What’s Next?

[Traveler]

23 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Diversity of intersectionality is what is bad.  

Diversity of experience that will inform the whole is good.

Diversity of traits that cannot be changed is meaningless.

Diversity of core values is a recipe for civil war.

There is a profound scripture that addresses diversity given in the Book of Mormon.   It is provided by Moroni in the last book the last chapter (Moroni 10).  It is his final words spoken from the dust of a divinely guided civilization gone corrupt.  Many LDS concentrate just on the first part of that chapter.  It is my opinion that the bulk of that chapter is even more important.  Not so much for the literal content as for the spiritual insight into the oneness (ehad) of G-d and why the term and title of G-d denotes both a plural or diverse that is singular in purpose denoting why the divine and divine works are many, diverse and yet critically focused.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

21 hours ago, zil2 said:

Single people have been subsidizing married people and people with children for ages.  Would you be paying more if you filed as a single person?  Would you pay more (now or previously) if you couldn't  (hadn't been able to) count your children as dependents?  Pretty sure you would be / have been.

I'm perfectly fine with removing waste / fraud / abuse from the postal service.  But ending the postal service would be a nightmare for letter-senders and small businesses who use them for package delivery.  Amazon would become more of a monopoly, small businesses would go out of business because of the "free shipping" obsession, and letter-sending would cease altogether.

It is my opinion that one of the few and primary reasons for government is to use the force and power of law to teach, incentivize and propagate morals that sustain beneficial, peaceful, just and cohesive relationships between individuals that are otherwise selfishly diverse.   I would also argue that for any society to guarantee survival beyond a single generation; that heterosexual family relationships must be incentivized and promoted.   I believe that it is as important to promote what is called traditional families as it is to discourage murder.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

22 hours ago, zil2 said:

As I said previously: I write to my pen-pals.  And if you think that's the same as emailing, it's only because you've forgotten the extreme difference between emails and hand-written letters received in a mailbox.

I would submit that the entire difference is in your making of it so.  For a dyslexic person like myself, I would not be able to communicate without the wonder of spellcheck and some grammar assistance.   You and I could be very good and trusted friends but never pen pals in this mortal existence.

 

The Traveler

[zil2]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I understand the need and the benefit even if I have no talent to contribute.

FWIW, talent is not needed to write a letter.  You don't even need a fountain pen.  Paper, writing implement, envelope, stamp and an address.  There is something about writing by hand on paper that causes us to slow our thoughts, and communicate in a more intimate* manner than happens by email or texting - sometimes even more than by phone or in person.  You have to set aside the time to do it.  Depending on the recipient, you may need to exchange letters before it becomes very personal, as you get acquainted.  It's a very different experience from any other form of communication I know.

*This has nothing to do with romance or sex.  It's only about making a close connection with another human.

[zil2]

53 minutes ago, Traveler said:

It is my opinion that one of the few and primary reasons for government is to use the force and power of law to teach, incentivize and propagate morals that sustain beneficial, peaceful, just and cohesive relationships between individuals that are otherwise selfishly diverse.   I would also argue that for any society to guarantee survival beyond a single generation; that heterosexual family relationships must be incentivized and promoted.   I believe that it is as important to promote what is called traditional families as it is to discourage murder.

As I said elsewhere, I wasn't arguing the right or wrong of taxation rules.  I was pointing out that some of us are subsidizing others of us (for good or ill).  I think a postal service enables good things to happen (it certainly does in my life), and so I want it to continue, even if it means people who don't use it are taxed to help pay for it.

[zil2]

46 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I would submit that the entire difference is in your making of it so.  For a dyslexic person like myself, I would not be able to communicate without the wonder of spellcheck and some grammar assistance.   You and I could be very good and trusted friends but never pen pals in this mortal existence.

I've got science behind me (regarding the benefits of handwriting - it activates nearly the entire brain, whereas typing activates a relatively tiny portion).  As a dyslexic person, it may not be for you.  That does not prove that it isn't of benefit to others.

