Re: men in women's bicycle races

On 5/14/2025 7:43 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/13/2025 10:14 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 5/13/2025 3:18 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/13/2025 1:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 5/13/2025 8:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/12/2025 11:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 5/12/2025 6:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/12/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

>
But Mr. Timid Tricyclist just won't let it go. It allows him to hide from discussing the current administration's crazy incompetence. What a dupe.
>
>

Pick an administration. Any administration. Select any of myriad examples of 'crazy incompetence'.
>
USS Gettysburg shot down a fighter from her own carrier group (USS Truman) in the Biden administration in December.
>
Then USS Truman lost two fighters overboard (one from sliding tow vehicle in April, one landing arrest failure in May.) in the 2d Trump administration.
>
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-aircraft- carrier- red-sea- lost- another-super-hornet-2025-5?op=1
>
One never runs out of examples.

>
Is each military mishap the fault of an executive administration? I'd think that even the appointment of, say, a low experience drunken Fox network personality would require quite a bit of time to noticeably affect the competence of the world's largest military.
>
Appointing an egotistical and inexperienced cyber dude to pull in other cyber dudes with no relevant qualifications, to hack away randomly at every possible government agency, firing then rehiring hundreds or thousands of competent workers? That's administrative incompetence - one example among many.
>

>
Well, yes, your term 'crazy incompetence' pervades governments (not only US Federal government!)  in every administration. Hayek brilliantly wrote on the inherent failures of large bureaucracies, by their nature, well before key exemplars were born!

>
First, it takes a large administration to run a large institution, and a very large administration to run a large country. I doubt there are any exceptions. And in any large administation you'll be able to find examples of anything - competence, incompetence, stupidity, brilliance. Isn't "we have one of everything" one of your talking points?
>
That does NOT mean all administrations are equal. The unproductive chaos generated by unleashing Musk and his buddy boys seems unique in our history. I doubt one legitimate scientist thinks Kennedy is fully sane, let alone competent. And the "Hillary Emails!!!" crew is giving an astonishing pass to the signal chat leaks. I could list more, but I think the current administration is on its way toward record incompetence on multiple fronts.
>
If you're defending all that, I'm curious about your thought processes. Will it be "Yeah, but Obama wore a brown suit"?
>
>

The British Empire in the late Victorian era ran with a skimpy budget and a slim staff.
>
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uk-government-did- we- rule-the- empire-with-4000-civil-servants/
>
And Britain didn't even have a 10th Amendment!
>
Excess in funding and excess in hiring leads to 'mission creep' outside lawful useful limits. As we see.
>
p.s. thanks for snipping my example. There are more.

Please! You of all people should understand the etiquette of trimming posts. Of course "there are more." I won't bother to dig for videos of Bush I saying "Read my lips: No new taxes" or Bush II dolled up in military costume to proclaim "Mission accomplished" but we should remember how those worked out.
>
And about the size of the British empire administration: ISTM the point of the article you linked is that there really were countless thousands of people administering it. It was a very different world in the 1800s, far less complex and moving at a far slower place with far simpler technology; and the article seems to say that large numbers of administrators were at work, although perhaps employed by colonies or local government, not central government. You certainly can't pretend that any current major nation can get by with a few thousand employees!
>
In any case, you've deflected away from my point. Do you really think the Trump administration is as competent as any other one in recent history? I don't, and the general run of experts (including those working for Trump's first administration) seem to rate this crew near the bottom of the curve.
>
The main qualification for hiring was, obviously, fealty to the wannabee king. That doesn't tend to bring in the best people.
>

 Larger Empire with more people and spread out uniquely world wide, all run with written correspondence, paper ledgers, no calculators and yet still in the thousands not millions. Add in a very good score for lack of inflation, a gold-solid value for Sterling and excellent growth. Hard to beat their record.
 One might argue, and I will, that the administrations of Victoria's Empire was greatly more effective and efficient than any barnacle encrusted modern state, full of apparatchiks with their hands in the till.
 https://responsiblestatecraft.org/pentagon-audit-2666415734/
 https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4992913-pentagon- fails-7th-audit-in-a-row-but-says-progress-made/
 Honest and competent are not words anyone would use as regards the hundreds of US government entities.
 To your solicitation of my opinion, yes I think the 2d Trump administration has so far been about average for efficiency and honesty. I do have hope but I would not bet on it.  The thieving scheming one-worlder swamp will fight to the death against both.
 To policy, which is a different question, I'd rank a solid B+. You would not. Meh.
 

n.b.  The Pentagon link from the prior administration above reflects a consistent pernicious series of failures spanning several administrations, including the 1st Trump term, going back decades. It is not a temporal anomaly.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971