there may have been a decent excuse for this, back in the 1960s/70s – which is, I remind you, HALF A CENTURY AGO – but that excuse should have been tossed some time in the 1980s or 90s. I don’t have statistics or indeed much beyond anecdata but I find it noteworthy that we are seeing the issue now as the affirmative action hires of 20-30 years ago, probably hired back then by other older affirmative action hires, now bubble up to the top of their organizations and then cock everything up in ways that cannot be swept under the carpet because they are the visible face of the organization (see Gay, C as the perfect example).

The other problem is that these people, who are in fact generally of less than stellar competence, have found that they can’t get jobs designing bridges or aircraft or computer games or indeed much else that requires actual intelligence and knowledge. Neither can their children [and yes ladies and gentlemen and little furry creatures from Alpha Centauri, IQ and executive function are in large part heritable characteristics, with another critical influence (not) being in a female single parent household]. This, they assume, has to be due to “structural racism” and/or “the patriarchy” because they can think of no other reason why precious darlings can’t get intellectually stretching jobs.

But returning to Brooks, DIE is just the visible tip of the iceberg that is the problem. The real problem is bureaucracy in general, the fact that people who have a real job to do must jump through pointless hoops of (electronic) paperwork before (or after) they can do what they need to do and they have to attend meetings and training sessions that at best waste their time and at worst actively assume they are all bigots in the process. Those who have a real need to solve have to navigate pointless levels of semi-automated phonetree or level 1 customer support people before they can talk to an actual human who has the power to fix their issue.

Or perhaps just the knowledge to tell them that the issue cannot be fixed with the current product because some idiot government efficiency mandate has made it at best semi-functional.

And going back to Hanania, the corrosion of woke may not have yet showed up in the statistics but it is certainly present in everyday life. I know, for example, of a number of people (some of them probably readers of this) who deliberately choose older white doctors as their primary care physician. Who likewise search for (generally older) male tradesmen for repairs and the like. And so on. They have made choices that mean they avoid the dangers of a woke diversity hire being involved in their life and harming them through incompetence (or malice). They tend to buy used older stuff or commercial stuff to evade idiotic energy etc. mandates that make their dishwashers at best semi-functional. Likewise many now fail to have flight cancellation issues or to be groped by the TSA because they no longer fly commercial airlines. Who no longer work for large corporations with DIE HR policies. Who no longer watch woke TV or read woke magazines. And so on.

The blob of bureaucracy is there and growing and it is absolutely making things worse. See dishwashers. And DIE.But DIE is as much a symptom of a bureaucracy that wants an excuse to expand as it is a cause.

Japan is different

In many ways Japan has skipped the general encrudification. Japan has a reputation as a pretty bureaucratic place and that is true, but the bureaucracy in Japan has not grown like it has in other places. Just as prices in yen have barely increased in 30 years, so too the bureaucratic load. Indeed in certain respects Japan has actually decreased the bureaucratic load – various pointlessly low speed limits have been removed, for example, and (after some teething troubles) the entry process at airports has been significantly streamlined post wuflu with everything done via a website/app that you show to the nice immigration or customs agent.

[Note that you still need to queue but that’s due to the volume of tourists seeking to enjoy Japan as a cheap, safe tourist destination. Also as someone who once bought the most expensive beer of his life in Tokyo I find putting the words cheap and Japan in the same sentence to be bizarre, though it is true.]

Flying domestically in Japan is not as good as it was in the US in the 1990s when you could board your plane 15 minutes after parking your car, but it’s also not the hour plus long gropathon that is the current TSA experience – unless you fly at peak periods but then proportionally the time is less than US equivalent peak periods. Moreover you don’t have to show photo ID, you don’t need to take your shoes off and you can carry bottles of booze (or microphone stands) in your carry on bags.

In healthcare there has been no Obamacare and thus no requirement that your health insurance support this or that fashionable thing. You get to choose your own doctor or hospital and for the most part you and your doctors determine your treatment plan without having healthcare bureaucrats – either government or corporate – arguing over whether it is appropriate. The price will generally be clear too, as is what you will be expected to bear as copay, and if you don’t like it you can ask another clinic if they’ll do it for less.

In some areas – e.g. construction – Japan is actually notably freer than other countries. Zoning rules are much broader, buildings just need to meet safety standards (which is likely one reason why the recent 7.6 magnitude Noto quake killed less than 300 people total) and anyone can turn their home into a shop or other small business (or vice versa) with no way for a government busybody to stop it. Noah Smith had a recent article about the “California Forever” new city project3, where he mentions the zonings for mixed use residential / commercial / light-business as a positive but any Japanese bureaucrat would be scratching his head and wondering why this was special.

It is true that large Japanese companies remain horribly bureaucratic places where mediocre performance does not necessarily lead to lower pay or slower promotion, but they have not got worse, except for a notably increased propensity for wearing face masks post wuflu. If it took a year to make a decision in, say, 1995, it takes a year to make the same decision today. There’s no additional friction and just as in 1995 once the decision has been made it is implemented promptly.

As well as masks there are mutterings about “eshicaru” this and that and “essudeijiizu” (ethical and SDGs) but in general this is froth. In part this is because even government bureaucrats mostly believe in customer service. Yes Japan has plenty of mostly pointless bureaucratic stuff to do but as long as you stay on the track of everyone else the process is clearly documented and you carry bits of paper from bureaucrat A to B to … and end up with the permit to do what ever it was. Indeed if you expect to deviate from the standard track but tell a bureaucrat first, the bureaucrat will likely help you fill in the right forms / provide the right supporting documentation etc. and all will be fine.