Further, while I wrote letters to my father by hand, most of his were typed, printed, and then mailed - so being "pen-pals" does not require writing by hand - that's just the best option for those of us who enjoy it.

I do not know why, exactly - I submit it is not 100% by choice - but there is something different that happens when you have to slow your life and your brain down to "handwriting speed".  Could I type the same things?  Perhaps.  But maybe my brain wouldn't slow down enough to realize and compose the same things.¹  And there is something deeply personal about a letter in another person's handwriting - holding in your hand what they held in theirs, knowing that they set aside hours just to put pen to paper for you.  In comparison, computer-printed text is no more personal than a form letter from your bank.

My friend in Canada always does little drawings on his envelopes and throughout the letter.  He's from Iran, but managed to escape.  I doubt he would trust the personal things he tells me to electronic communication - everyone knows email isn't private.²  One of my friends in the UK is an artist.  He can do things with stick men that you wouldn't believe could be done until you saw them.  He includes prints and original artwork in some of his letters.  He's also a typewriter fanatic, so most of his letters are written on a typewriter - still much more personal than computer-printed text (typewriters have character).  My friend in Austria and my German friend in Sweden have the most beautiful handwriting you ever saw.

¹I submit that this is proven fact.  Watch what happens when a missionary goes out and starts sending home emails.  The initial emails will be long, excited, descriptive, emotional, and very interesting.  As they adjust to missionary life, their emails become impersonal, mundane, relating "just the facts".  The personal elements fade out.  Letters to and from my pen pals only get longer, more personal, and more frequent the longer we know each other.

Look at the emails you've received from family and then compare them to the personal letters we have from history - completely different animals.  People could maintain a deep connection via email (in theory), and yet they don't.  People don't even use email anymore - it's all text messages.  And they cringe at making phone calls.  I tell you that while technology may help you, @Traveler, it has made our communications much less personal, less intimate, less thoughtful and less thought-out.  Technology has made us perfunctory.

As far as I can tell, the only technology that has not completely ruined human communication is forums like this one.

²If you didn't already know this, welcome to the 21st century.

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

There is something about writing by hand on paper that causes us to slow our thoughts

All it does for me is it makes my message illegible.  To make it legible, would require me to slow my thoughts down so excruciatingly slow that I will go insane before writing a full paragraph.

I know my weaknesses.

[Traveler]

52 minutes ago, zil2 said:

I've got science behind me (regarding the benefits of handwriting - it activates nearly the entire brain, whereas typing activates a relatively tiny portion).  As a dyslexic person, it may not be for you.  That does not prove that it isn't of benefit to others.

Further, while I wrote letters to my father by hand, most of his were typed, printed, and then mailed - so being "pen-pals" does not require writing by hand - that's just the best option for those of us who enjoy it.

I do not know why, exactly - I submit it is not 100% by choice - but there is something different that happens when you have to slow your life and your brain down to "handwriting speed".  Could I type the same things?  Perhaps.  But maybe my brain wouldn't slow down enough to realize and compose the same things.¹  And there is something deeply personal about a letter in another person's handwriting - holding in your hand what they held in theirs, knowing that they set aside hours just to put pen to paper for you.  In comparison, computer-printed text is no more personal than a form letter from your bank.

My friend in Canada always does little drawings on his envelopes and throughout the letter.  He's from Iran, but managed to escape.  I doubt he would trust the personal things he tells me to electronic communication - everyone knows email isn't private.²  One of my friends in the UK is an artist.  He can do things with stick men that you wouldn't believe could be done until you saw them.  He includes prints and original artwork in some of his letters.  He's also a typewriter fanatic, so most of his letters are written on a typewriter - still much more personal than computer-printed text (typewriters have character).  My friend in Austria and my German friend in Sweden have the most beautiful handwriting you ever saw.

¹I submit that this is proven fact.  Watch what happens when a missionary goes out and starts sending home emails.  The initial emails will be long, excited, descriptive, emotional, and very interesting.  As they adjust to missionary life, their emails become impersonal, mundane, relating "just the facts".  The personal elements fade out.  Letters to and from my pen pals only get longer, more personal, and more frequent the longer we know each other.

