Re: men in women's bicycle races

On 5/15/2025 10:06 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/15/2025 7:30 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:

On 5/14/2025 6:47 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/14/2025 2:54 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 5/14/2025 8:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/14/2025 2:52 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Tue, 13 May 2025 23:14:03 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gXXmail.com> 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.

>
>
Krygowski repeats what he's seen and heard from the leftist media and
fails to note that today, inflation is down, the border is now locked
up tight, illegal criminals are being booted, tariffs are being
renegotiated, government waste is being lessoned, military enlistment
is up, gas and grocery prices are down, and men are slowly
(but surely) being banned from women's sports activities.
>
-- C'est bon
Soloman

>
You left out some very good news:
>
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/12/tariff-receipts- topped-16- billion- in- april-a-record-that-helped-cut- the-budget- deficit.html

>
Hmm. Import duties or tariffs were raised. And son of a gun, import duty receipts increased! It's almost as if simple cause and effect still operates!
>
But we have yet to see the actual overall effects. Consumer prices going up? Companies dealing with tangled and delayed supply chains? International trade shifting away from the U.S.? Most who are knowledgeable are expecting those and worse, not some miraculous surge in prosperity here. We'll see.
>

>
This is a minuscule reduction in the current year deficit but it's the first time in decades. Let's hope for more. Mr Jackson eliminated the entire national debt, and he was just some hick from Tennessee without a Wharton MBA.

>
Between the British Empire and Jackson, you have a real infatuation with the 1800s. But the world has moved on in many ways. I think 1800s strategies have little likelihood of working today.
>
>

>
Liberty and small honest government never go out of style.
>
Yes trade is in tumult. As I wrote last week, the situation is as yet in flux. I'll wait before panicking.
>
General inflation is at the lowest point since spring 2021.
>

>
Yup, seems to be following a trend since the peak in 2021
>
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current- inflation-rates/
>
(let's not pretend the rate wasn't already well-managed before trump was elected. That maga spunk works on people like kunich and the floriduh dumbass, you're way too smart and aware to be suckered in by that propaganda.)
>

 Yes you are correct.  My response was to Mr Krygowski's question, "Consumer prices going up?". They are technically but at a very low rate.

It should have been clear that I was speculating about the future effects of increased tariffs. And that speculation is in line with almost every professional economist. How could prices not rise?

 p.s. Regarding inflation, which is a tax, and most brutally applied to lower classes, nothing about the Federal Reserve's  "2% target" should be aceeptable.  Zero is a nice round number and is actually attainable. We did it when currencies were backed by actual gold rather than an 'inflation target'.

Ah, _those_ were the days! The good old 1800s! Is there an actual campaign to return to the gold standard? And hey, steam automobiles! Coal furnaces for homes!
(Damn, I thought _I_ was a retrogrouch!)
--
- Frank Krygowski