Submitted for your Delectation or Rue

 

President Donald Trump justified his administration's mass firings of federal workers by claiming, without evidence, that many of them simply were collecting a paycheck and doing nothing, NBC4 Washington reported on Wednesday. https://t.co/mgU8CC9FgA

— Raw Story (@RawStory) March 13, 2025

So sayeth the Constant Golfer. But what of ElonWorld? 

Glad you asked: he's made sure he has a gaming system in his big boy DOGE government office. 

These are supposed to be people we take seriously. I don't even know how they take themselves seriously. 

(I've started writing science fiction (again!) over at one of my other places. Because sometimes fiction is easier to take seriously than whatever this is.  You don't have to read it. It's like my poetry, just another thing I turn to when I've got a lot of thoughts and practical outlets feel very awkward.) 

Blowups Happen

 

Starship 8 debris light show pic.twitter.com/U7lbP7rd0f

— Tesla Owners Silicon Valley (@teslaownersSV) March 7, 2025

The father of Grok, the possible DD Harriman wannabe, Elon Musk, has demonstrated his exceptional qualities as a businessman and leading light of tech industry by once again littering the sky with a "rapid unscheduled disassembly.". This comes a minute (more or less) after Trump explained to his cabinet and the world that maybe DOGE/Musk don't have the ultimate say in who gets fired--the cabinet heads do, as they should. 

DOGE has been prone to mistakes--like gutting nuclear safety.  Like using random keywords to delete programs and contracts because they don't understand sometimes words have two meanings. (Little bitches too young to know from "Stairway to Heaven", even. What even is "Enola Gay"?.) 

Admittedly, this is the same day that Trump played the Hokey-Pokey with the Mexico/Canada tariffs again--is his right foot in, or is it out? Has he tried shaking it all about? 

So what's up and what's odd with that? Oh, nothing. but the FAA having to shut down flights at airports in the Southern Florida area because Musk "made it rain." 

I can't be the only person whose brain does musical vignettes: 

I was going to sell electric cars, then I got high.

I was going to go to Mars, then I got high.

Now my spaceships and stocks are tanking,

and I know why! Hey hey,

Because I got high,

because I got high,

because I got high. 

Obnoxious Manchildren

 

Anyway, the South African-born acting president of the United States changed his name on the site formerly and mostly currently known as "X" to the delightfully childish "Harry Bōlz" which is a call-back from 2023 and seems less like the act of a 53-year-old with an important government job and more like the stunt of a 13-year-old with 40 years' experience with "Big Balls" envy.  (Very young, and already a special little piece of work.)

You know, you could be tempted to believe that maybe, Elon Musk isn't really a person you can treat as particularly responsible. He seems to be "eccentric", which is the culturally acceptable term for very wealthy people we suspect of being a bit batshit. (I think it's wild that he carries his frankly adorable toddler son about in a way that in my darkest imagination looks like "ready-made Greg Stillson event horizon.") 

Malicious Compliance?

 

Monday night, people became aware of a memo from the Trump Administration that halted payments regarding all sorts of things.  That memo said to pause "all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance." 

Well, that wasn't very specific. So maybe the memo was drafted by someone who didn't exactly know what all the programs were, but figured they were all suspect. Or maybe the memo was crafted by someone who really did want all the programs everywhere halted, but didn't know they would be leaving the Administration red-faced and red-assed.

Trump loves doing stuff, and also hates to be blamed for doing stuff. Somebody might get "you're fired'd" for this. I would like it to be Russell Vought, who hasn' t even been confirmed for OMB yet, but who is the Project 2025 guy who thought up this exact kind of thing, was singled out by the Trump Spokesperson Karoline Leavitt as the guy to contact, and is forever stuck in my mind as being the guy in the first Trump admin who halted the aid to Ukraine for the first Trump impeachment.

Who Checks and Balances the Court?