Aside: Japanese bureaucracy only gets nasty when you don’t get prior approval and then act all huffy about it. It’s much, much better to ask for permission than forgiveness and if you did fail to get permission, an attitude of deference bordering on groveling will often result in you being let off with a warning as long as you write your apology letter properly.

The Solution

It is unclear how to solve this problem without mass disruption. In fact it may be hard to solve it even with mass disruption. But the key to the solution is to take an axe to the entire bureaucracy not just the twigs that are DIE and ESG. Almost certainly the Milei approach is required. A chainsaw that cuts down branches and all the ivy, brambles and other overgrowth.

The key to recall is that Parkinson’s law is a ratchet on the bureaucracy, so you have to both repeal 80% of the regulations AND fire (at least) 90% of the bureaucrats. Do not reassign them, just fire them. There are almost certainly entire government departments (Education, HUD…) that can be entirely replaced by a small outsourced call center, if that. Others, the EPA comes to mind, need to be pruned radically and have most regulations in the last 25 years revoked. The FDA, FAA, SEC etc. probably need more careful pruning but I’m sure that a significant reduction in regulations and manpower will be easily achieved.

And so on.

How to choose which bureaucrats to remove? Well a simple first wave is everyone that has showed up to the office fewer than three days a week in the last year, call it under 150 days in total. That’s likely to be about 75% of the government bureaucracy. And if that impacts other bureaucracies than the ones that need to be cut then those get more firings as required.

Once the government bureaucrats are fired, the next is to go after the NGOs that get government funding. Simply pass a law that no non-profit can receive government funds. Most of them will be doing useless things like DIE training so there’s no loss. Of course if you word this right that will include most of the universities. That’s probably a positive, but it may be necessary to include carveouts for actual scientific research, but it seems reasonable to require that universities that accept research funds comply with a few rules that will likely remove some of the faculty as well. It is probably beyond the (federal) government to remove administrators but state governments almost certainly can for state funded universities. There probably ought to be a maximum non faculty staff number/ratio to undergraduates that is approximately the number of such staff in 1999.

Some sample rules

  1. (Undergraduate) entry requirements must be objective and compliant with US non-discrimination laws, Supreme court rulings etc., with subjective choices only taking place in the case of objective ties.
  2. Any researcher who receives government funds and fails to produce sufficient raw data/methods to enable replication shall be required to repay the funds. If the research doesn’t have any raw data/methods it isn’t research and shall also not be acceptable

After that the chainsaw needs to go to corporate HR departments. Almost certainly the lack of required regulations to comply with (thanks to the chainsaw above) will help most organizations decide to remove chunks of HR drones in the interests of larger bonuses for CxOs because of greater profits. But a stick, in the form of a reminder that US non-discrimination laws, Supreme court rulings etc. mean that diversity hiring is generally illegal and could open the company up for prosecution would probably help.

If the US is lucky, the next US president will take a leaf out of the Milei book. In other countries it may be too late.

155 thoughts on “DIEing in Nice Red Tape by Francis Turner”

  1. Saw an article from Bloomberg on Twitter. Only read the blurb but it fits: the story was how Congressional staff is quietly trying to “transform,” Washington by assuming more and more power. An example being the recent stories on Congressional (and WH) staff “protesting” Israel and demanding a cease-fire in the Gaza war, Right now!

  2. One little-noted change Trump put through was an executive order (IIRC) noting that anyone involved in making policy (rules) was de-facto a political appointee and therefore not entitled to Civil Service protections. That would have real consequences.

  3. So now you’re allowed to say (on this blog) that IQ is a real thing? When did that happen, or is it only for those writing posts and not for the commenters?

    1. Of course IQ is a real thing. It measures a particular set of abilities that loosely correlate with success in school. But high IQ doesn’t mean having better judgement or useful life skills. Spending a little time at Mensa meetings will make that quite clear. Like any other group there are interesting, dull, helpful, selfish, successful, pitiful, insightful, and brainwashed people with high IQ.

      1. I’m quite familiar with Mensa, having belonged to it a couple of times mostly to try to meet people when I was single. Your characterization of it is accurate.
        But I hadn’t claimed that it meant anything about judgment or life skills, just that it is a legitimate measurement of a real trait. I’m happy that this is apparently an acceptable opinion to have on this blog, after having been criticized for that opinion previously.

        1. It depends strongly on what you say. Maximum potential intelligence is heritable. But some of the conclusions people rush to after that are mistaking group averages for the potential of individuals.

            1. Or, are you accustomed to taking similar tests? The questions might be different, but if the test format is familiar it would be easier.

              The tests also assume a certain level of education that conformed to a certain format. Administer it to someone who’s never been taught trigonometry and they’ll get a low score.

              1. I believe the issue isn’t whether the concept of IQ is a “real thing” (it obviously is; people differ widely in their abilities, including mental ones), but whether IQ tests measure anything other than how well the subject has internalized the culture. There’s certainly some connection between intelligence and test results, but that connection may be, and I believe is, tenuous indeed.

                And I say that as one who consistently scored in the 140s on such tests back in my teens and 20s, when I could still think. 😉

                1. I usually score a bit over that, and yes. What does it measure. It measures doing really well in higher education. Which when higher education was the gateway to prosperity meant a lot. Now? Your guess is as good as mine.

                  1. Damfino. It’s supposed to measure “ability to think”, but…think about what? As Imaginos1892 noted, what you haven’t studied is rather important to the process.

          2. There’s a question of nature vs nurture when it comes to heritability of IQ, though: adopted children (if adopted at an early age) often end up with IQ test results much more similar to those of their adopted parents than their biological parents. Combine that with other factors such as more years in school (assuming a good school) producing higher IQ test results, and I’m leaning towards the “mostly nurture” side of the argument. In other words, while maximum potential intelligence may have a genetic component, how well your parents, school, etc. taught you will have a much larger effect on your results.