Look at the emails you've received from family and then compare them to the personal letters we have from history - completely different animals.  People could maintain a deep connection via email (in theory), and yet they don't.  People don't even use email anymore - it's all text messages.  And they cringe at making phone calls.  I tell you that while technology may help you, @Traveler, it has made our communications much less personal, less intimate, less thoughtful and less thought-out.  Technology has made us perfunctory.

As far as I can tell, the only technology that has not completely ruined human communication is forums like this one.

²If you didn't already know this, welcome to the 21st century.

Thank you for your input.  I keep a journal, and I have many handwritten items – but they are not public – there is a good chance they never will be.  I doubt anyone could understand them anyway.  When I was working for a corporation, there was a secretary assigned to me to scrub my memos, manuscripts and tech descriptions.   

I prefer talking to people over any other form of communication.  Tech today makes this even more reliable and consistent than the written word.  A long time ago when I was a student, I had an argument with a English teacher over the written word and verbal communication.  I bet her my grade that I could speak a simple sentence following all the laws of the English language that she could not write.  It was the only A I ever got in an English class.

There is one advantage in the written word (text) – especially the electronic written word.  This advantage shows up quite profoundly on this forum.  I can transfer my thoughts to text concerning a matter.  I can then review that text and change it where I realize I have not communicated very well.  I can also seek powers beyond my own (prayer) to assist me as to what is included in the text.  Like our general authorities – I prepare a text for when I am assigned to speak at church.  I will deviate if prompted to do so in the speaking moment.

I doubt I can solve any of your concerns about how things are going in these last days – but if I could have any input – I would say to try not to be too concerned about things that will not matter 10,000 years from now and find as much enjoyment as you can in each moment you have.  I am impressed that you are willing to communicate as best you can with your friends.

 

The Traveler

[zil2]

42 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

All it does for me is it makes my message illegible.  To make it legible, would require me to slow my thoughts down so excruciatingly slow that I will go insane before writing a full paragraph.

I know my weaknesses.

No one said it was for everyone.  Handwriting is a skill.  But even if illegible, it would still activate a lot more of your brain than typing would, and so that part would be good for you.

[zil2]

5 hours ago, Traveler said:

I doubt I can solve any of your concerns about how things are going in these last days – but if I could have any input – I would say to try not to be too concerned about things that will not matter 10,000 years from now and find as much enjoyment as you can in each moment you have.  I am impressed that you are willing to communicate as best you can with your friends.

I think my friendships will matter 10,000 years from now.  I managed to maintain relationships with some college and high school friends via postal mail until email became a thing and no one wanted to send letters.  I tried to maintain friendships via email.  It never worked.  It fizzled out into mundane and thoughtless messages - but I was never the last person to write, not via any method.  I tried rekindling old friendships via social media like facebook.  It never worked.  People posted mindless photos and 140-character blurbs, but would not engage in any meaningful way.  I don't know why (except that it was obviously unimportant to them).  But I wonder if it's like temples in Utah - it's so easy that we put it off with thoughts of "I can always do it later".  Or maybe they're so busy with the illusion of maintaining relationships that they don't have time to actually have any relationships outside immediate family.

I don't know what's different about my fountain pen friends, but clearly, something is.  Maybe we're all introverts, or maybe there's just something "writer-y" hard-wired into our souls¹.  Or maybe the dual benefit of friendship and using our fountain pens in a meaningful way tips us over the edge.  Maybe I'm not the only one experiencing a digital disconnect in relationships and longing for something better.

My reaction to the idea of losing the postal service is entirely because I believe it would diminish my relationships with my pen pals - all my past experience says it would.  Maybe I'm wrong, and we'll all write our letters, scan them, and exchange them electronically (even though that would greatly diminish the experience) - but I fear that history will repeat itself, the method will overcome the meaning again, and gradually everyone will stop writing.

