What’s the Downside?

Posted on by
Reply

A Wall Street Journal article ruminating on Secretary of State nominee Marco Rubio and his relationship with a number of diplomatic envoys who would report directly to President Donald Trump (R) had this concern:

[T]he system appears designed to expand Trump’s policymaking role while diminishing that of the State Department, the Defense Department, and the National Security staff….

Of course. State, DoD, and those staffers all work for the President, they are not independent mini-government branches.

The President—every President—is the one in charge of foreign policy, both its development and its implementation. It’s imperative to our system of republican governance that those agencies, and all the other agencies in the Executive Branch, be brought back under control and reined in.

If They Were Serious

Posted on by
Reply

Callum Borchers, a self-identified DEI maven, ended his Wall Street Journal article with this bit:

To restore confidence in hiring fairness, companies should make clear that business goals come first and diversity is part of a strategy to recruit top talent, she [Ruth Villalonga, who advises companies on diversity messaging as senior vice president at Burson] says.

If these wonders were serious about diversity improving their bottom lines, though, and not just engaged in cynically rephrasing their DEI sewage to better message it, they would take concrete steps in that direction.

Those concrete steps would begin with the Critical Item of no longer lying to their prospective hires and those passed over for promotion. Harvard sociologist Frank Dobbin, Henry Ford II Professor of the Social Sciences at Harvard University, as paraphrased by Borchers:

When a woman is promoted and a man was in the running, HR will often wink and say, “Maybe next time, guy.” Even when the woman is promoted because she’s better-qualified, it’s a way for the manager to get out of having a difficult conversation.

Here’s a carefully anonymous executive recruiter, whose level of integrity is illustrated by his cowering behind that anonymity:

[P]roviding honest feedback to unsuccessful job candidates is awkward and sometimes adversarial, so it is tempting to fudge the reason for rejection.
He offered a scenario: “How do you tell someone they had body odor or were weird? ‘Sorry, bud, DEI strikes again!'”

The answer to Anonymous One’s scenario is as straightforward as telling that person he has body odor, or is weird by the company’s standard. The truth may well be uncomfortable and awkward, but avoiding that in favor of lying both does a gross disservice to the one being rejected, denying him his opportunity understand where to improve, and it’s plain cowardly and dishonest. Who wants to work for a liar or a coward?

Those concrete steps would continue with another Critical Item: working from the ground up to help toddlers and pre-schoolers, and their parents, have actually equal opportunities at quality education so those children could develop their skills, their talents, their interests as they grow up and progress through K-12 and then trade school/community college or college and university.

Employers’ concrete steps would further include the Critical Item of pushing colleges and universities to eliminate DEI-related positions in school management and push STEM subjects in their school curricula, withholding recruiting efforts on their campuses and ignoring resumes with those schools’ degrees on them until they do.

Diversity—true, honestly built diversity—would flow out of that.

Time to Go

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s yet another Federal agency that needs to be eliminated, its budget returned to the Treasury, and its personnel—all of them—returned to the private sector rather than reallocated within the Federal Leviathan.

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency [emphasis added]:

  • its role in organizing the Election Integrity Partnership—the private group that worked with social media companies to censor content during the 2020 election
  • did not implement effective controls for the selected High Value Asset (HVA) system per Federal and departmental requirements
    • DHS OIG found inactive user accounts were not consistently disabled or removed, according to established rules—40% of nearly 2,800 “users”
    • 15% of sampled users missed initial or annual cybersecurity training
  • did not follow its own recommendations when conducting its own review of the system, failing to detect the access control deficiencies identified by the watchdog

When the agency personnel aren’t being overtly corrupt, they’re being patently incompetent. The organization is far beyond redeemability, and it’s new enough (created out of whole cloth in 2018) that there are much fewer entrenched interests in preserving its corruption or its incompetence.

Detention Beds?

Posted on by
Reply

ICE thinks that, were the Laken Riley Act, which mandates immediate detention pending deportation of illegal aliens who have been arrested for theft of one sort or another, to be enacted, they would need, among other things, an additional $3 billion due to the agency needing an additional 60,000 detention beds.

That cost is heavily impacted by the fanciness of the beds.

Sixty thousand army cots from a big-name store would cost just $8.7 million, assuming no discount for such a large buy.

Other cots are available through big-name general marketer Amazon.com for prices around $55 each, or $3.3 million, again assuming no large buy discount.

Military surplus cots can be had for as low as $31—$1.86 million for the 60,000.

A 50ftx100ft Quonset hut can be had for $29,000 in construction kit form that, when assembled, provides a complete, weather tight shelter. That hut could easily shelter 120 illegal aliens on those cots. That works out to some 500 huts for $14.5 million. Add porta-potty latrines and a couple of Quonset huts for food preparation and eating, and we’re bringing in the detention facilities for less than $20 million.

Of course, those numbers make no allowance for segregating the detainees by sex. Having male- and female-only huts, though, would add only trivially to the cost, and most of that increment would be in added personnel to enforce the segregation.

If those $3 billon really are committed, the remainder should be for personnel. At an estimated $80k salary plus $13k payroll tax per additional ICE, CBP, and ESO agent, those remaining $2.8 billion could hire 28,500 more.

Whether an additional 28,500 are needed or not, the larger point is that the money should go toward the men and women who put their lives on the line going after these thugs, and not in housing them in unneeded luxury.

Progressive-Democratic Party and Identity Politics

Posted on by
Reply

James Freeman had an interesting op-ed on this subject. At the end of his piece, he quoted Michael Baharaeen, who blogs at the Liberal Patriot [emphasis in the quote]:

One such risk [political…of focusing on identity politics] is coming to believe that the shared characteristic that binds a group of people together is the most important factor informing that group’s voting habits… conceiving of any group in monolithic terms risks missing meaningful differences within it. Even terms like “Latino” have limited utility, as they lump the very different life experiences of people with ancestry in, say, Mexico, Cuba, and Colombia into one broad category….

Indeed. It might be more useful, instead, to focus on the differing positions, perspectives, ideas themselves without any regard for who, or which group, has them. Maybe Party would be better served, be more attuned to what makes us all Americans, to treat us all as the individual Americans that we are, rather than as this or that collected subset of us and then pretend to care about each group.