Heh... one of the things that provides a little cognitive dissonance for those of us old enough to remember is the Left white-knighting the CIA, NSA, Homeland Security, FBI, DoD, Treasury, etc.
That isn't the check on the Executive. DA's aren't the check on the Executive exercising (questionable) authority over the Executive branch.
If he's overstepping power reserved to Congress... SCOTUS can and will rule such. That's still not an indictable offence. Think about it... we don't put in jail every administration that had an Executive order or action stopped by the Courts.
If SCOTUS rules against his Executive Actions *and* he ignores SCOTUS *and* isn't impeached... that's an actual Constitutional crisis.
...but still not resolvable by a DA or an indictment.
Yes, it's very much like this. The weird part is that "J" is often irrelevant or incoherent... like, we need Google, but it can't be an internet version of Google... but it has to have all the stuff that is on the internet, otherwise it would just be internal search -- we want the stuff that Google has, but only as long as it's not on the internet -- for security reasons.
I mean, that's a joke, but "J" is usually such a confounder that instead of achieving success that 99% of the commercial world has, you've just invented a category that doesn't exist, requires custom $B, and will break within 2-years. But I guaranty at least 3 Bidders will give you a number for it.
Saul, while you're in aisle 4, grab a few small brown paper bags - I'm concerned you're not going to make it all 4-yrs.
It's not Murc's Law -- it's the perennial problem of the Imperial Presidency.
I mean, kudos to Congress for fixing the Electoral Count act early in Biden's presidency... which just shows that there's at least some awareness that Congress should act; it seems though that there was only political capital for that limited scope -- but I also didn't hear of any additional items that were on the table.
This is the circular meta-problem of the 'fourth-branch' of Government. It occupies the space between Congress and the Executive with both having legitimate claims of oversight and control.
It is exacerbated by the fourth-branch participating in its own definitions of scope, oversight and control.
I hate to say there's no easy way to manage this phenomenon, but... there's no easy way to manage this.
If I wanted to write a controversial essay, I'd suggest that the trigger for all of this is that the balance between the Right owning some part of the spoils system* and the Left owning another part broke...
*there's totally not a spoils system like originally... it's a 'soft-spoils-system' in a way Tocqueville would have understood.
Heh, yeah, hope the social security numbers don't leak.
On the serious side, there's definitely data I don't want leaked through an accidentally unsecured S3 bucket... but from an accountability/auditability side of things, we cannot underestimate how much the Feds couldn't do. And, honestly, projects to 'share' data across systems and depts ... tens of $B in consulting contracts without any real prospect of being able to do it.
Ok... about the whole DOGE thing. I don't know where to begin. As a process guy, I absolutely abhor this complete end-around the entire process. Seriously, it's bad and I condemn it thrice.
BUT, as a tech guy who has (on and off) worked with the Feds on their Data Management projects, the prospect of Musk and a few techies with cots deploying COTS (Commercial off-the-shelf) software to solve simple data management issues that have plagued (and plague here is too soft of a disease metaphor) the entire Federal Government? Well, I'm laughing like the Joker. I'll laugh harder with the upcoming data-breach, but that's a different sort of laugh.
No, I'm not concerned about the PII stuff people are hyperventilating about...
But still, you have no idea how funny it is to see the data silos integrated -- there are right now thousands, nay, tens of thousands of consultants watching this with mouths ajar... the fact that the GSA is one of the institutions being 'integrated' -- off the charts irony.
Agreed... from the reporting I've read from Trace there are two observable outcomes:
1. The total number of certified applicants is lower than it should be owing to the screening process. This has impacted staffing levels nationwide... with the various 'reputable' reporting agencies noting 90% of all airfields are under-capacity.
2. On account of #1 over-screening on non-relevant metrics, the overall quality of certified applicants is lower - that is the % of actual qualifying Certs are of one level and not the higher level.
