Tag Archives: responsibilities

A Plenty Good Enough Reason

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) is preparing a series of sanctions against the anti-Semitic International Criminal Court and the bigots populating it. Naturally, those…persons…are unhappy. One carefully anonymous official:

The concern is the sanctions will be used to shut the court down, to destroy it rather than just tie its hands[.]

After all, as Ellie Grant wrote at the link,

Such a move, they say, could bring the court to a standstill, severely hindering its access to the services it depends on to function.
One of the most significant risks posed by sanctions would be the disruption of the court’s ability to access banking and payment systems, IT infrastructure, and insurance providers. A complete block on these services, including US-based companies, would apparently cripple the court’s day-to-day operations.

Since this institution spends so much of its time, funding, IT work, and insurance proceeds attacking Israel and the men and women of the Israeli government on trumped up complaints, these are sufficient, and necessary, reasons for applying the sanctions and shutting off, and shutting down, the nakedly biased institution.

DOGE’s Mission

Posted on by
1

And the mission of the Republican majorities in both houses of Congress has cutting spending at the top of their lists. Fraud, waste, and abuse has been the empty word chants of politicians from both parties for far too many years.

Now there’s a concrete example of waste, and of waste of a magnitude that it could easily obscure double potsful of outright fraud and abuse.

The federal government reported net costs of $7.4 trillion in fiscal year 2024, but it couldn’t fully account for its spending. The US Government Accountability Office, which is Congress’s research arm, said that the federal government must address “serious deficiencies” in federal financial management and correct course on its “unsustainable” long-term fiscal path.

Absolutely. One way to light a fire under the behinds of the bureaucrats who manage these departments and agencies—from the political appointees nominally in charge on down through middle management—along with those entities and personnel required to report to the former is to cut those department and agency budgets by the amount of unaccounted for spending by each department and agency. In parallel with that, identify by name the personnel responsible for the tracking, and identify by name and entity those responsible for reporting to these trackers, and deal with them, publicly shaming where useful, firing for cause where necessary, and terminating contracts of those responsible for reporting and not doing so or not doing so accurately.

Yes, that includes DoD, which hasn’t bothered to track its own spending well enough to pass an audit in the last too many years. We’re not plussing up our military, we’re not building a combat force, when DoD is losing track of its money and so isn’t spending its money on training, equipment, and logistics.

The incompetence, laziness, and criminality of those responsible for actually spending—and tracking their spending—the monies allocated to them are threats to our national security regardless of the specific spender. So are those not bothering to report accurately and completely up the chain to those trackers. That alone should make the laziness and incompetence involved as felonious as the fraud itself.

Are They or Aren’t They?

Posted on by
Reply

The McDonald’s burger chain now is claiming to be doing away with its DEI foolishness in its corporate hierarchy.

The company said it would phase out some diversity commitments among suppliers and said its diversity team would now be called the Global Inclusion Team. The name change, it said, was “more fitting for McDonald’s in light of our inclusion value and better aligns with this team’s work.”

Then the company said it would instead

focus on “continuing to embed inclusion practices that grow our business into our everyday process and operations.”

The name change and backhanded admission that it would continue doing precisely what it intimated it would stop doing insult the intelligence of us average Americans.

This sort of weasel wording is why we cannot trust business managers who claim to be doing away with the intrinsically racist and sexist DEI…foolishness. They aren’t. They’re just hiding it in their back rooms.

Self-Driving Cars

Posted on by
Reply

This Luddite remains strongly opposed to letting robots drive me around. However, the software that runs one version of a robot car, that package “guiding” Tesla’s latest iteration of its Full-Self Driving car, version 13.2, is a vast improvement of past efforts, according to BARRON’S.

Absent from the testing, though, at least as publicly reported, is how well 13.2 handles random (and frequent) traffic violations by the cars of other drivers that would endanger the occupants of the FSD or pedestrians or other vehicles. Such violations include the relatively minor, such as speeding; as well as the more dangerous wobbly bicycle(s) and inattentive bicyclists; pedestrians darting, at the last moment even, in front of the FSD in his last ditch effort to cross the road; crossing traffic running the red light or stop sign; oncoming traffic deciding to make a left turn at the last moment; the list is extensive.

Other risks are mostly in the residential neighborhood: the toddler in front of a parked car at the last moment darting into the street and the small pet under that parked car making the last moment dart into the street.

Many of those situations are difficult enough for a human driver to answer, often too difficult and the collision occurs.

Any robot-driven car needs to be able to handle those random situations at least as well as any experienced human driver.

Then there’s the classic moral paradox, usually cast in terms of a railroad exercise regarding which track to be switched to given the certainty of some measure of death regardless of the choice. Those choices occur on roads with cars and trucks, also, and they’re often badly handled by the human drivers involved. What can we expect from robot software?

To repeat: I remain strongly opposed to letting robots drive me around. The software involved is improving, but enough so? What constitutes sufficient improvement? At the least, satisfactory handling of the above situations.

Is She Confused?

Posted on by
Reply

Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, opined in his Res ipsa loquitur blog that US Virgin Islands Delegate Stacey Plaskett (D) is mistaken about our Constitution. She did, after all, have a few things to say during the just concluded vote for a House of Representatives Speaker concerning the status of the USVI (and other territories) in our nation. She demanded, in those remarks, the “right” of territorial delegates to vote on matters before the House.

This body and this nation has [sic] a territories and a colonies problem.

And

I note that the names of representatives from American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia were not called, representing, collectively, 4 million Americans. Mr Speaker, collectively, the largest per capita of veterans in this country.

As Turley noted in the body of his essay,

The language of the Constitution is clear and unambiguous. Absent an amendment to the Constitution, only states may vote on the floor of the United States House of Representatives.

He also cited the relevant clause of our Constitution, Art I, Sect 2:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch in the States Legislature.

Plaskett, a duly qualified and certified lawyer, isn’t at all mistaken; she’s acting quite deliberately. She’s all too typical, too, of the Progressive-Democratic Party’s contempt for and disregard of our Constitution, canonically illustrated by ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) announcement that if Congress would not do as he told it, he would exercise his pen and telephone to bypass or overrule it, and by soon-to-be ex-President Joe Biden’s (D) lack of concern for the unconstitutionality of his student loan “forgiveness” scheme with his serial cancelations of those loans. Party’s attitude is one that reaches back at least as far as the then-Democratic Party’s head, Woodrow Wilson, who insisted that our Constitution was obsolete, in the way, and needed to be put aside in favor of his party’s Technocrat-centered “leadership.”