Tag Archives: government

Pride and Reluctance

Posted on by
Reply

Two hundred and seventy-six young girls were kidnapped by the terrorist organization* Boko Haram, whose leader is threatening to sell them into slavery, if he hasn’t already.

On the matter of offers from the US, Great Britain, Israel, and a number of others of military help both in dealing with these terrorists and presently in recovering the stolen girls, though, Nigerian pride seems more important than the safety of Nigerian children.

Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan’s spokesman Doyin Okupe, has said about foreign military aid

Nigeria is a very proud nation. We feel that to subjugate our military under another world power would be to really compromise our integrity.

How is your national integrity, President Jonathan, not already disastrously compromised by your failure to protect even your children and your present inability to recover them?

 

*Aside: Why is it that so many “news” organizations and “journalists,” all of whom pretend to respectability, keep referring to such gangs as “insurgents” or “radical Islamists?” Why are they so desperate to avoid naming these organized mobs for what they are: terrorists?

Bureaucratic Misbehavior

Posted on by
Reply

Bipartisan legislation…would prevent federal employees from receiving bonuses if they have been disciplined for tax and conduct issues.

Senators Kelly Ayotte (R, NH) and Claire McCaskill (D, MO) are sponsoring the bill inspired by a recent government report describing how the Internal Revenue Service paid more than $2.8 million in bonuses to employees with disciplinary problems.

“Federal employees who have disciplinary problems or who haven’t paid their taxes shouldn’t be getting bonuses,” Ayotte said in a statement. “Taxpayers in New Hampshire and across the nation were alarmed by recent reports of IRS employees being awarded bonuses that they shouldn’t have received.”

McCaskill added

The notion that taxpayer dollars would be used to pay cash bonuses to employees who’ve engaged in conduct that could get them fired or sent to jail is outrageous—and our bill would put an end to it.

What’s even more outrageous, though, is that “employees who’ve engaged in conduct that could get them fired or sent to jail” weren’t fired or prosecuted. As dismaying as that is outrageous is that McCaskill doesn’t even see that: she’s happy to have them on the payroll and unprosecuted, just denied bonuses.

To all of which I say, why not make the relevant bosses hold their people accountable themselves—because that’s the right thing to do? If those “supervisors” can’t or won’t perform, fire them and get supervisors who will.

Moreover, the tax scofflaws should be fired for cause. Why aren’t they? Oh, wait—public service unions. Those with a history of disciplinary problems (as opposed to one or two incidents) should be fired for cause. Why aren’t they? Oh, wait—public service unions. Their discipline problems should be listed as an, if not the, explicit reason for their getting no bonus for the period. Why aren’t they? Oh, wait—public service unions.

Plainly, we need to deal with the public service unions, too.

It shouldn’t have to come to this. The bureaucrats, including the appointed officials at the top, should have more moral backbone than this, even if it means crossing the unions. It’s crap like this, though, that contributes excuses for government to grow.

The whole viper’s nest needs to be cleaned out, a 100% turn-over, from the top down.

A New McCarthy Era

Posted on by
Reply

[Gina “Joe”] McCarthy told an audience at the National Academy of Sciences on Monday morning the agency will go after a “small but vocal group of critics” who are arguing the EPA is using “secret science” to push costly clean air regulations.

Because we can’t have all this dissent. It gets in the way of our Agenda. It’s unseemly. McCarthy claimed,

Those critics conjure up claims of EPA secret science—but it’s not really about EPA science or secrets. It’s about challenging the credibility of world renowned scientists and institutions like Harvard University and the American Cancer Society.

No, Madam, it’s about challenging their conclusions and methodology—which is what science, real science, honest science, does.

And

It’s about claiming that research is secret if researchers protect confidential personal health data from those who are not qualified to analyze it—and won’t agree to protect it. If EPA is being accused of secret science because we rely on real scientists to conduct research, and independent scientists to peer review it, and scientists who’ve spent a lifetime studying the science to reproduce it—then so be it.

This is patently false—no one has asked for the confidential personal data, which are metadata, anyway, and not the raw data. No, Madam, only those raw data, data the scientists used to reach their conclusion are being sought.

And that peer review bit? On what basis do you ignore the peer reviews that dispute the conclusions of your chosen scientists? On what basis do you ignore the efforts of these…scientists…to suppress dissenting papers?

Relatedly, even, arguendo, were confidential personal data called for, the Federal government has procedures in place for safeguarding them, even while briefing members of Congress in detail about them. The security agencies, the NSA, CIA, etc are well experienced, with sound procedures in place, in doing this. McCarthy knows this; her demurral here is just another cynical red herring.

And there’s this:

McCarthy promised she would make such data publicly available during her confirmation process last year. Now her refusal to cough up the data has angered Republicans.

This is another McCarthy era tactic—just make stuff up, then refuse to follow through when it becomes inconvenient to do so.

Finally,

“Those critics are playing a dangerous game by discrediting the sound science our families and our businesses depend on every day,” McCarthy said. “You can’t just claim the science isn’t real when it doesn’t align well with your political or financial interests.”

Nor can you claim it is real just because it aligns well with your political or financial interests, Madam.

Another Thought on the Contraceptive Mandate Case

Posted on by
Reply

Justice Stephen Breyer asked why the government couldn’t provide the companies the same accommodation it offered nonprofit religious organizations.  In those instances, the government effectively picks up the cost of the challenged methods.

“You’re talking about a very open-ended increase in the cost to the government,” [Solicitor General Donald] Verrilli said.

Related to that is Justice Elena Kagan’s worry that “everything would be piecemeal.  Nothing would be uniform.”

There’s a hint there, folks.  If a thing is too expensive, or too confusing or hard, for government to do right, maybe government shouldn’t be doing it.

Big Brother

Posted on by
Reply

Three guys, two of whom parachuted from the top of 1 World Trade Center and the third a ground-based accomplice, have been arrested for the stunt.  They’re being charged with felony burglary, reckless endangerment, and jumping from a structure, with the last two being misdemeanors.

Yeah—jumping from a structure.

The burglary and reckless endangerment beefs, ordinarily, would be serious charges, and their legitimacy are what trials are for.  But jumping from a structure?  Really?  That’s just Big Brother, Government, making a law simply because it can.

On looking into the particulars, though, things don’t seem to get any more legitimate.  To the extent that the reckless endangerment was limited to the jumpers endangering themselves, Big Government has no legitimate interest.  Endangering the public, though?  The jump was at 0300.  Even in New York City, even around the Trade Center, how much public was there to be endangered?

Even the burglary rap, in this case, seems excessive.  This particular charge

entails being in a building illegally with an intent to commit another crime—in this case, breaking a 2008 city law against parachuting off buildings more than 50 feet tall[.]

They’re not even charging these guys with any attempt to steal something, which is what we usually think of when we think “burglary.”  Big Government is only using this charge to punch up the “seriousness” of their case.