 After so much reporting of Justice Clarence Thomas' relationship with Harlan Crow, not to mention his wife's openly partisan political activity, we now have news of a troubling real estate transaction taking place between Neil Gorsuch and the CEO of Greenberg Traurig, a law firm that regularly brings cases before the Court. A property that was up for sale for two years suddenly was purchased nine days after Gorsuch was confirmed. 

Sure, Gorsuch can say he doesn't know the man or never met him, but the thing of it is--doesn't that make "how to deliver a bribe" seem so effortless? Use cut-outs. Hell, do favors for family. Be linked in all kinds of ways, some obvious, some not. 

Is the problem that people are making the insinuation, or is the problem the cozy relationships that make the insinuations extraordinarily probable? And isn't it even more of a problem when the Chief of one of our main branches of government offers absolute hogwash when asked to discuss court ethics with another branch of government?

If the members of the Supreme Court are in the least concerned about the reputation of that body, they should think of the historical example of the wife of Caesar. In low-level positions of government, ethics rules limit so much as the acceptance of a free lunch. And yet it appears that Supreme Court justices can accept anything their hearts desire--because who is going to check them? 

Despite the call on the left to restore the balance of the Court by expanding it, there has been no move to do so. At the bare minimum, Congress should feel empowered to at least act as a check on whether these parties are ethical stewards of their charge to uphold the law especially because they represent it.  And yes, that should even extend to impeachment if bribery/influence can be demonstrated. 

That means that yes--the member of the Court should be subject to questions. Confirmation shouldn't be the last word between the members of the court and Congress. And if all is kosher, why not both ensure that there are clear guidelines and be willing to communicate that they are followed? 

Look, not all weird financial things to do with SCOTUS are necessarily signs of corruption. But there should be some aim for transparency, and leaving important details off of disclosure forms does open up questions--it's kind of natural. 

Who is Paying for Dinner?

 

I think it's a gosh darn shame that the beer-loving scamp of the current SCOTUS line-up was forced to flee Morton's Steak House before dessert was served because of the outrage of nearby protesters, but as we all know, the word "restaurant" appears nowhere in the Constitution and after all, it's not like anyone has a right to privacy, right? Freedom of speech, check. Freedom to peaceably assemble--check. Freedom to eat a steak and not be reminded that you decided a case in a way that has doctors playing chicken with the reaper before being able to determine whether to render care to a miscarrying pregnant person in crisis because of the legal liability you helped impose on them? No. 

No. I don't see how Brett Kavanaugh has that right.  He has the privilege to make that kind of decision, and his nomination to the bench was financially backed by people who strongly expected that was exactly the kind of decision he would render, even if he did not say as much during his Senate hearing. All the same, he does not get to escape the world in which his decision has consequences. Any more than a pregnant 10 year old does. 

Now, a person who carried a grudge like a piece of shrapnel in their guts might wonder a lot of things about Kavanaugh--but I will just ask this blogpost's titular question: Who is paying for dinner? 

Infrastructure Week, Eh?

 

NOW: One “hoot” and the WH celebrates passing infrastructure with calling a lid and playing “Closing Time” over the loud speaker pic.twitter.com/3TAUByd9KB

— Brian J. Karem (@BrianKarem) November 6, 2021

It wasn't pretty but we have an infrastructure bill and it got passed. It was bipartisan. It's a BFD--and the progresive caucus votes against are basically a pro forma protest because the deciding votes were already in. Safe water, roads, and bridges. 

I think BBB is truly going to happen too, because I think passing this means less trouble ahead if I understand the reporting. After the really good job report and the recent Dow Jones highs, and now this hard-won legislative success, it really feels like we're in good hands. Not to denigrate the former administration because I've already done that enough. But to positivly state "Thank you Brandon!" as the Twitter trend says. 

 (The across the street neighbors who also have a thin blue line flag have posted a "Let's go Brandon" sign on their little bit of a lawn. I am almost of a mind to seek out a "Brandon Won" sign. But, I am not the one to start shit on the block, so no. But I find it a little worrisome, just not in a black flag kind of way. Yet.)