            2. Our pediatrician, who had 20 years in the business, when we were maybe considering adopting (Before the miracle of second son) told us “Any kid you adopt will be high IQ, possibly off the charts.” When we looked at him puzzled he said “I have treated hundreds. Regardless of race or origin of adoptees, they end up high IQ if the adoptive family are high IQ.”
              So, that’s one point for you. One point for nurture.
              His caveat was “unless there are pre-existing issues.” One of mom’s siblings was AT BEST educable mentally retarded. The other 3 (and mom) are off the charts. I never knew what caused the first child to not be. But I’d bet it was…. something in the environment, or an accident, not genetic. I mean, it COULD be genetic. mom’s family doesn’t have any branches. BUT it’s highly unlikely, because there weren’t any others that we know of. Epileptics, paranoids, schizophrenics, sure. Slow, no. So …. it could be anything, including extremely high fevers as an infant.

              1. Is there any way to unsubscribe from notification emails? I’ve tried several times but keep getting error messages from WordPress about too many redirects.

                1. Well, you could set up an e-mail filter to redirect them straight to the trash folder. Or talk to WPDE.

                2. Ok, I’ve set my email filters to delete everything from this domain. I hope you enjoy your echo chamber.

                  I also won’t be contributing further to your support as I have in the past even before you asked for help.

                  As my last contribution to this blog, I will point out that you are a good artist but a crappy fiction writer. I read one of your books and it was obvious from the first chapter what the solution to the “mystery” was. You’re much more suited to being an essayist but that is irrelevant if you attack readers for having a different opinion.

                  1. We will indeed enjoy a place where we can argue without thinking we’re being suppressed.
                    As for your opinion of my fiction writing, I suggest you fold it all in corners and put it where your head is.

                  2. Also, not just award committees — who cares? — but people who pay hard cash disagree with you about my fiction.
                    Perhaps your IQ test gave you illusions of superiority you’re desperately trying to maintain? They were wrong.

                  3. Ah, she’s a ‘crappy fiction writer’, eh? Pray tell, how many novels have you written? How many people have bought them?

                    Because that is the only measure of a writer that really matters: do people want to read what they write? As RAH said, writers are competing for peoples’ beer money. How much of their beer money have you managed to snag?

                3. I have no idea. For the longest time it insisted on sending me every comment, despite my checking “DO NOT DO THIS.” I had to change the email to a dedicated one, which I never check.

              2. could be anything, including extremely high fevers as an infant.
                ………………

                Lack of oxygen during the birth? Does not have to be obvious chord wrapped around the neck either. That was prevented when son was born. He had a monitor on his head. When they told me to push, his monitor flat lined. Grandma (to be) saw. Grandma said something, loudly (“is that suppose to do that?” My mom. She has no medical background.) Twenty minutes later he was born via C-section. Only thing they knew for sure was his chord was not wrapped around his neck. They suspect the chord was trapped between his head and the pelvic bone and initial push collapsed it. Stop pushing, no preasure, so no problem. A regular birth would have cut off oxygen too long and odds were not good. Pediatric nurse SIL later said we were lucky grandma was there.

                1. Yeah. Older son is supposed to be retarded due to pre-eclampsia. Having knowledge, he says he is. Go figure. but my very sweet (honestly my other uncle was a pest and annoying as heck) older uncle as… just slow. VERY sweet.
                  So it was something pretty bad.

                  1. Dad’s oldest of his three youngest brothers had problems. Never thought he was slow, but then my interaction with him was as a child to an adult (he was 17 or 18 years older). He had severe violent grand mal seizures. Didn’t take much to set the seizures off either. In detectable to someone throwing a violent rampage fit, then violent noticeable trembling started, including banging his head on the ground, seizures. Which caused further damage. It would take all 3 brothers, and both BIL’s to hold him until seizures would stop, to keep him from beating on himself. He was in group and nursing homes before I was 12. They never knew what triggered the original seizures at age 3. Even knowing what I knew then, seeing someone go into a rampage now (not one triggered by seizures, although as a child, I could be running before I knew I was running, and I knew, flat out knew he’d never touch one of us kids) triggers my “Holy shit! I am out of here. Right. Now.” Flight. Rational? IDK.

      2. Oh, good Lord. Yes, if you want to learn how unimportant IQ is, do spend some time at Mensa meetings.
        Also, FYI people do better in life if they’re only slightly smarter than average. The profoundly gifted have almost as many issues as the profoundly mentally deficient getting along in life.

        1. Moderately wise should each one be, but never over-wise: of those men the lives are fairest, who know much well.
          Moderately wise should each one be, but never over-wise; for a wise man’s heart is seldom glad, if he is all-wise who owns it.
          Moderately wise should each one be, but never over-wise. His destiny let know no man beforehand; his mind will be freest from’ care.

          – The Havamal

        2. One college friend of mine described it this way. Being moderately gifted is like owning a sports car while everyone else owns a Honda Civic. You can get places faster and do more, but it’s still basically the same thing everyone else has, only better in many respects. Whereas being profoundly gifted, he said, is like owning a SR-71 Blackbird rather than a car. In its element, nothing can beat it for speed… but good luck finding parking for it when you want to go to the grocery store.

          1. yeah, but no. These soft psych tests are always suspect.
            Yes, in the sense that some jobs require degrees, etc. (Though that might change.) But … how do I put this?
            Any IQ above about 120 is a straight up liability for success.

            1. Any IQ above 120 is also suspect because the likelihood is that the person taking the test is smarter than the person writing it.