I don't need the postal service to find a variety of meaningful and satisfying was to use my fountain pens, and if fountain pens don't exist in heaven, oh well.  But here on Earth, the pens and postal service are and have been a way to enjoy forming relationships that I would otherwise not have formed, with people I would not otherwise have met.  Every one of them knows I'm in Utah and that I go to church.  Some of them know that I'm a Latter-day Saint (the rest probably assume it).  In addition to forming friendships, I'm at least giving them a positive impression of members of the Church, which might be more than they would get otherwise.  And in exchange, they better my life in a variety of ways.

So for here and now, I'm hoping and praying that the postal service remains. (I'm already stocked for life on pens, inks, and papers - though I might need more envelopes - so if those industries fail, I'm still OK. Other people have food storage - I have food storage and stationery storage.)

¹It's common for new folk in the online fountain pen community to talk about how they discovered fountain pens, and perhaps the most commonly repeated part of the story is that the person has been "obsessed" with "making marks on paper" from childhood, always wanting to try different colors, different papers, different types of writing implement (annoying Mom on trips to the office supply store or the "school supplies" aisle) - until they find fountain pens and throw the rest out. We appear to be born to it.  (A few folks keep their mechanical pencils; the artists keep a wide variety of marking implements; the rest of us go "all in".)

5 hours ago, Traveler said:

I keep a journal, and I have many handwritten items – but they are not public – there is a good chance they never will be.  I doubt anyone could understand them anyway. 

I suspect that has benefited you greatly - the research suggests that it significantly improves memory and comprehension of the things you're writing - even if you never look at it again - the mere act of writing by hand solidifies memory.

5 hours ago, Traveler said:

A long time ago when I was a student, I had an argument with a English teacher over the written word and verbal communication.  I bet her my grade that I could speak a simple sentence following all the laws of the English language that she could not write.  It was the only A I ever got in an English class.

Well, now we all want to know what this sentence is.   Feel free to make and post an audio file!  (I'll transcribe it with a fountain pen. )

5 hours ago, Traveler said:

I prefer talking to people over any other form of communication.

Certainly, there are benefits to this that can be had no other way - particularly when done face to face.  Via video is second best, audio-only a distant third.  The greatest disadvantage to this (unless exchanging recorded messages, which would lose a lot of the benefit) is that both people have to make themselves available at the same time - and people today have overbooked themselves all the way up until their funeral, and probably for three months after it.

5 hours ago, Traveler said:

There is one advantage in the written word (text) – especially the electronic written word.  This advantage shows up quite profoundly on this forum.  I can transfer my thoughts to text concerning a matter.  I can then review that text and change it where I realize I have not communicated very well.  I can also seek powers beyond my own (prayer) to assist me as to what is included in the text.

IMO, electronic adds nothing to the written word other than speed (of recording and exchange) and ease of editing.  But I entirely agree that this (what we're doing now) is absolutely fabulous and wouldn't want to lose it any more than I'd want to lose the postal service or fountain pens.  This forum (and the FP ones) is a blessing in my life.  I will literally weep the day MGF shut down this forum (if they ever do). (The same would be true if they shut down the postal service.)

Edited November 20, 2024 by zil2

[NeuroTypical]

Hooray hooray for today's opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, written by Elon and Vivek.  I'm long out of school and hate reading long things like I'm doing homework, but this is worth the effort:

-----------------------------------

Our nation was founded on the basic idea that the people we elect run the government. That isn’t how America functions today. Most legal edicts aren’t laws enacted by Congress but “rules and regulations” promulgated by unelected bureaucrats—tens of thousands of them each year. Most government enforcement decisions and discretionary expenditures aren’t made by the democratically elected president or even his political appointees but by millions of unelected, unappointed civil servants within government agencies who view themselves as immune from firing thanks to civil-service protections.

This is antidemocratic and antithetical to the Founders’ vision. It imposes massive direct and indirect costs on taxpayers. Thankfully, we have a historic opportunity to solve the problem. On Nov. 5, voters decisively elected Donald Trump with a mandate for sweeping change, and they deserve to get it.