Sociopaths Shouldn't Be in Government 2: Ted Cruz

 

"There should be no mandates -- zero -- concerning Covid'' -- Ted Cruz pic.twitter.com/oY0wpmTQCi

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 10, 2021

Really? Not even private companies protecting their employees, customers and assets? No mandates because it's somehow discrimatory against special assholes who think their FaceBook PhD's in Advanced Bullshit Studies overrides what people who do public health for a living recommend? The cynical signifying to not be outdone by Governor DeathSentence, who seems to be employing a kind of "disaster capitalism" shock and awe to probably end public schools as we know them in Florida by the nasty look of things, or Cruz's own Governor Abbot, who is asking people to put off elective surgeries because he won't allow mandates for masks or vaccines, and is soliciting aid from health care workers in other states is dense with clown shoe obviousness, because it's Ted Cruz: Clown Shoes.

It feels like a race to the bottom of humanity, to see who can show the least empathy or good sense. 

Just like I cite "Galt's Glitch" as the obverse of the "Galt's Gulch" coin--the reality of libertarian freedom without responsibility is a positive feedback system for selfishness and destructive behavior, the obverse of the derision of Goo-goos or so-called "virtue signaling" is shitty government and "vice signaling"--being goddamn proud of unnecessarily horrific policies. It's how you get Gitmos and Abu Ghraibs and apparently, it's how you get mass Covid-19 deaths. 

Because not wanting them makes you a pussy. Don't let Ted Cruz's face merkin fool you, he definitely wants you to believe he is not a pussy, and his ugly wife and JFK-assassin dad would definitely back him up on that. 

You have to break eggs is all. You might not even be a big omelet enthusiast, but fuck those chickens. 

Am I calling Ted Cruz a sociopath based on his cynical pronouncements? Yeah. He's determined that his party has set no limit on acceptable numbers of bodies of actual human beings to step over and he's okay with building a Jacob's ladder of them. 

Only that ladder doesn't ascend, does it? It shouldn't. 

Senator AquaBuddha Visits Galt's Glitch

 

Rand Paul today: “It’s time for us to resist. They can’t arrest all of us .. No one should follow the CDC.” He then says he will introduce amendments to defund any govt agency that seeks to enforce CDC guidelines, including schools. pic.twitter.com/PYOQtKDYBN

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) August 9, 2021

"They can't arrest all of us", but they definitely won't be arresting Rand Paul, because his shiny, likely  vaccinated ass isn't going to do anything putting himself sideways anywhere. He's encouraging dumbfucks that he is pretty certain love to be told they are wearing very special consequence-proof libertarian armor, because freedom, mom's apple pie, and the Sekret Lemon Juice Writing on the Real (TM) Constitution that you can only see when you set that bitch on fire. It's your thing--do what you want to do! Rand Paul, however, is definitely going to tell you who to sock it to, though. The CDC, The Man, and based on his regular sparring with Dr. Fauci, you know....competent medical professionals and people who actually understand what public service actually means.

Rand Paul has a peculiar idea of service--he's agin' it. Like, why are people with needs occasionally looking to people with means to accomplish those ends? (Or as we call it, a functioning society.)  Why listen to people who know what they are talking about when idiots can have opinions, too? 

The DeJoy Proposition

 

Postmaster General DeJoy unveils his 10-year plan for the USPS, which includes higher postage rates, some slower services and reduced post office hours.https://t.co/siVkZHoEkC

— MSNBC (@MSNBC) March 24, 2021

This man should end once and for all the bullshit folderol of "I think a business man would make government work better" because here is this genius, openly saying his business plan for the agency he runs is to make everything expensive and do it worse. 

Imagine this was an actual business business plan. "Hi. I'm doing a shit job everyone complains about, so I am going to hang in and do even more terribly." 

