March 5, 2025

Colbert just started and it's live after trump BS. Also, there is one guest, Pete Buttigieg.

February 18, 2025

He's talked BS, but I guarantee he'll report crud like $600 toilet seats, aid to some poor African

country for much needed HIV, Ebola, water, etc. At a minimum, they’ll make it look like it was not used for intended purpose.

They’ll find a few dead people still receiving SS, because their kids hid the body outside. They’ll claim people got disability improperly.

It might be only a few examples, but it will appease trumpsters who voted for this and anyone who might believe government is too inefficient and employees don’t care. Heard it all when I worked for government.

It might all amount to a projection of saving 0.0001% of our budget. Hope we have a damn plan to rebut Musk’s report and the promotional chit show they’ll put on to bash Democrats.

February 13, 2025

+1. Since Nov, I've been trying to understand why that 5% or so that might vote Democratic switched to trump.

Last night I read a post that nailed it in one sentence--

“A crappy, horrendous, even evil plan beats no plan at all, especially when it is delivered with some gusto.”

DUer: Bluetus

February 13, 2025

Oh, good. Your post survived jury. Wanted to quote you for best explanation of why trump won.

“ A crappy, horrendous, even evil plan beats no plan at all, especially when it is delivered with some gusto.”

I’ve been trying to describe something like that since November, but you nailed it in one friggin sentence. Sure there are many other causes, racism, misogyny, and worse.

But your description is what caused the 5 or 10% — who might have voted for Democrats— to turn to trump.

February 11, 2025

Unfortunately, over decades I've not seen much support for administrative costs (think hated "bean counters

“suits,” administrative a-holes that suck research dry, etc. Point is, don’t think we’ll find much sympathy for administrative cuts. When I worked for Sate Government, the Feds were always looking at administrative costs and the indirect cost allocation methodology. My guess is schools and research organizations will have to cope within the 15% cap, or do a better job of pointing out special needs above am arbitrary 15% cap.

Here’s a definition of indirect costs in this matter from Forbes. Forbes is not arguing in favor of cuts, but do a good job of discussing issues.

“Last Friday, NIH announced it would cap reimbursement for indirect costs incurred on university research at 15%. Indirect costs involve several kinds of overhead expenses universities bear when their investigators conduct research.

“ They are divided into two categories — “facilities” and “administration" — and include items like maintenance of equipment, facility upgrades, the operation of labs, depreciation, utility charges, support staff, accounting, research compliance, legal expenses, and the salaries of key administrators who oversee an institution’s research programs.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2025/02/10/what-the-nih-cut-to-indirect-cost-payments-could-cost-red-states/

Even worse, none of the rubes who supported trump will give a chit about these cuts, unless they somehow benefit from them.

February 7, 2025

I'm definitely concerned, but I don't think Musk is taking over like podcasts try to portray. USAID funds seem

frozen. When I worked for government, new comers were always freezing jobs and funding. But it always ended soon.

I don't think we'll see any halts in Social Security, Medicare, etc.

trump and Musk will find some seemingly strange foreign aid and expenditures in other departments that they will blame on Democrats and Biden. Musk will make a deal out of things like some air traffic control systems are still using floppy disks, although likely in some subsystem. It'll be a big show and amount to little in the end.

Don't think Musk will steal funds. Heck, it's not like Social Security has real dollars in their coffers. I doubt -- but don't know for sure -- that the payment system he's into include SSNs, email addresses, etc., that could be used for some nefarious purposes. I do think he's drug addled and loving the power, which is dangerous. When I worked for government back in the dark ages, they were very different systems.

It would take hundreds of people to get away with anything, and I don't doubt someone would blow the whistle.

But my view is hardly sexy enough for staving podcasters trying to capture an audience.

Now if he gets into Fort Knox and has access to whatever gold is left, I'll get concerned. Right now, I'm most concerned about what is happening to immigrants missing a few papers.

I wish Biden had done a comprehensive "audit" when he took office to identify things that should be blamed on trump.

And I think our focus needs to turn to mid-terms soon. If GOPer elected officials feel pressure from constituents, they'll block much of what trump could do.

Admittedly, I might wake up tomorrow and find I'm totally wrong. These MFers are that unpredictable and vile.

February 5, 2025

Your point? I want to win, and I'm ticked we lost, yet people want to promote Palast's BS

as the reason we lost. He’s full of it and, IMO, appeals to those who won’t or can’t accept the truth.

trump was the most beatable candidate in history, and we are supposed to blame the media, rigged votes, Palast type suppression junk, musk finagled voter systems, etc.

The heck with that. Get real or we’ll lose again.

We have a 2 party system, but beginning this summer, we can change the Democratic party in upcoming primaries, unless we blame all the wrong things.

And, I too “get a distinct scent of smoke around your words.”

January 21, 2025

I'm more interested in matters/issues that might convert people who voted for trump. This junk won't.

January 20, 2025

Unfortunately, even J Smith and other federal prosecutors said they didn't think could convict trump of insurrection.

Not enough proof of insurrection

"The report offered few fresh details on Trump's alleged effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election, which he lost to Joe Biden. But it contrasted Trump's public statements with what he told aides and family members after that loss and highlighted what prosecutors viewed as pervasive "deceit." The report cast Trump as the head of a conspiracy who "sought legal cover" from his alleged co-conspirators.

"Federal prosecutors did not charge anyone else in connection with that alleged conspiracy. But their report said that before work wound down, "the Office had made a preliminary determination that the admissible evidence could justify seeking charges against certain co-conspirators."

"Prosecutors also revealed that they had contemplated charging Trump with "insurrection" but they could not prove that he engaged in that rarely charged offense himself. They also evaluated Trump's remarks near the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, as possible criminal "incitement." But they couldn't develop direct evidence that Trump had intended to "cause the full scope of the violence that occurred" that day.

"The report described brutal assaults on police by a mob that wielded flagpoles and bear spray, including photos of scenes that law enforcement has likened to hand-to-hand combat. More than 140 officers suffered injuries, some that forced their early retirement."

https://www.npr.org/2025/01/14/g-s1-42358/trump-jack-smith-election-report

January 15, 2025

That's exactly what Smith's Report should have said. And he should have kept many copies.