              (Also note that my husband and I had a fun time once with a “Mensa Quiz Book” finding the average of two errors on every twenty-question quiz. “Intelligent” does not obviate the need for a copy editor.)

              1. They had serious issues with younger son. but it’s actually above 165 by most tests (note tests have different scoring.) IQ over 165 is essentially meaningless. Son’s paper says 184 because it means “Effed if I know.” He hit his head on all the tests at… 12. Including the ones for adults. Meaning he ran out of questions without failing. So the psychologist said “We’ll put down 184. That will impress the school.”
                Shrug. it did, but they also didn’t help in any way. Shrugs.

          2. Let me guess — those studies were produced and/or funded by those with a vested interest in promoting IQ tests.

            I took some IQ tests in high school. Scored in the 160’s. Haven’t changed the world yet.

            1. A lot of the tests from South Africa and such were propaganda. From here? They wanted a technocracy. High IQ people have a cluster of personality traits and a tendency to do well in school and function well in a bureaucracy.
              Unless they’re really high. High fives Imaginos. Yeah. I know that song.

              1. All an high IQ test result means is “you aren’t living up to your potential”.

                Bah Humbug.

                1. Now now, be fair.

                  It means “you aren’t living up to your potential, and even though I’m telling you you’re a failure, you don’t get any help, either. Your high IQ means you don’t need to be taught anything, you just either magically know it or it’s your fault.”

                  1. Oh, LORD. The number of times we were told our kids didn’t get help for actual disabilities (the neural crap that seems to go with extreme high IQ) because “They’re smart, they’ll figure it out anyway.”
                    In Portugal I got told “You’re very smart, but you’re emotionally immature.”
                    As an adult who’s raised kids? No, I wasn’t. I was simply questioning adults who didn’t know how to answer. Eh. I’ve survived.

                  2. Now now, be fair.
                    …………….

                    Nope. Don’t wanna be. So there. (Grinning. Does sticking out my tongue still work? I’m in my second, or is it third, I lose track, childhood.)

                    “you aren’t living up to your potential, and even though I’m telling you you’re a failure, you don’t get any help, either. Your high IQ means you don’t need to be taught anything, you just either magically know it or it’s your fault.”
                    ………………..

                    Not wrong. Been on the same side of this too, have you?

                2. I always kind of identified with Charles Schultz’s observation: “There is no heavier burden than an unfulfilled potential.” I had a notebook many years ago with Charlie Brown on the cover, and that quote. It was a bit depressing, actually, until I learned to ignore it. 😉

          1. That would only tell you that it doesn’t really help Mensa members, who aren’t exactly a random sample of high IQ peopel.

            1. sigh. They are, trust me, random enough. If it’s in a city of strangers, when most people are looking for help.
              BUT besides all that, it is known the sweet spot is somewhere around 115 to 120. Enough studies have been made.

    2. depends on what you consider IQ. IQ is a real thing. It is also largely useless except for academic performance.
      ALSO no, you’re still not allowed to use IQ tests from South Africa under apartheid designed to prove “all blacks are inferior” and brandish them as accurate.
      The point you’re trying to make is probably on top of your head.

        1. And reading as well. Your rudeness was completely uncalled for as I have not done anything to deserve being insulted.

          1. Sure. Okay.
            Look, consider it from the POV of someone who is really tired of “them blackies in America are really inferior” And the place that comes from.
            Was my comment rude, what was yours? “Oh, are only guest posters allowed to say this?”
            NO. I know the guest poster and know what he means.
            BTW looked at the book you recommended. Read it in fact. It’s a farrago of outright crazy with no basis in biology.
            Sure, there has been evolution in the last 10k years. It involves stuff like milk tolerance and such, and even that isn’t THROUGH any population. Evolution doesn’t work that way, particularly in multi-factorial results like IQ.
            And genes don’t work that way.
            AND the technical term for the “black” population of America, save for those that arrived recently, is “Caucasian.” The results of the tests have more to do with The Great Society and single parent families, and a bankrupt public education than with genetics.
            And we’ve told you. WE’VE TOLD YOU.
            Note that Francis brings up single parent families, and affirmative action too.
            It’s not genetics.
            But you have a theory. It’s a toxic theory, but you have it.
            AND you can’t help — just can’t help — bringing it up in the rudest possible way.
            You could have asked Francis if he meant that. You could have asked me if he meant that.
            No, you chose to say that this POV wasn’t allowed here for commenters.
            It’s not DISALLOWED and you weren’t banned, or even told you’re an unreedemed racist. OR called names. You were told that this idea was very wrong, and why.
            You didn’t like that, so “reee, comments are disallowed.” (Show me where I deleted your previous comments. Go ahead. Show me.)
            And “they’re allowed for guest posters.”
            I stand by the fact you were rude, insulting and aggressive for no reason. And the point remains on top of your head, where you apparently can’t see it.

            1. Yep. When he brought up single-parent families (he said mothers, but that’s nearly synonymous with single-parent families in America because the percentage of single-parent families with the father raising the kids is very, very small) I was nodding along. There has been lots of research showing better outcomes for kids of two-parent families than children raised by a single mom* on her own. Better outcomes in all kinds of categories, from “X% more likely to get married and stay married” to “Y% less likely to end up in prison”. It would not surprise me at all that performance on IQ tests would be one of those things that can be affected.