President Trump has asked the two of us to lead a newly formed Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, to cut the federal government down to size. The entrenched and ever-growing bureaucracy represents an existential threat to our republic, and politicians have abetted it for too long. That’s why we’re doing things differently. We are entrepreneurs, not politicians. We will serve as outside volunteers, not federal officials or employees. Unlike government commissions or advisory committees, we won’t just write reports or cut ribbons. We’ll cut costs.

We are assisting the Trump transition team to identify and hire a lean team of small-government crusaders, including some of the sharpest technical and legal minds in America. This team will work in the new administration closely with the White House Office of Management and Budget. The two of us will advise DOGE at every step to pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions and cost savings. We will focus particularly on driving change through executive action based on existing legislation rather than by passing new laws. Our North Star for reform will be the U.S. Constitution, with a focus on two critical Supreme Court rulings issued during President Biden’s tenure.

In West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022), the justices held that agencies can’t impose regulations dealing with major economic or policy questions unless Congress specifically authorizes them to do so. In Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), the court overturned the Chevron doctrine and held that federal courts should no longer defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of the law or their own rulemaking authority. Together, these cases suggest that a plethora of current federal regulations exceed the authority Congress has granted under the law.

DOGE will work with legal experts embedded in government agencies, aided by advanced technology, to apply these rulings to federal regulations enacted by such agencies. DOGE will present this list of regulations to President Trump, who can, by executive action, immediately pause the enforcement of those regulations and initiate the process for review and rescission. This would liberate individuals and businesses from illicit regulations never passed by Congress and stimulate the U.S. economy.

When the president nullifies thousands of such regulations, critics will allege executive overreach. In fact, it will be correcting the executive overreach of thousands of regulations promulgated by administrative fiat that were never authorized by Congress. The president owes lawmaking deference to Congress, not to bureaucrats deep within federal agencies. The use of executive orders to substitute for lawmaking by adding burdensome new rules is a constitutional affront, but the use of executive orders to roll back regulations that wrongly bypassed Congress is legitimate and necessary to comply with the Supreme Court’s recent mandates. And after those regulations are fully rescinded, a future president couldn’t simply flip the switch and revive them but would instead have to ask Congress to do so.

A drastic reduction in federal regulations provides sound industrial logic for mass head-count reductions across the federal bureaucracy. DOGE intends to work with embedded appointees in agencies to identify the minimum number of employees required at an agency for it to perform its constitutionally permissible and statutorily mandated functions. The number of federal employees to cut should be at least proportionate to the number of federal regulations that are nullified: Not only are fewer employees required to enforce fewer regulations, but the agency would produce fewer regulations once its scope of authority is properly limited. Employees whose positions are eliminated deserve to be treated with respect, and DOGE’s goal is to help support their transition into the private sector. The president can use existing laws to give them incentives for early retirement and to make voluntary severance payments to facilitate a graceful exit.

Conventional wisdom holds that statutory civil-service protections stop the president or even his political appointees from firing federal workers. The purpose of these protections is to protect employees from political retaliation. But the statute allows for “reductions in force” that don’t target specific employees. The statute further empowers the president to “prescribe rules governing the competitive service.” That power is broad. Previous presidents have used it to amend the civil service rules by executive order, and the Supreme Court has held—in Franklin v. Massachusetts (1992) and Collins v. Yellen (2021) that they weren’t constrained by the Administrative Procedures Act when they did so. With this authority, Mr. Trump can implement any number of “rules governing the competitive service” that would curtail administrative overgrowth, from large-scale firings to relocation of federal agencies out of the Washington area. Requiring federal employees to come to the office five days a week would result in a wave of voluntary terminations that we welcome: If federal employees don’t want to show up, American taxpayers shouldn’t pay them for the Covid-era privilege of staying home.

