It's not just the bosses, it's everyone in our fourth branch of government

/

As you read this, these same “know-better-than-you” administrators and experts are attempting, badly and calamitously, to respond to a natural disaster they’ve supposedly been planning for for decades. Our government is doing its best to turn us all into self-sufficient preppers and, ultimately, that’s probably a good thing. So next time you see one, thank a bureaucrat.

Biden’s agency bosses say Americans have ‘too much freedom’

The bosses of federal agencies were asked in a new Napolitan Institute survey about the “individual freedom” Americans have, and 51% said they have “somewhat” to “far too much freedom.”

But just 16% of voters agreed and 57% believe the government has too much control over their lives.

Democratic “swamp” managers felt the country has too much freedom at the highest levels in the survey, at 68%. Among Republican federal agency chiefs, just 33% agreed.

But the partisan bureaucrats were more in agreement when it came to choosing who is best at deciding if new regulations are needed, found the polling outfit headed by Scott Rasmussen.

“Fifty-four percent (54%) of government managers say that if, after carefully researching an important issue, they determine that a regulation is needed, yet voters overwhelmingly oppose it, they should follow their research and issue the regulation anyway. This includes 49% of Republican government managers and 60% of Democrats,” it said.

Unlike Democrats and Republicans in America, and even on Capitol Hill, partisans that work in the swamp generally think like the other, according to Napolitan’s latest poll of America’s 1% elitists.

“On many topics, there is a disturbing level of bi-partisan agreement among federal government managers. Fifty-three percent (53%) of Republican government managers and 48% of Democrats believe the federal government should be allowed to censor speech that is posted on social media platforms. Forty-three percent (43%) of ‘Elites’ and just 16% of voters share this view. Seventy-four percent of Republican government managers and 79% of Democrats favor banning private ownership of guns. This view is shared by 77% of ‘Elites,’ but just 36% of voters,” said the analysis.

Manufactured for Hollywood

/

Texans to Hollywood: "Don't dangle your dingle in our faces and demand we call it a vagina"

Will Ferrell regrets awkward Texas restaurant visit after co-star booed for trans rights toast

It happened while Ferrell and Steele, a former "Saturday Night Live" head writer, were filming their new Netflix documentary, "Will & Harper," which follows their 17-day road trip across the country "to bond and reintroduce Harper to the country as her true self" after Steele came out as transgender in 2022.

They received what they described as an unexpected and uncomfortable response from diners at a Texas restaurant after Steele mentioned the state hadn't done enough for trans rights, the New York Times reported. 

"I'm from Iowa, but I will raise a glass to your great state of Texas," Steele said to a receptive audience of diners at the Big Texan Steak Ranch in Amarillo, where Ferrell and Steele planned to attempt the restaurant's famous 72-ounce steak challenge. 

"I wish you guys would do more for trans rights in this state," Steele added, which silenced the cheers and was met with a few groans from the audience, Chron reported. 

"Cheers to Texas and trans rights, right?" Ferrell added. The toast didn't make it into the documentary, but Steele and Ferrell shared their responses to the moment afterward. 

That’s worth repeating: “The toast didn't make it into the documentary, but Steele and Ferrell ‘shared’ (how nice) their responses to the moment afterward. Pro Tip: If you want to make a film that “proves” Golden Retrievers are a vicious breed, poke one repeatedly with sharp sticks off-camera, then film its reaction.

"The room started to feel very wrong to me," Steele said in the film. "I was feeling a little like my transness was on display, I guess, and suddenly that sort of made me feel not great." 

So, they set out to make a film about friendship, how one male accepts his long-time friend’s decision to put on a dress and say “call me Shirley”. Fine; I’d hope I could be as accepting and tolerant if one of my own friends went that route (looking at you, Mick). But it’s obvious that the producers felt a need to introduce an element of oppression and intolerance into what otherwise is the standard Hollywood trope, a story of “boy meets (sort of a) girl. So they go to Texas to enter a steak-eating contest, but, instead of just doing that and waving to the audience, Miss Steele, with cameras rolling, stands up in front of crowd and deliberately provokes a reaction (“silence, mixed with a few groans”) that the director can include in the film (after deleting Steele’s toast and Ferrell’s own comments that prompted that reaction) and impress his fellow Hollywood swamp denizens and media sycophants. And, of course, it worked:

Time Magazine, aping the NYT, was “appalled and shocked”

[T]heir cross-country adventure between New York and L.A. (with stops that included Iowa, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas) eventually became the Josh Greenbaum-directed documentary Will & Harper, a nostalgic, heartfelt, and witty road movie, and one of the most beautiful films about friendship ever made. The film by Greenbaum (best known for the 2021 comedy Barb and Star Go to Vista Del Mar) organically captures the duo’s vibe, charged by similar temperaments and a sense of humor fully in sync ever since they met at Saturday Night Live in 1995.