              * Note that none of those studies, as far as I know, separates out widows from divorced or never-married mothers. I suspect the outcome would be very different, for a simple reason. When a woman is widowed while young enough to have kids, her late husband’s parents are likely to still be alive, and they will naturally want to pitch in to help their son’s widow raise their grandchildren. So she’ll have two sets of grandparents helping her, not just one; that allows the workload to be spread around. When a woman divorces her husband, her ex-husband’s family are much less likely to want to help her. (I do know second- or third-hand of one case, where the man’s family basically said “Our son was a jerk and an absolute idiot to abandon you”, cut him off, and took her in and treated her as a daughter. But that’s the exception, not the general rule.) So a woman who got divorced, or who was never married to the father(s) of her children in the first place, usually has only her parents to help her. Or, if she herself comes from a single-parent household, only one parent. So a lot more of the load of child-rearing falls on her, while she’s also working a full-time job (or two!) to pay the rent and so on. So of course she doesn’t have as much time for the hard work of child-rearing, even if she’s doing everything right. (Which not everyone does).

              Anyway, enough repeating what the regulars here already know. It’s still worth saying from time to time, because there are always people who may come across this info in the future, but I don’t need to write a whole essay on this.

              1. Then there is the non-conforming case of a young couple, he is on leave from the navy home. Hooks up for a few dates with HS classmate. They create baby boy. From the time the baby was born, they had split custody 50/50, even with dad deployed. When dad was deployed, his mother had the baby half a week (Wednesday after school, to Sunday morning, Sunday midday to Wednesday after school. Even as dad started dating his soon to be wife, she had custody instead of grandma, when he was deployed, his half week. Now both parents are married to others. Kid has two sets of parents, 4 sets of grandparents (actually 6, because I think dad’s parents are divorced and remarried. Don’t know about mom’s parents.) Plus 2 surviving great-grandparents. Note, this is all without legal interference. Kid also now has 3 half sisters (two are mom’s, and one is dad’s) and one half brother (dad’s). (And one dog, at dad’s house.)

                One wrinkle is that until kid is older, holidays, on the holiday, are a bust for extended family distance gatherings (could change). Because they split the holiday day too. His dad’s extended family solves that by his wife’s family picking the weekend before to gather everyone. While he and his family celebrate Christmas Eve with his extended family. Then early afternoon kid goes to mom’s house. Oh. While not close in miles, both families reside in the same school district.

          2. Being an asshole is discouraged here, and you were being an asshole. Then, when called on your assholery, you responded by being even more of an asshole. Not a smart move.
            ———————————
            Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!

            1. Note that you and I have had some spicy disagreements, Imaginos. In fact, I think the only regular I’ve never locked horns with is dep729, because she’s just sweet.
              BUT you can’t cover a number of topics without having some things even your readers disagree with. And sometimes I’ve been arrantly, factually wrong, and might even admit it when called (MIGHT — sometimes there’s no time. It’s not that I don’t know, but by the time the dime drops it’s three days later, and there’s something else that must be blogged.)
              And sometimes we agree to disagree. But yeah, I respond badly to being treated like I’m mean and ebil and ban certain opinions. Particularly when unwashed, and dealing with ten of thousand dollars unexpected expense, but this is not a justification. I tend to respond badly to being patronized and accused of things I didn’t do, period.

              1. Uh, just to be sure, I was responding to technovelist.

                I always strive never to be an asshole first. I do reserve the right to counter assholery with assholery, though.

                1. Yes. I know you were. I was answering you by saying that you and I have had heated disagreements — but neither — I think, or at least not on purpose on my part — has been an asshole. Right? I think. I mean, sometimes I’m on edge for other reasons. BUT I try not to be impolite. In fact, it’s the thing I’m most likely to ask my fans on discord about “Was I rude?” Because sometimes I’m not sure.

                  1. Nah, I don’t recall reading anything from you that pissed me off. If you’ve ever been rude to me, it didn’t make any lasting impression. 😛

              2. I don’t recall ever locking horns with you myself, but I’m more of an irregular commenter than a regular, due to living in a time zone where I’m asleep when America is awake and vice versa. So I only get to actively participate in the discussions when I’m up at 3 AM and can’t sleep, otherwise I’m just hanging around the edges of the discussion contributing bits and pieces.

                  1. Yes, it’s after 8 AM here right now, I’ve had breakfast, and so have the kids, so I have time to sit down and be online for a little while. So don’t worry that I’m up in the middle of the night today.

                  2. When I said that I’m asleep while America is awake and vice versa, that’s not quite true, because out of 24 hours, there are 8-ish hours when I’m asleep, 8-ish when America is asleep, and 8 hours when I can talk to people in America. All my videoconferences with colleagues in the States are scheduled for early morning or late evening (and work allows me to take comp time if I have to be in a meeting until 10 PM). It’s just that when I go to bed, there are maybe a dozen comments on whatever your latest post is. And when I wake up, there are two hundred. So that’s a lot of conversation I didn’t get to be in the middle of, and by the time I contribute something, many people won’t see it. I don’t mind, as I still have gotten to have some fun conversations.

                    And I really do like living in this country: the countryside is beautiful, the people are generally quite friendly to foreigners, and there’s an employee at work (a local) whose full-time job is helping us navigate the governmental red tape involved in being a foreign worker. For example, I’m about to renew my work permit. All I had to do was go to get the required medical exam, bring the local person my passport and the fee, and sign the paperwork in about a dozen places. The local employee did/will do all the rest of the work, including taking the paperwork to the appropriate government office and waiting in line. My employer does a very good job of taking care of us. So missing out on a few fun discussions is a minor thing, really.