Finally, we are focused on delivering cost savings for taxpayers. Skeptics question how much federal spending DOGE can tame through executive action alone. They point to the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, which stops the president from ceasing expenditures authorized by Congress. Mr. Trump has previously suggested this statute is unconstitutional, and we believe the current Supreme Court would likely side with him on this question. But even without relying on that view, DOGE will help end federal overspending by taking aim at the $500 billion plus in annual federal expenditures that are unauthorized by Congress or being used in ways that Congress never intended, from $535 million a year to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and $1.5 billion for grants to international organizations to nearly $300 million to progressive groups like Planned Parenthood.

The federal government’s procurement process is also badly broken. Many federal contracts have gone unexamined for years. Large-scale audits conducted during a temporary suspension of payments would yield significant savings. The Pentagon recently failed its seventh consecutive audit, suggesting that the agency’s leadership has little idea how its annual budget of more than $800 billion is spent. Critics claim that we can’t meaningfully close the federal deficit without taking aim at entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which require Congress to shrink. But this deflects attention from the sheer magnitude of waste, fraud and abuse that nearly all taxpayers wish to end—and that DOGE aims to address by identifying pinpoint executive actions that would result in immediate savings for taxpayers.

With a decisive electoral mandate and a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, DOGE has a historic opportunity for structural reductions in the federal government. We are prepared for the onslaught from entrenched interests in Washington. We expect to prevail. Now is the moment for decisive action. Our top goal for DOGE is to eliminate the need for its existence by July 4, 2026—the expiration date we have set for our project. There is no better birthday gift to our nation on its 250th anniversary than to deliver a federal government that would make our Founders proud.

[zil2]

46 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

White House Office of Management and Budget

If, like me, you didn't / don't know much about these folk, this interview will help.  If you cringe at watching an hour and 43-minute video, do like I did, and start training yourself to hear faster - start by watching videos with familiar voices played at 1.25x.  When that gets comfortable, go to 1.5x, etc.  pretty soon, you'll be listening to all but mumblers and people with strong accents at 2x!

...going back to continue reading NT's post.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Hooray hooray for today's opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, written by Elon and Vivek.  I'm long out of school and hate reading long things like I'm doing homework, but this is worth the effort:

-----------------------------------

..... Most legal edicts aren’t laws enacted by Congress but “rules and regulations” promulgated by unelected bureaucrats—tens of thousands of them each year. Most government enforcement decisions and discretionary expenditures aren’t made by the democratically elected president or even his political appointees but by millions of unelected, unappointed civil servants within government agencies who view themselves as immune from firing thanks to civil-service protections.

......

I believe your point is only the tip of the iceberg problem.   Even the laws enacted by congress are hardly ever written by those we elect or even government bureaucratic employees but rather by lobbyists.  It is not uncommon for even the most critical legislation to be presented and voted on without a single congressman having even read what is being enacted into law. 

 

The Traveler

[zil2]

57 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I believe your point is only the tip of the iceberg problem.   Even the laws enacted by congress are hardly ever written by those we elect or even government bureaucratic employees but rather by lobbyists.  It is not uncommon for even the most critical legislation to be presented and voted on without a single congressman having even read what is being enacted into law. 

Even if it's only the tip of the iceberg, if they can succeed, it would be a huge win, showing that it can be done, and we can be better off for having done it.  I fear the "deep state" may be too strong to overpower, but who knows, maybe not yet.  If nothing else, these guys are going to make the next two years interesting.

[mirkwood]

Oh boy I hope they can pull this off, what a step in the right direction.

[Carborendum]

17 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Conventional wisdom holds that statutory civil-service protections stop the president or even his political appointees from firing federal workers. The purpose of these protections is to protect employees from political retaliation. But the statute allows for “reductions in force” that don’t target specific employees. The statute further empowers the president to “prescribe rules governing the competitive service.” That power is broad. 

This was the main thing I was wondering about.  It's good to see that there is an existing path forward.  Good on them for figuring that out.