What isn't being alleged from 'serious people' is that any of the ATC people weren't qualified to be certified or ATC workers. If anything, the issue is that the bottleneck created a pipeline problem that has led to understaffing and, perhaps relevant to this case, an ATC having to cover too many processes while on the job.
Yes, I'm just pointing out that the process iterates.
But I'm not sure I agree that 'nothing happens' is a valid interpretive framework. If a political party can achieve successful policy objectives and can't make sure that they get 'credit' for them... then either a) the successful policies aren't popular b) they weren't actually successful policies, or c) the political party is underperforming on a key metric... capitalizing on popular successful policies.
I'd agree that it's too early to definitively say how it will shake out, but as I note above, it's my opinion that *right now* TeamR is trending towards overplaying their hand.
Heh, right... I mean, I could conjure a situation around 'dumping' that could possibly constitute a tariff emergency where you'd need to act immediately to prevent businesses from going bankrupt. But yes, most tariff policy works around long-term geo-political/economic goals.
Now, I could see Congress deciding that a country (or region) was not negotiating in good faith and delegating the Executive who also has delegated Trade Negotiation powers the ability to threaten and level Tariffs as part of that objective... but a little like declaring war, I'd rather Congress delegate for a specific purpose for a specific time.
Possibly; it's not something I've studied much, but I think there's long-term concerns that ISI's success becomes itself a kind of drag on productivity one the protections outlive their initial objectives.
Which is just to say that using different policy tools always carry the risk of creating constituencies that rely on the status quo even when the status quo should be trimmed to account for success.
Agreed, curious to see what the actual negotiations will yield.
Could be symbolic nonsense
Could be symbolic but successful interdiction
Could be significant collaborative interdiction
Could be General Pershing crossing the border chasing Pancho Villa...
Heh, well I'm not a Market Fundamentalist (tm) and see tariffs (properly) as a tool to manage foreign affairs including trade.
Tariffs can and do affect trade, they can and do raise prices, those prices are (mostly) paid by the consumers, they will alter consumer choices, and reveal new consumer preferences... all of those things are more or less accurate, but simply become part of the cost/benefit calculation of what you get by enacting the tariff. That is, it literally doesn't matter what the theoretical economic impact might be to a 'perfectly functioning free market'.
What's the point of the tariff? Do the benefits outweigh the costs... that's the only useful conversation. Have you properly calculated the risks? The gains? The counter-moves? Future iterations?
And, if you *threaten* a tariff and get what you wanted without any cost? Well, possibly we're undervaluing the trade benefits we're providing to our partners.
Right... will have to see what the actual outcome is; BUT, better to manage the response to the outcomes than hyperventilate about theoretical outcomes.
Plus, see also Panama 'caving' and stepping back from China Belt-and-Road agreement from 2017.
The current Republican party is not managing it's 'success' very well... and that's before it has generated any actual success.
I don't think Hogg was nominated to reach disaffected Males from what I've read... the challenge for TeamR is to actually execute on delivering policy wins that disaffected males will feel... and delivering policy wins that are better for more than *just* disaffected males.
And, after executing successful policies, TeamR has to message around those policies.
None of the above are a given for TeamR... if TeamR screws up... it doesn't matter who the Assistant Vice Chair at the DNC might be.
On “Open Mic for the week of 2/3/2025”
USAID: Some of our best CIA assets are sex tourists.
On “The 97th Oscars’ Best Picture Race: As Wide Open As It Gets”
It'll be Conclave... Costumes! Location! Villains! Ralph Fiennes! TrendEdgy! No Risk!
On “Open Mic for the week of 2/3/2025”
Heh... one of the things that provides a little cognitive dissonance for those of us old enough to remember is the Left white-knighting the CIA, NSA, Homeland Security, FBI, DoD, Treasury, etc.
I mean, does no one respect the old ways?
"
That isn't the check on the Executive. DA's aren't the check on the Executive exercising (questionable) authority over the Executive branch.