                    1. Anymore depending on when Sarah posts, when I “see it”, there maybe 0 to hundreds of comments. Lord help me if multiple days are very active (cough, this week). I get the posts via email notification. Same with comments, once I trigger the “email me new comments” when I comment. I don’t “c4c” until I’ve read every comment, or found one I “have” to respond to. OMG if I’m particularly chatty because of what people have commented. Sigh. Again, last few posts. Today, 9:47 PM PST and I still have 48 comments to catch up on, I started with more than 100 email posts about 3 PM PST (had a thing at noon with mom). It is a full time job keeping up 🙂 🙂 🙂 Good thing I’m retired. (FYI. I really need to get my tush in gear for a regular appointment at the gym. Gotten out of the habit, again.)

                      I’d say “step up buddy”, but I’m going to be off line mid-February at least a week, even if I take the laptop (through TSA). (Use laptop to backup SLR digital pictures daily.) Also was off line last week thanks to our weather (network was down and WP hates my phone). So, telling you to step it up, might be rude. (grin) 🙂 🙂 🙂

                    2. Heh. Even if you did say “step up”, I’d reply “I have three kids under age 7 at home and a full-time job. I’m prioritizing SLEEP.” 🙂

          3. Were you really not aware of what you were pushing?

            Oh, wait, yes you were.

            In fact, you opened up by TAKING A SWING AT THE HOST.

            Quote:

            technovelist says: January 25, 2024 at 1:46 pm
            So now you’re allowed to say (on this blog) that IQ is a real thing? When did that happen, or is it only for those writing posts and not for the commenters?

            Reply

            So, you punched at the person who owns the blog, about something you’d been roundly spanked over by folks on the blog.

            You got folks who were more polite than you managed to be, who still didn’t agree with you, and worse made reasonable and evidence based counter-arguments. You attempted an argument from authority. You were met with exasperation. To which you took exception and slapped again, which got you slapped back.

            In the face of folks being quite a bit more polite than you were, and making actual ARGUMENTS, you threw an abject hissy fit and flounced.

            :eyes the comments: Very slowly flounced, at that.

            1. Slowly and by insulting my other job, which frankly, I don’t expect to appeal to ANYONE here, and only the mysteries too, which is hilarious.
              Rolls eyes. Yeah. I’m wounded. wounded, I tell you.
              And yes, he’s reading these. You know it, I know it. BIDEN knows it, and he don’t know not’ing.
              Ladies and gentlemen, this is why I left Mensa. In one person.

                1. Eh. So, the Dyce mysteries are cozies. They’re not supposed to be super-hard. It’s the fun of “getting there”
                  The only people who say the The Musketeers are really easy, read the beginning and the end, and think that “the cardinal did it” though normally there is a secondary mystery that is like that, because Dumas (hattip.) But I love the people who said of DOAM “I knew who did it in the first chapter.” Well done. In the first chapter, the murderer hadn’t been introduced, so that’s a gift indeed. I am not writing for psychics.
                  Eh. Ten years ago his comments would have made me seriously worried that I wasn’t that good. Now? I simply don’t care. I have to write what I have to write. If it makes money, it’s a bonus. Who cares about the rest?
                  Oh and apparently he hasn’t tweeked most of my art is AI which is also gifted. Sure, I fix the AI, but still.

                    1. Maybe, but judging by the other stuff, no. Rolls eyes.
                      You know what? Yeah. I’ve been thirty years in this business and making a living (not lavish but about 300% what the average fiction writer makes in trad pub — well, average TEN years ago was 5k) but yeah, rando on the net hates my books. Boo-hoo. It’s time to quit.
                      That is just bizarre “thinking.” But if he wanted to come across as crass and petty, well DONE!

                  2. It’s not like you’re making the AI art secret. And I loved your musketeers mysteries. (And generally I find the whodunit part of the mystery the least important aspect. Though it shouldn’t leave you saying, hey, wait a minute. How does that make sense?)

              2. I look at it this way. He bought your books, or paid via Amazon Prime. You got paid for the ones he read. Right? 🙂 🙂 🙂

                I think the only regular I’ve never locked horns with is dep729, because she’s just sweet.
                …………….

                Thank you.

                I think the closest I’ve gotten involved with any of the heated arguments is pointing out that the sides are arguing the same thing, just differently, or cross one another. If no one else has. No one has swatted me, yet. If it was happening real time, in person, probably would have someone turn to me and say “shut up”. Cause that has never happened (I lie) ever. Otherwise, there are a lot better debaters here than I will ever be.

  4. “We’re gonna need a bigger axe…”

    Trump thrived in the Byzantine world of NYC real estate, yet stayed almost squeaky clean in that cesspit. In gamer terms, he number-mances. He rule rips. He gives small loopholes the “welcome to prison, fish” treatment, then parks construction trucks in them.

    His problem is, DC Swamp is -way- bigger and more Byzantine than NYC.

    But, he learns fast. And he keeps score. And he gets even.

    Popcorn?

    1. I point out that Louisiana/New Orleans was so bad and corrupt Trump came to try to build a casino, decided that the “bids” were fixed so maybe a hotel or something . . . then left and said “I wouldn’t build an Outhouse in this place!” Atlantic City and NYC and the mobs were easier to navigate.

    3. Whaddya wanna bet the word ‘Byzantine’ gets replaced in the fullness of time with something that refers to Washington?

      Plus, D.C. is not a swamp. Swamps are fertile and full of life. D.C. is a sewer, infested with rats, cockroaches and the occasional crocodile.

        1. Better. “Byzantine” fails because most Byzantines were, by most accounts, competent, something those who infest DC can’t claim. Sly or tricky, OK. But competent? Nah…

  5. “And he gets even.”

    Yes, and no. DeSantis is now forgiven. Water under the bridge, and the two have rapproached, as they have similar views going forward, and DeSantis is now supporting Trump.