[NeuroTypical]

20 hours ago, Traveler said:

I believe your point is only the tip of the iceberg problem.   Even the laws enacted by congress are hardly ever written by those we elect or even government bureaucratic employees but rather by lobbyists.  It is not uncommon for even the most critical legislation to be presented and voted on without a single congressman having even read what is being enacted into law. 

"Don't let the perfect get in the way of the good enough."

In other words, they're trying to change how the government functions.  If they succeed, it's a success - even if they don't change all of the ways that all of the government functions.

[Traveler]

22 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

 

-----------------------------------

Conventional wisdom holds that statutory civil-service protections stop the president or even his political appointees from firing federal workers. The purpose of these protections is to protect employees from political retaliation. But the statute allows for “reductions in force” that don’t target specific employees. The statute further empowers the president to “prescribe rules governing the competitive service.” That power is broad. Previous presidents have used it to amend the civil service rules by executive order, and the Supreme Court has held—in Franklin v. Massachusetts (1992) and Collins v. Yellen (2021) that they weren’t constrained by the Administrative Procedures Act when they did so. With this authority, Mr. Trump can implement any number of “rules governing the competitive service” that would curtail administrative overgrowth, from large-scale firings to relocation of federal agencies out of the Washington area. Requiring federal employees to come to the office five days a week would result in a wave of voluntary terminations that we welcome: If federal employees don’t want to show up, American taxpayers shouldn’t pay them for the Covid-era privilege of staying home.

.........

I am not sure this is conventional wisdom.  There are problems with almost anything that is done to create sustainable guidelines in government.  It is true that elected officials should not be empire building, forcing bureaucrats to uphold party politics.  But then government bureaucrats should not be sabotaging the elected officials elected by the people.   There are times that there should not be political retribution against bureaucrats and there are also times and circumstances when specific individual bureaucrats need to be fired.  As a side note here – in Washington DC we have the greatest concentration of government employees of anywhere else in the nation.  In the last presidential election this section voted over 90% on a particular party line that was way out of the trends common in the rest of the nation.  This alone means there is a gross problem in our bureaucracy.

It has been a while since I worked as a government contractor in the defense department.   50 years ago, it was virtually impossible to fire a government employee, even worse, the higher their GS ranking the more difficult it was.  I doubt things have gotten better.  The best way to get rid of someone was to promote them to another position somewhere else.  This created gross incompetence – especially in the bureaucratic managers.   This was one of several reasons I changed my profession to work in the private sector.

I have observed in the private sector that layoffs often have an unrealized problem.  Sadly, when rumors of a layoff start many of the best workers are the first to take opportunities elsewhere.  When I worked for Boeing in Seattle – they had the best method I have encountered for getting rid of low productive employees while preserving the high productive employees.   But with the current problems of Boeing – I doubt those methods have remained.   

For some reason, there is a proclivity of management to want to exert “unrighteous” control over employees – which high end workers very much disdain.   There is a scripture that highlights this problem in our restored scriptures – D&C 121.

 

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

10 minutes ago, Traveler said:

22 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Conventional wisdom holds that statutory civil-service protections stop the president or even his political appointees from firing federal workers.

I am not sure this is conventional wisdom. 

Dude.  Bro.  TravelEarlOfSandy.  Fam.   They could have written it like this:

"Now, all the idiots (and holy crap are there a lot of idiots) are going to scream bloody murder about how federal workers can't get fired.  The scummy slimy left-wing politicians, and their disgusting worthless evil media outlets are gonna be pushing this notion 24/7, and half of you are gonna believe it because you live in an echo chamber and you're too dumb to think for yourself."

But they didn't.   They just called it 'conventional wisdom' as a civil and non-insulting nod to all of that, and went on to give their principled response to it.

You're gonna fault them for being nice?

Edited November 21, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[Traveler]

30 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

"Don't let the perfect get in the way of the good enough."

In other words, they're trying to change how the government functions.  If they succeed, it's a success - even if they don't change all of the ways that all of the government functions.