If he's overstepping power reserved to Congress... SCOTUS can and will rule such. That's still not an indictable offence. Think about it... we don't put in jail every administration that had an Executive order or action stopped by the Courts.
If SCOTUS rules against his Executive Actions *and* he ignores SCOTUS *and* isn't impeached... that's an actual Constitutional crisis.
...but still not resolvable by a DA or an indictment.
"
Yes, it's very much like this. The weird part is that "J" is often irrelevant or incoherent... like, we need Google, but it can't be an internet version of Google... but it has to have all the stuff that is on the internet, otherwise it would just be internal search -- we want the stuff that Google has, but only as long as it's not on the internet -- for security reasons.
I mean, that's a joke, but "J" is usually such a confounder that instead of achieving success that 99% of the commercial world has, you've just invented a category that doesn't exist, requires custom $B, and will break within 2-years. But I guaranty at least 3 Bidders will give you a number for it.
"
Saul, while you're in aisle 4, grab a few small brown paper bags - I'm concerned you're not going to make it all 4-yrs.
It's not Murc's Law -- it's the perennial problem of the Imperial Presidency.
I mean, kudos to Congress for fixing the Electoral Count act early in Biden's presidency... which just shows that there's at least some awareness that Congress should act; it seems though that there was only political capital for that limited scope -- but I also didn't hear of any additional items that were on the table.
"
Yes, but it's simply an observed fact in all US Politics classes that neither party *ever* gives up a Presidential Power collected by the other party.
Why would you? The power is only dangerous when other people exercise it.
"
We can only hope.
"
This is the circular meta-problem of the 'fourth-branch' of Government. It occupies the space between Congress and the Executive with both having legitimate claims of oversight and control.
It is exacerbated by the fourth-branch participating in its own definitions of scope, oversight and control.
I hate to say there's no easy way to manage this phenomenon, but... there's no easy way to manage this.
If I wanted to write a controversial essay, I'd suggest that the trigger for all of this is that the balance between the Right owning some part of the spoils system* and the Left owning another part broke...
*there's totally not a spoils system like originally... it's a 'soft-spoils-system' in a way Tocqueville would have understood.
"
It was to protect Italian Americans from blowback of Mob killing JFK for schtupping the wrong lady.
So... way over-classified.
"
Yeah, very high potential for blowing up.
"
I believe PEPFAR was granted a waiver a couple days ago.
"
Heh, yeah, hope the social security numbers don't leak.
On the serious side, there's definitely data I don't want leaked through an accidentally unsecured S3 bucket... but from an accountability/auditability side of things, we cannot underestimate how much the Feds couldn't do. And, honestly, projects to 'share' data across systems and depts ... tens of $B in consulting contracts without any real prospect of being able to do it.
"
As for an article looking at Tariffs without making the mistake of Market Fundamentalism? Oren Cass has a decent one.
https://www.understandingamerica.co/p/o-canada-time-to-talk-tariffs
"
Ok... about the whole DOGE thing. I don't know where to begin. As a process guy, I absolutely abhor this complete end-around the entire process. Seriously, it's bad and I condemn it thrice.
BUT, as a tech guy who has (on and off) worked with the Feds on their Data Management projects, the prospect of Musk and a few techies with cots deploying COTS (Commercial off-the-shelf) software to solve simple data management issues that have plagued (and plague here is too soft of a disease metaphor) the entire Federal Government? Well, I'm laughing like the Joker. I'll laugh harder with the upcoming data-breach, but that's a different sort of laugh.
No, I'm not concerned about the PII stuff people are hyperventilating about...
But still, you have no idea how funny it is to see the data silos integrated -- there are right now thousands, nay, tens of thousands of consultants watching this with mouths ajar... the fact that the GSA is one of the institutions being 'integrated' -- off the charts irony.
https://archive.is/2025.02.01-235221/https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-lackeys-general-services-administration/
"
Heh, now this is funny... it's like watching toddlers play soccer, everyone just chasing the ball with no idea what the game is.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/27/2025”
Agreed... from the reporting I've read from Trace there are two observable outcomes:
1. The total number of certified applicants is lower than it should be owing to the screening process. This has impacted staffing levels nationwide... with the various 'reputable' reporting agencies noting 90% of all airfields are under-capacity.