    But if someone continues to work against Trump…

    2. Political opponents are an issue for Trump, that’s just a war of words and influence, who does the better job of playing the Dozens game. Those who actually take actions against him may end up being fair game once he’s back in office.

      1. The “Dozens game”? If that’s what you meant to write, I don’t know what you meant; if that was an autocorrupt, then I can’t figure out what it was supposed to be. Either way, would you mind a short explanation?

  7. HR departments literally are a quasi-governmental bureaucracy. They exist in their current bloated form because there are so many government rules that a dedicated corporate bureaucracy is required to keep up and comply with them. Kill the bureaucracy that promulgates those rules, and the HR department will wither away. (Not entirely, but it’ll be composed almost entirely of payroll accounting afterwards, as it should be.)

    1. Previous owner of the company has one HR lady, payroll and paperwork. After buyout, HR was remote (the guy responsible as the go-to was at least still within Texas, Saw him 3 times from 2011 to 2016, and twice was dealing with a guy they shoulda fired, but location was closing anyhow, so they allowed him to stay and keep a severance. Now we have 6 (3 dedicated and 3 “as needed”) for only twice the people, and that’s just locally. anything else brings others from the state of corporate.

  8. I worked a couple of times on some reservations – yeah, the Indian kind. The red tape there was unreal. One case a street could not be put into an area as there was no curb, gutter or sewer lines installed per one federal agency. Another federal agency said that curb, gutter and sewer lines could only be put in place where a street was. The outcome? You got it – beat up mobile homes and shacks still went up but had no street or utilities.

    Another great one was “count week” for schools. BIA funding was based on how many students went to school. So, you have games, lots of food and fun stuff for that critical Monday to Friday week and your attendance average is 256 and thus you are funded for that many students. The rest of the year? About 80 kids show up for actual class.

    My wife did some gigs with the Forest Service and her stories were something else too.

      1. Yes, but I don’t know if the difference is that big anywhere else I’ve heard about. Certainly I remember there was a week when the teachers told us, “Try really hard not to be absent,” but it’s not like kids showed up during that week whom I’d never seen before.

  9. Well it looks like 17 states at last count are standing with Texas against Slow Joe and his dereliction of the border.

    May the odds be ever in their favor.

      1. The entire Republican Governors group signed on. Apparently Alaska hasn’t signalled support, but every other Republican governor has.

        1. Frankly, I’m at a loss to understand how Abbott can’t prevail on this; the Constitution is pretty clear regarding the duty of the Federal government, and the right of states, to repel invasion. Abbott cited the relevant parts in his letter to the Feds. The last two paragraphs in the letter (available on several sites online) cover it quite well.

          And although the Supremes allowed the Feds to cut the razor wire, they did not require Texas to allow the Feds access to it. Oversight? Maybe. 😈

          1. Not an “oversight”. The USSC didn’t hear the case, which is still in front of a trial court. A higher level court applied an injunction against the Feds removing the wire while the case awaits trial. Since only thing being appealed was the injunction, that was the only thing that the USSC could rule on.

            1. Pretty much what I wrote. But it’s only tradition and precedent which prevents the Court from handing down rulings related to the one on the table; an addition of “…and this implies that access must be granted to allow the action the injunction blocked” would not be an unreasonable comment to add, which is why I’m not convinced that it was an oversight.

          2. The Reader thinks this will come down to WWBD (what will Barrett do). So far she seems to follow Roberts and not think for herself.

        1. Given the latest from Putin, the Reader thinks Alaska may be busy mining the Bering Sea.

          1. What’s in the Bering Sea that would make maritime resource extraction feasible?

            Oh, wait, you weren’t talking about that kind of mining, were you?

      2. Not quite. There’s Governor Scott in Vermont. But that’s Vermont, where the Republicans act like Democrats, the Democrats act like Socialists, and the Socialists act like, well, Bernie. So yes, you may have been right in the first place.

        Republica restituendae

      3. Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) of PA is reportedly about to announce support for Abbott on the border.

        1. Uh. I was wondering which one would break first, PA, KS, KY or… Colorado, where Fat Polis is self-identifying as a Libertarian. (Which frankly is hte equivalent of his identifying as “Not a Nazi” during the pandemic. Like we believe it.

          1. It’s bi-partisam now. Hopefully Shapiro joining in will encourage others to join. Newsome won’t ever join (it’s not high-profile here in California like it is in places like NYC), but just about anyone else could – even possibly someone like Hochul. Admittedly Hochul joining is very unlikely. But if enough Dem governors join first, it’s not out of the question.

          2. Crap…

            I may have jumped the gun on Shapiro. Putting that one on hold until I hear more confirmations.

            My apologies.

          3. I was wondering if Oregon or Washington was going to cave. Washington is a border state and while not pouring over through west of the Cascades, they are coming over. (Cascades and east do have an elevation and other environmental problems, including big bears. Sure southern border have big dangerous river reptiles, snakes, and big cats. Grizzlies prowl the rivers and wide far over the land. Plus the land up north is just flat out steeper.) But reality check, Seattle and Portland haven’t been recipients of Abbot and Desantis generosity acknowledging their city’s declared sanctuary statuses. Frankly they aren’t worth making a point with unlike the other targets of their generosity. (Which probably frosts Oregon’s governor. Oh well.)

            1. It’s still early. One or both might yet come around. The only one that I’m absolutely certain won’t is California (if it’s a big concern here, it’s successfully hidden; ergo Newsome will be under no overt pressure to act). I can believe Arizona won’t as I’ve got a strong gut suspicion that the Cartels have quietly taken over the state’s politicians.

              Beautiful But Evil Space Princess says to add NM to that pile, and I know nothing about that state.