Sadly, if a surgeon is removing cancer, they have to get all the cancer – and to do so they will, of necessity, cut out and remove some healthy tissue.   I was told by my doctor that everybody has cancer, but the reason healthy individuals are not at risk is because the natural immune system will take care of the cancer cell by cell.  When cancer overwhelms the natural immune system then drastic measures of surgery and or other treatments are required that cause great harm but are necessary to save the person.  I doubt our society is ready for a cure.  I lack your enthusiasm.

 

The Traveler

[zil2]

5 hours ago, Traveler said:

Sadly, if a surgeon is removing cancer, they have to get all the cancer – and to do so they will, of necessity, cut out and remove some healthy tissue.   I was told by my doctor that everybody has cancer, but the reason healthy individuals are not at risk is because the natural immune system will take care of the cancer cell by cell.  When cancer overwhelms the natural immune system then drastic measures of surgery and or other treatments are required that cause great harm but are necessary to save the person.  I doubt our society is ready for a cure.  I lack your enthusiasm.

Quote

Matthew 26:11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

This verse does not free us from the responsibility to minister to the poor.  That we cannot fully remove the corruption from our government or culture or nation or whatever does not, I think, free us from the responsibility of trying, nor, IMO, should it stop us from celebrating what seems to be a reasonable and rational attempt to do so.

[Traveler]

26 minutes ago, zil2 said:

This verse does not free us from the responsibility to minister to the poor.  That we cannot fully remove the corruption from our government or culture or nation or whatever does not, I think, free us from the responsibility of trying, nor, IMO, should it stop us from celebrating what seems to be a reasonable and rational attempt to do so.

We know from our scriptures (including the scriptures of the restoration) that Jesus was talking to societies established with worldly connection and that in the mind and eye of G-d there are no rich or poor, bond or free, or whatever.  Rather we are all one and the same in Christ as Christ is one with the Father.

Until Christ comes to reign and bring a millennium of peace that there will always be poor living on this earth needing assistance.  Unfortunately, many efforts that call themselves charity are really a means to create a new undeserving class of wealth.  There is no morality in legalizing plunder.  I believe it to be more Satan’s plan than G-d’s plan to force a society to be charitable.  And yet I also believe that a free and liberated people or society is more charitable than those living under tyranny.

 

The Traveler

[Carborendum]

I'm falling in love with this Congresswoman:

Quote

"While you're seeking 'super high-IQ small-government revolutionaries' for 'unglamorous cost-cutting,' all that's really needed is a little common sense. If you can't find waste in Washington, there can only be one reason: you didn't look,"

 -- Joni Ernst

Ernst letter to Ramaswamy, Musk detailing areas where DOGE can cut spending | Fox Business

She already has half the work all done for DOGE.  She is now the head of the Senate DOGE Caucus.

[Carborendum]

TARIFFS

I was pleasantly surprised to get some insight into Trump's love affair with tariffs.  I am normally against them.  But I learned two things about that.

• Adam Smith denounced them except for one condition: protective tariffs against imbalanced/unfair international trade practices.
• Trump doesn't actually want to levy the tariffs.  He's using it as a bully stick to get China, Mexico, and Canada to comply with drug trade, illegal immigration, and trade issues from those three countries.

Just because he doesn't want to levy them, doesn't mean he is not willing to do so.  It is the art of the deal.  It seems so simple now that someone pointed it out.

How could anyone actually believe that he was not aware that it would raise prices for American consumers?  Of course he knows that.  And because it's his last term, he's willing to risk a short term price rise to get those three nations to comply.  Once they do, bye-bye tariffs.  And if he does it early enough, he can blame any "inflation" on Biden.  If he waits too long, he knows he has to own it all.  And it won't look good for Vance, who is the heir apparent.

Edited November 26, 2024 by Carborendum

[LDSGator]

On 11/21/2024 at 1:19 PM, Traveler said:

was told by my doctor that everybody has cancer, but the reason healthy individuals are not at risk is because the natural immune system will take care of the cancer cell by cell.

Get a new doctor.