The trip wasn’t always smooth sailing. Amid all the pleasant encounters and family visits, there was an experience at a steakhouse in Amarillo, Tex., where they were met with hostility. The transphobic social media attacks that came after, also included in the film, were equally painful. As Ferrell puts it, one of the themes of the movie is whether the country that Harper loves so much loves her back. The answer that the Amarillo experience offers is a distressing one.

And the critics ate it up

Wikipedia

Critical response

On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 99% of 90 critics' reviews are positive, with an average rating of 7.9/10. The website's consensus reads: "Endearing and heartfelt, Will & Harper is an ode and testament to long-lasting love, acceptance and evolution within a friendship."[9] Metacritic, which uses a weighted average, assigned the film a score of 75 out of 100, based on 22 critics, indicating "generally favorable" reviews.[10]

The New York Times critic Manohla Dargis called the film, "A Transcendent Road Trip," and summarized that, "A documentary about Will Ferrell and his friend Harper Steele brought the house down" at the Sundance Film Festival.[11] At Collider, Taylor Gates rated this an 8 out of 10 and characterized it as a "must-watch", praising the principals' openness and the mixture of educational and entertainment elements, but critiquing the pacing.[12] The Daily Beast's Kevin Fallon opined that this film will save lives for being "brave and characteristically unusual".[13] Benjamin Lee of The Guardian rated this film 3 out of 5 stars, writing that "there are enough earned moments of piercing sadness and shaggy humour that those that feel more engineered can distract, the film trying to force itself into the structure of something it doesn’t need to be, pushing us away just after we’ve been pulled in close".[14] Lovia Gyarkye of The Hollywood Reporter stated that the film "works because, at its core, the doc is a tribute to Ferrell and Steele’s evolving friendship" and that the pair's "level of honesty keeps the conversations grounded and helps the documentary avoid turning Steele into a prop for Ferrell’s education".[15] Lauren Wissot of IndieWire graded this work a B−, stating that the narrative is "admirable and understandable" but "trapped in a mushy middle state, forever prevented from rising to the level of either great drama or great comedy".[16]

In a capsule review out of Sundance, Brian Tallerico of RogerEbert.com praised Greenbaum's direction and continued that the film shows "a pure, true companionship here that should serve as a reminder to call that person in your life who might need someone to talk to".[17] In Rolling Stone David Fear called Will & Harper "a portrait of a friendship and how the fundamentals of a deep and lasting bond doesn’t change even when the people within it do" that is "flawed" but "priceless".[18] Writing for United Press International, Fred Topel ended his review calling this "a touching journey with two friends sharing laughs that can help start more conversations amongst people Steele and Ferrell will never meet".[19] Peter Debruge of Variety wrote that "It can sound like a cliché to say that any given movie is what the world needs now, but Will & Harper earns that distinction. Struggling to recognize her own beauty in a society that often seems determined to deny her identity altogether, Steele brings the trans experience down to earth. Meanwhile, by accepting his fledgling gal pal on her own terms—and asking how to make her more comfortable in her own skin—Ferrell sets the best kind of example. We should all be so lucky as to have friends like these."[20] Bilge Ebiri of Vulture ended his review: "The film’s familiarity may well be part of its design. It clearly wants to help change hearts and minds, and find purchase with audiences that would otherwise avoid a movie with a subject like this."

Humbug.

Cops

/

When You Can't Lose Weight, Litigate! DOJ Wins Suit Against MD State Police 'Discriminatory' Fitness Test

According to the DOJ’s lawsuit, 81% of males and only 51% of females passed at least once.

“The rate at which female applicants passed the FFAT at least once is statistically significantly lower than the rate at which male applicants passed the FFAT at least once; and the female applicant pass rate is less than 80% of the male applicant pass rate,” the complaint read.

Unable to perform eighteen push-ups in one minute; something to ponder.

Is this settlement an acknowledgement that women are physically weaker than males? Reached for comment, Transgender Unqualified Sports Heroes — TUSH — spokesman Joe, “Call me Josephine”, Flabbycheeks declined comment.

As for blacks being a weaker race, we could ask the NFL. We could, but the DOJ won’t.

And of course, disappointed applicants could always just join the Army — they’ll take anyone.

Army Opens its Doors to Recruits Who Fail to Meet Initial Body Fat and Academic Standards Amid Recruiting Crisis

And now, for your viewing pleasure ….

Vote early and often

/

Here’s the actual press release from the Democrats — so yes, Elon, it’s real

DNC Announces Innovative Six-Figure Investment in Democrats Abroad To Ensure Engagement of Key Voters Living Outside U.S. 