              Unfortunately, I’ve heard nothing further about Shapiro, so I suspect that my earlier info on him was wrong. So we’re still waiting to see which Dem governor bolts first and joins Abbott.

          1. I think Biden just lost.

            https://redstate.com/bonchie/2024/01/26/huge-border-patrol-turns-on-joe-biden-proclaim-support-for-texas-national-guard-n2169256

            “This is an incredible turn of events. I don’t know if “mutiny” is the right word here, but clearly, Biden has no way to enforce his threats at this point. Border Patrol agents are not going to go along with it and short of using the Insurrection Act to mobilize the U.S. Army (and they likely wouldn’t act either), this represents a major roadblock to the president’s attempts to further destroy the Southern border. “

              1. Literally. Does everyone remember the “horse whipping event”? If those border horse patrols weren’t verbally raked over the coals and whipped by their boss (incompetent president) and his lackey’s, the media, then someone show me a better example.

  10. The problem with large-scale firing of the government bureaucrats in the USA is that they are 1) members of government employee unions with CBAs, and 2) they have civil service protection that makes it next to impossible to fire them. Even firing someone for cause is very difficult.

    1. When it comes to firing particular named individuals that is correct.
      It does not apply if you eliminate whole departments or job categories – and that’s what needs to be done. You can’t shrink bureaucracy one person at a time.

      1. Correct. And even if they have to be retained after the department disappears, the problem will be entirely gone when the last one retires or keels over. Paying them to do nothing would be cheap at twice the price. 😉

    2. Yeah firing them is tough to do.

      About the only way to do it is eliminate the entire department.

      That would be a shame.

            1. Two: the Missouri and the Wisconsin. That famous drone footage of Iraqi soldiers pouring out of their bunkers and trenches waving white flags? That was filmed by the Wisconsin’s RQ-2 Pioneer drone. The Iraqis had heard the drone, knew full well that its presence meant imminent bombardment by some sort of horrific nightmare weapon (an Iowa-class’ 16-inch main batteries) and decided, “nope, we’re done. Not going through that again.”

              1. Yup. Biggest guns still in existence, afaik (I don’t think any of the old railroad guns are still around) by a very large margin. Being anywhere near where their shells are landing would not be pleasant.

        2. I say rig up a trebuchet with a nice heavy counterweight.

          Setting aflame first is optional.

          The old ways are best.

          1. Have you seen the new wood chippers? Diesel engine or PTO powered. Variable speeds for traitors and pedophiles. But I’m being redundant…

            1. The DC metro web site says there are 42,000 lamp posts in the District of Columbia.

              Rope is cheap, even if you’d have to double- or triple-up occupancy of some of the lamp posts.

        3. No need. Aircraft can easily drop 2000 pound ordinance, with greater precision.

          Heck, even a modified crop-duster can deliver a JDAM GPS-guided FU into a particular window.

          2. Yes, but that doesn’t quite deliver the same message that the 9x 16″/50 caliber Mark 7 guns on an Iowa-class battleship do.

        4. Ah, a replay of the Sepoy Mutiny! That was the Brits under Victoria; can’t get more respectable than that, as I believe Kalvan noted. 😀

    3. Get them to quit.
      ‘Your new assignment, FedGov Slug, is to sit in this windowless room, no phone, no tv, nothing to read, and stare at the wall.’
      I wouldn’t last a day…

      2. That is why I keep saying it would be easier just to nuke the place, if you prefer make DC a tourist only spot saves all the nice things and move all government offices to Kansas, Wichita Kansas, then we could periodically nuke it after it fills up with bureaucrats, lather rinse repeat as needed.

        1. In tourist only spot I simply mean you can not do anything there but museums and monuments. Or hotels for the tourists, no one lives there but tourists, everyone moves out of the District of Columbia but the elected officials. You work in dc you live outside the district. That goes for political staffs, government employees. That way when our enemies nuke dc, they don’t kill anyone important.

        2. Hey! Wichita is a pretty decent place, as far as urban shitholes go.

          Tulsa, on the other hand, is quite expendable.

      3. Like the unfirables in the NY school district. They go to a room, sit all day drinking coffee or pop, collecting their wages, and not working. But it is cheaper than trying to fire them. Facepaw

  12. Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. ”

    ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

  13. A family friend used to deal with the ADA compliance for an institution of higher education. I had brushed up against some of that when I was a TA, but to hear her end was both enlightening and depressing. How do you accommodate someone with full visual impairment who wants to take an art appreciation class? How do you convince a professor that he HAS to change how he presents material for students with [problem], and help him find ways to do it?

    I suddenly understood why the friend had pure grey hair and a tendency to hurl foam balls at the garage door for up to half an hour at a stretch.

  14. 1. I have taken to calling it I.E.D. because that’s how it’s being used.

    2. That red tape is being remarkably benign — it’s not trying to crush and/or strangle her.

  15. That red tape is being remarkably benign — it’s not trying to crush and/or strangle her.

    It’s on break.

  16. The real problem is that DIE is embedded in bureaucratic administration.

    Last week I tweeted in come discussion that the problems of capitalism continuously brought up at problems of bureaucracy which, in the end, may be the principle problem of socialism, even beyond broken incentives.

    To quote a former president, every bureaucrat has a phone and a pen to demand things happen, but also has someone to pass the buck. Power without accountability that even Mao or Stalin might envy.

    1. They don’t want power, because power implies some measure of responsibility. No, they want authority, with all responsibility for the consequences of their actions dumped on ‘somebody’. Who? They don’t care, as long as they don’t have to take any responsibility for everything they fuck up. They are rewarded for wrecking the country and destroying peoples’ lives.

Comments are closed.