Add to that the conflict of interest he has (being invested in other package transportation concerns) and that he seems to have tried to help Trump sabotage the mail-in vote, launch this SOB in the direction of the sun and measure how long it takes for him to get there. It will be slow and expensive but....

Or just get him out of the postmaster general position. He doesn't seem to get that the mail is a crucial lifeline for people, and that's an important thing for someone running the post office to know. 

The State of the TrumpWorld Grab-Bag

I didn't really pay attention to the State of the Union address because I'm starting to think these staged deals don't really signify all that much. For one thing, they should probably be called the State of the Current President Address, since they seem to be about the president's vision of what the United States is about and what he (or, someday, she) is going to do about it. Your level of approval of the speech probably has as much to do with your level of approval for the current office-holder, and if that's not much, well, you won't think much of that speech, then. And given the current president, I figured it was sure to be a bit dishonest. 

And as for the rebuttals, and I guess we are going to now have multiple liberal responses since there is a Republican in office, the general effect is something like a BBS forum in ye olden 14.4 days. It's not what one would call a rapid response. I had half an inkling that Trump deliberately spoke slowly and had a speech padded out with boring talk to push the response speeches from the opposition until later in the evening to dull their impact. (I think the Kennedy youngster did good, even though he was excessively Chapsticked and sometimes seemed to be falling into his very best Barack Obama cadence. His speech was brief and inclusive and spoke of a much less divided America where we didn't leave people behind so others could get ahead. I liked that very much.)

As for hidden messages amongst the muted dog-whistles of Trump's speech, the one thing that I and others found a bit chilling was the implication that Trump meant to see Federal employees to the door if they weren't on board with his agenda. I know that a kinder, gentler interpretation of this part of his speech might just indicate a weakening of civil service protections to ensure that non-hackers who just weren't pulling their weight get the axe because a federal job ain't a hammock. That's fair. Nobody likes to see taxpayer money wasted. But I've been interpreting this sentiment from Trump differently since way before yesterday. And this is particularly true just now, since the hot new word going around on Fox News and from House Speaker Ryan is "cleansing". There has been a greater turnover rate during this administration,  than has been seen for years.

But one of the problems here is that Trump seems to think he needs to get loyalty from people he interviews. For some civil and public servants, it's really enough that they pledge loyalty to the Constitution, and at least consider the rule of law their polar star. But he has variously leaned on Jim Comey for his loyalty and sacked him when he did not get what he wanted, sacked Preet Bharara and Sally Yates for having a peculiar lack of faith, and has apparently even tried to get Rod Rosenstein to admit to being on "his team".  That sounds needy as hell.  It really does seem like Trump doesn't want any kind of independent government agencies, but wants people who answer to himself, not the voters or taxpayers or the Constitution itself.

Which brings us to the ongoing Nunes Memo saga, which suggests that even powerful members of a separate but equal branch of government, can be momentarily compromised, because this daft git seems to have recognized that the thing in question didn't do all he wanted, and tried to alter it.  This information comes after the FBI indicated that this memo was likely chock full of wrong.

I'm glad that the FBI under Wray is still expressing it's independence. After some of the "text message" charade regarding FBI agents Strzok and Page being critical of Trump meaning they would try to throw the election (although there never was any indication any negative thiing about Trump from any investigation ever leaked) it is interesting to know that Pete Strzok actually helped fuxxor over Hillary Clinton bigtime.  So much for the "rigged in favor of Hillary" thing. It is amazing what comes to light after all, eventually. 

There never appears to have been any rigging in favor of Hillary Clinton at all, which sort of undermines the "rigged" cries of one Donald J Trump.  It's really as if he might have been the one to have help. I really must say. Which sort of does point back towards Russia helping Trump--a lot, materially and obliquely. Or so my eyes do say.

Also something to do with Hope Hicks.  . Because she witnessed Donald Trump using the White House to try and sort out his son's messaging, and also probably stated for a kind of record that DJT JR would not just...Tweet all his bullshit out. Like he did. This sounds bad because it is bad.