August 12, 2024

For the first time ever in a Presidential cycle the DNC is investing in Democrats Abroad, the DNC is doing the work to win in battleground states across the country

With under 100 days until Election Day and ahead of the Democratic National Convention, the DNC announced a significant six-figure investment in Democrats Abroad, for the first time ever in a Presidential cycle, helping fund their efforts to win the votes of approximately 9,000,000 Americans  – of which only about 8% are registered voters from 2020 – who are living or serving outside of the United States. These investments will help Democrats Abroad’s extensive efforts to register these 9 million citizens and ramp up their mail-in voting operation and other efforts in mobilizing the abroad vote in the battleground states. This election will be won on the margins, and with only three months until the election, every vote matters – including the votes of those who are serving or living abroad. In what will be a close election, the DNC is leaving no stone left unturned to ensure that Kamala Harris will be the next president of the United States.

From the battleground states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin there are approximately 1,625,136 people living abroad including service members. In 2020, just 44,000 votes across Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin votes won Joe Biden the presidency. In fact, abroad voters made a notable difference in Georgia and Arizona during the 2020 presidential election and made the difference in close races in Connecticut, New Hampshire, and North Carolina during the 2022 midterms. That’s why the DNC is doing the work to win this election by reaching out to voters regardless of where they live.

… Democrats Abroad has been on the forefront of engaging Democrats across the world via their own get out the vote efforts and the online portal votefromabroad.org which helps people register to vote from abroad and provides a lengthy FAQ and trained voter support team to support them.

With this new investment from the DNC, and strategic programming and engagement from Democrats Abroad, Democrats are reaching voters where they are – be it military voters, students studying abroad, or families that are living abroad and want to do everything in their power to ensure Vice President Harris is the next president of the United States. 

“We’re thrilled to have received the DNC’s support at this time in the cycle. It’s a powerful affirmation of our work and the importance of the overseas electorate, who vote back in their home state and have been the margin of victory in numerous pivotal races, such as delivering Georgia in 2020.” said Chair of Democrats Abroad Martha McDevitt-Pugh. “Americans abroad need to request our ballots each year. The website votefromabroad.org is tailored to supporting them and is kept up to date. Between outreach & information, voter support and voter protection, Democrats Abroad are working hard to ensure that Democrats at home win.“ ….

Of course: it's the government

/

FEMA to storm victims: we may show up in ten days or so, or not, but if and when we do wander by, maintain social distancing, and have your photo ID ready. Unless you’re an illegal, or course, or suffering from post-slavery victim trauma.

No electricity? No cell? No way to reach us? Well, then, you’re really in pickle, aren’t you, Mr. MAGA Man.

My ancestors read the writing on the wall and left there for The New World in 1658 — that’s foresight

/

Anyone here seen Daphne Lamsvelt-pol?

Does anyone still left over there remember 1940?

There's private entrepreneurship, and then there's the government; no wonder the latter is trying to crush the former

/

Two very long articles by the same author, they’re worth reading in their entirety — I have — but this brief excerpt on NASA’s incompetence and sweetheart deals with its favorite contractors should be sufficient to give you the idea. You can extend this recounting to encompass the government’s defense spending and you won’t go wrong; just multiply the billons by a 100 or so.

Casey Hammer: Four years ago, unable to find a comprehensive summary of the ongoing abject failure known as the NASA SLS (Space Launch System), I wrote one. If you’re unfamiliar with the topic, you should read it first. 

It is hard to believe four years have gone by, but in all that time, the SLS has launched only once. Time flies when the rocket doesn’t. I don’t often write blogs in a sharply critical tone, so as always, the usual disclaimers apply. I write in my personal capacity as some Guy with an Opinion on the Internet. 

In 2019, NASA awarded Bechtel a contract to deliver a launch tower – a glorified steel truss far simpler than the booster catching towers SpaceX assembles in weeks – by March 2023 for a total cost of $383m.

As of today, the OIG reports that the tower will cost $2.7b and is to be finished by September 2027, but more likely 2029. For reference, the Burj Khalifa is seven times taller, contains paying tenants, hotels, and shops, and was built in five years for just $1.5b.

If you had $2.7b in 27 million $100 notes, and you piled them up, they would be so much taller than Bechtel’s non-existent launch tower that you’d need not one, not two, but 23 separate piles to exhaust the supply. Whoever wrote Bechtel’s side of the contract certainly earned their bonus. Whoever wrote NASA’s side should be made to paint the entire structure with a toothbrush – but I expect they’ve long since been on Bechtel’s payroll in some kind of advisory no-show job.

NASA managers routinely complain of difficulties in hiring and retention – difficulties they never faced 20 years ago, before the SLS and before the private space companies that, unlike NASA, are able to offer some combination of market-rate compensation, a career track that rewards ambition and competence, and a workplace that swiftly departs underperformers. 

