Tag: government

By on

The right wing media is spreading pernicious lies about DEI being a factor in the Los Angeles fires now burning. Forbes magazine, hardly a left wing source, found that there is absolutely no evidence that this is true. Some of this is based on speculation offered by Adam Carolla who when trying to apply to be a fire fighter many years agos was told that he wouldn’t be considered for 7 years because he was white man. Carolla also admits to having a 1.7 GPA which, and I am just speculating on this now, might have something to do with his long wait and the discouraging words he received at the fire house when asking for a job.

Anyway, a quick glance at the graduating class of 2024 proves Carolla wrong. There are a good number of white men in the group. In fact, if you look at the racial breakdown of Los Angeles Fire Department in 2018, Whites are a much larger portion of the fire department than their percentage in Los Angeles population — 49% Whites in Fire Department, 29% whites in Los Angeles and women make up barely 3% of the department with minority women making up less than 1%. So a department made up of 97% men which is important because one of the chief problems conservative critics have is the physical strength needed to fight fire. Men have more than women. There seems to be more than enough men out there working on the fire.

The unspoken subtext here is that somehow non-whites and women aren’t up to the job. Based on what evidence? Is there data that minorities and women are not performing their job? And if so, what are the problems and how do white men doing the same job compare? If someone graduates from the Fire Academy, doesn’t it mean they past the tests required by the LAFD to adequately perform their job? The critics keep returning to the lesbian women who lead the department. Where exactly have these women failed? Somehow the implication is that since DEI has been considered as a part of the hiring process that standards have somehow diminished. It isn’t like the good old days when only white men were running the LAFD.

But, of course, the good old days were not getting the best people available. They were limiting their search to white men and discriminated against people of color and women. How is this better? It is only when discrimination became an issue that women and people of color got a chance to become a fireman. The good old days. You know when Blacks need not apply for jobs they wanted. You didn’t have to consider women at all because they were the weaker sex. You know those good old days when discrimination was OK.

No one wants to hear about past discrimination when DEI is making it impossible for white men to advance now. Right. The thing is if Blacks and Latinos were given a chance 50 or so years ago to join the force DEI wouldn’t have been necessary in the first place. The problem is they were discriminated against and, because of that past discrimination, women and people of color are rightfully suspicious of their ability to be treated fairly. So ultimately DEI is the direct result of bad faith hiring from white men in the first place.

By all means, blame the Los Angeles Fires on DEI putting incompetents on the front line. I am sure it will encourage those brave people fighting the fires to give their all to put them out. Really, it is shitty way, particularly in the absence of evidence, to treat people who are putting their lives on the line.

By on

I recently wrote about the murder of Brian Thompson, UnitedHealthcare CEO. People who I respect were arguing that the people really don’t have much power over healthcare executives and that, given the political climate, weren’t likely to see any changes. This forced Luigi Mangione into action. His frustration with the system gave him no other choice. I wanted to respond to these arguments but I couldn’t quite get my ideas straight about what I wanted to say. The massacre in New Orleans have clarified things for me.

The killer in New Orleans’s probably felt similar to Luigi Mangione, that nobody was listening to what he had to say and, in order to change that, he took extreme action to bring attention to his cause. Since US government is part of the problem, then all Americans are legitimate targets until the US government changes their policy.

Now I don’t believe that to be true and I am betting the most other Americans agree with me. The problem then becomes why is it all right to kill Thompson and not the party goers on Bourbon Street. It becomes a matter of splitting hairs. Thompson definitely held more power over his company than the average American has over government decisions. A terrorist, however, might argue Americans have the power to vote for their leaders. If they are going to vote for the leaders who oppose their cause, then they deserve to die until Americans change to a more ISIS friendly government.

If frustration with the system is a legitimate reason to massacre people then who is to say your frustration is better than my frustration. It is wrong to stay silent when the people dying are disagreeable people. Disagreeable people deserve due process and fair trials because we, as a people, have to know that we there is justice in the process and we are not just going after people we don’t like. Letting lone assassins make that decision is insanity because you are then are opening up political violence option to everyone, including people you disagree with, and who then will kill people you like.

The election of Trump was an incredibly disappointing result but then there is another election coming and, depending on how things go, the political climate could change. At least, this is the way forward I would like to pursue. Call me bourgeois but I much prefer the chaotic and slow machinery of democratic institutions than political violence. I can’t give up on it just yet. It worries me that so many people seem willing to let murder slide as long as the victim is perceived as a legitimate target because someone might decide that you are a legitimate target. Just ask the families who lost a loved one on Bourbon Street.

By on

I personally think Musk is not that bright. He has twice, within a short time, fired whole departments and then, after realizing he still needs these people, hiring them back. I question the expertise he might bring to a government office devoted to efficiency. Once is a forgivable mistake but twice would suggest an inability to learn from his mistakes and a tendency to shoot first and ask questions later.

It isn’t as if he couldn’t get help from Human Resources experts. I mean if there is one thing that the corporate world does well is laying people off. That he went ahead with an emotional decision based on his anger at this employees without having a plan for replacing people to do their work is concerning. He is disrupting his employee’s lives and the operation of his company.

Besides being unqualified for the job, he also has the wrong personality for dealing with someone like Trump. Trump needs ass kissers and a really adept ass kisser at that. Trump has a big ego which clashes with Musk who also has a big ego. There isn’t enough room for these two men to be together without one or the other stepping on some toes.

Musk has many many faults but I never got a sycophantic vibe from him. I would hate to be in the room when this breaks down. Wait, I take that back, I would like to be in the room as a spectator only because it is going to be epic. I just will have to remember to duck when objects go flying.