2. On account of #1 over-screening on non-relevant metrics, the overall quality of certified applicants is lower - that is the % of actual qualifying Certs are of one level and not the higher level.
What isn't being alleged from 'serious people' is that any of the ATC people weren't qualified to be certified or ATC workers. If anything, the issue is that the bottleneck created a pipeline problem that has led to understaffing and, perhaps relevant to this case, an ATC having to cover too many processes while on the job.
On “Open Mic for the week of 2/3/2025”
Yes, I'm just pointing out that the process iterates.
But I'm not sure I agree that 'nothing happens' is a valid interpretive framework. If a political party can achieve successful policy objectives and can't make sure that they get 'credit' for them... then either a) the successful policies aren't popular b) they weren't actually successful policies, or c) the political party is underperforming on a key metric... capitalizing on popular successful policies.
I'd agree that it's too early to definitively say how it will shake out, but as I note above, it's my opinion that *right now* TeamR is trending towards overplaying their hand.
"
Heh, right... I mean, I could conjure a situation around 'dumping' that could possibly constitute a tariff emergency where you'd need to act immediately to prevent businesses from going bankrupt. But yes, most tariff policy works around long-term geo-political/economic goals.
Now, I could see Congress deciding that a country (or region) was not negotiating in good faith and delegating the Executive who also has delegated Trade Negotiation powers the ability to threaten and level Tariffs as part of that objective... but a little like declaring war, I'd rather Congress delegate for a specific purpose for a specific time.
"
Possibly; it's not something I've studied much, but I think there's long-term concerns that ISI's success becomes itself a kind of drag on productivity one the protections outlive their initial objectives.
Which is just to say that using different policy tools always carry the risk of creating constituencies that rely on the status quo even when the status quo should be trimmed to account for success.
"
Agreed, curious to see what the actual negotiations will yield.
Could be symbolic nonsense
Could be symbolic but successful interdiction
Could be significant collaborative interdiction
Could be General Pershing crossing the border chasing Pancho Villa...
...hard to say, really.
"
Heh, well I'm not a Market Fundamentalist (tm) and see tariffs (properly) as a tool to manage foreign affairs including trade.
Tariffs can and do affect trade, they can and do raise prices, those prices are (mostly) paid by the consumers, they will alter consumer choices, and reveal new consumer preferences... all of those things are more or less accurate, but simply become part of the cost/benefit calculation of what you get by enacting the tariff. That is, it literally doesn't matter what the theoretical economic impact might be to a 'perfectly functioning free market'.
What's the point of the tariff? Do the benefits outweigh the costs... that's the only useful conversation. Have you properly calculated the risks? The gains? The counter-moves? Future iterations?
And, if you *threaten* a tariff and get what you wanted without any cost? Well, possibly we're undervaluing the trade benefits we're providing to our partners.
"
Right... will have to see what the actual outcome is; BUT, better to manage the response to the outcomes than hyperventilate about theoretical outcomes.
Plus, see also Panama 'caving' and stepping back from China Belt-and-Road agreement from 2017.
"
The current Republican party is not managing it's 'success' very well... and that's before it has generated any actual success.
I don't think Hogg was nominated to reach disaffected Males from what I've read... the challenge for TeamR is to actually execute on delivering policy wins that disaffected males will feel... and delivering policy wins that are better for more than *just* disaffected males.
And, after executing successful policies, TeamR has to message around those policies.
None of the above are a given for TeamR... if TeamR screws up... it doesn't matter who the Assistant Vice Chair at the DNC might be.
"
But for the Republican party, this would seem like a less than optimal choice.