Just imagine the mental agility required to actually want to work for an agency that continues to insist on technical doctrine no less absurd than “2+2=5” from top to bottom, from onboarding documentation all the way up to press releases, bilateral agreements and policy papers. Everyone at NASA knows the SLS is a looming catastrophe, but no-one can say it. Officially, it’s still the most powerful rocket ever built (except for Starship) and our official vehicle to the Moon and Mars! In reality, it’s insanely expensive, dangerous, and underpowered and can barely lift a reasonable payload to LEO.

Four years ago*, I wrote that the best time to cancel the SLS was 20 years before, and the second best time was then. Four years on, the program has consumed another $20b with nothing to show for it. $20b, bringing total development cost to over $100b. This program burns $12m per day! 

In the meantime, NASA has abandoned all pretense of caring about or delivering cost control on any major project, with scope, schedule, and budget blowouts affecting practically every major program and forcing the cancellation of many of them. This is symptomatic of an agency who, compromising their technical integrity on their flagship program, subsequently lost the ability to maintain technical integrity anywhere else. 

Litany of other canceled and delayed projects

(Here’s just the first of many detailed in the article — if you feel confident the government is handling your money wisely and well, read the full article and be dissuaded)

Mars Perseverance, a supposedly cheaper built-to-print replica of the Curiosity Mars rover from 2012 then required extensive re-engineering costing $2.4b, the same as the previous rover. At least it didn’t cost more! Meanwhile, much of its instrument payload was consumed by a sample handling system for a sample return mission that, at this rate, will never occur.

…. In September 2014, NASA awarded Boeing $4.2b and SpaceX (somewhat grudgingly) $2.6b to develop capsules to transport people to and from the ISS. The Shuttle’s last flight was in 2011, so this process came a bit late and resulted in nearly a decade of dependency on Roscosmos for crew transport. 

SpaceX’s Crew Dragon capsule first flew in 2019 and in 2020 brought astronauts to and from the space station. As of September 2024, it’s flown thirteen flights (three private) to the ISS, two other private flights including the highest ever Earth orbit and first private space walk, and carried 54 people in space.

In contrast, Boeing’s Starliner only flew two astronauts to the ISS, after two previous launches with a series of failures and near misses. Despite being a much simpler design than Crew Dragon, Starliner has suffered from:

  • A set of critical software failures during its first flight, in which untested software outsourced to foreign developers both failed to obtain accurate clock information from the launch vehicle, and also incorrectly mapped thruster and inertial coordinate systems, essentially reading the wrong map upside down. As a result, this uncrewed mission burned through all its propellant and was unable to dock with the station. Boeing was compelled to refly the mission.

  • A set of parachute failures, including both crashes during testing and later, the discovery mere weeks before the first crewed launch that critical clips had not been closed before being obscured behind an uninspectable flap. In other words, had this chance discovery not been made and the mission flown with astronauts, the parachutes would have opened and pulled away from the capsule, which would have then plummeted into the ground killing everyone. 

  • The wiring harnesses were wrapped with flammable tape, requiring a difficult replacement operation.

  • The thrusters suffered failures on all three flights, due to incorrect thermal environment data being provided to the subcontractor, overheating, helium leaks and seal failures. The subcontractor? Aerojet Rocketdyne. I’m beginning to sense a pattern here…

Unlike SLS and Orion, however, Starliner was developed under a fixed price contract (Boeing’s first and last!) resulting in net losses to Boeing of $1.6b so far – enough to build another whole Burj Khalifa.

Conway’s Law explains that product structure mirrors the organizational structure that built it. The dysfunction of Boeing’s Starliner development program is plain for everyone to see in the achingly embarrassing ongoing failures of the physical hardware. The software failures show that the thruster teams didn’t talk to the structural teams and the GNC teams. The thruster failures show that the systems engineers didn’t talk to the subcontractors and mission designers. The parachute failures showed that process safety engineering was nowhere near close out operations. The wiring harness issue shows that NASA’s requirements oversight team were not functioning as a team and not conducting oversight, and likely never conducted a thorough in person physical inspection of the actual flight hardware.

I mentioned Starliner had flown two astronauts (Butch and Suni) to the space station. Once on station, the recurring thruster faults were so severe that NASA decided, over strident objections from Boeing officials, that it was safer to strand the astronauts there for a few weeks until SpaceX Crew 9 arrived, than to roll the dice and return to Earth as originally planned. In the end Starliner made an uneventful autonomous landing, but the ultimate cause of the thruster faults remains unclear since the Starliner service module burns up on re-entry. Recently, it was reported that NASA’s OIG is taking a closer look at the Commercial Crew Program in the wake of this continuing failure. I, for one, have questions about why NASA signed off on launching people to space in this turkey of a space capsule to begin with.

*That article can be found here. It’s an enlightening, albeit depressing read— Ed)