Zinke Deficiency

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke would probably prefer people think about him as a rugged outdoors-type, as evidenced by his coming to work on the above steed, Tonto Silvershoes. And yet, he has definitely evidenced that he has a more, shall we say, "high-flying" side, with his own office challenge coin and flag ritual, and with his actual private flight preferences. Sometimes he has even combined his love of taxpayer-funded flight and horse-riding.

He would probably not prefer people think he and his office just make really stupid decisions about resource allocation, such as the decision this summer to spend nearly $40,000 from wildfire preparedness funds for a helicopter tour. Given the year we've had for wildfires, this looks pretty awful. Zinke's office indicated that the helicopter ride was charged to the wrong internal account in error, but there seems to be a trend, here.

It just seems to me would should have someone more careful of our government resources, managing the department overseeing our natural ones, and all evidence suggests natural resources will be poorly managed as well.

The Trump Purges Will Be the Bigliest

Now, I guess it makes sense that when we think about what a Trump "purge" would entail, we'd mostly think about the many millions of deportations he promised.  But in actuality, there is another purge that seems to be afoot: it definitely looks like he's planning to slash the federal government, and it definitely looks like the House GOP is fixing to help him by enacting a scheme where certain federal workers could have their pay slashed to an unlivable amount. Ensuring their separation from employment for the welfare of themselves and their families.

It's worrisome that the incoming Trump folks have started to look into who does what in many federal organizations, as if fully meaning to make a purge of employees who won't fit with a Trump agenda. Sights have even been set on revamping the US intelligence community.  Even parts of the Trump transition team, like former CIA Director Woolsey, can find themselves on the outs with Team Trump if they aren't totally copacetic with the message.

He's also told all the Obama Ambassadors where to go, even though replacing them all will be quite a process.

So, believe me, I get it--he means to start afresh with all new folks who are all onboard with whatever he wants. But what about any respect for institutional knowledge--the kind of understandings that come with time and experience? What about acknowledging that some career folks know their bailiwick cold and have lots to teach? What about accepting that bright, interested folks can have differing positions from one's own, and can still be capable and inform?

He doesn't get it--he's opposed to it. Institutions can be upended and function poorly, and he doesn't care because he barely knows what those institutions do. The people who elected him don't either. The whole thing is pretty galling.  I feel like he's eating away at the structure of something that deserves better. In the meanwhile, the House Republicans have been talking about defunding the UN.  And defunding Planned Parenthood, and probably giving Girl Scouts fresh Indian burns daily.

Not sure how so many Republicans who apparently hate government, got so driven to be elected members of it--no less how they stay year after year when their opposition to governance and its norms becomes apparent.

Does Grover Norquist Think Government is Free?

I screen-capped this instead of embedding because some of the responses to this inanity are pretty damn good, and maybe Norquist will realize he's wrong and delete it--but all the criticisms still stand. The first assertion "Those who run our government do not pay taxes" is just silly if he means that "politicians do not pay taxes" because we know that from the President of the US on down, they do. So that's just plain wrong.

The second line: "Politicians and government workers are paid more in your tax dollars than they pay in" is also crap--they are paid a salary and benefits that they work for. Taxpayers are their customers. And they pay a share of their income in taxes--not unlike other people, but just like other people. Using Norquist's construction, it's almost like he's implying that people should work for the government for free.

Pick up trash, fight crime, process tax returns or drivers license applications or even defend our country in war--for free? Who is doing this for free?

It is true that with benefits and civil service protections for employment, government workers may have more security than private sector employees--but that's because we're unionized.  If any worker thinks they like a better deal, tell you what? Organize. But in the meanwhile, pretending that government workers are getting a cushy deal where they get paid tax money for nothing is absurd.

Once again, this is the worldview of a person whose ideas about taxes is resentment over a bite out of his ice cream cone as a little child. Grow up, Grover.