So his times in the NYPD and Secret Service are irrelevant?Remember, DEI is bad because we prefer meritocracy; hiring tv personalities, podcasters, and a general who put on a MAGA hat is all totally based on actual merit and not vibes.
So his times in the NYPD and Secret Service are irrelevant?Remember, DEI is bad because we prefer meritocracy; hiring tv personalities, podcasters, and a general who put on a MAGA hat is all totally based on actual merit and not vibes.
<snip>While everyone is focused on the FBI/DOJ release of the Epstein list/Diddy lists, I have some very real expectations for Kash and Danny B at the FBI. In order of my personal preference:
The Epstein/Diddy lists may be mind-blowing to a small swath of the American public writ large, and I agree that they should be released immediately in full; the impacts on trust in our institutions from the above-mentioned cases are, in my opinion, far more prescient/important, even given the gravity of the Epstein scandal and it's second/third order effects.
'The black book?... that's under direct control of the director of the FBI,' Patel told broadcaster Glenn Beck, endorsing the idea of Trump releasing the black book 'on day one.'
Kash Patel's confirmation as FBI director has unleashed an online frenzy of demands for him to fulfill his promise to release Jeffrey Epstein's infamous black book "on day one," with long-standing speculation that President Trump himself is on the list.
So his times in the NYPD and Secret Service are irrelevant?
“General Caine is an accomplished pilot, national security expert, successful entrepreneur, and a ‘warfighter’ with significant interagency and special operations experience.” But yeah, let's focus on a hat.Remember, DEI is bad because we prefer meritocracy; hiring tv personalities, podcasters, and a general who put on a MAGA hat is all totally based on actual merit and not vibes.
“General Caine is an accomplished pilot, national security expert, successful entrepreneur, and a ‘warfighter’ with significant interagency and special operations experience.” But yeah, let's focus on a hat.![]()
I'm not following the pre-reqs for CJCS. Can you share them with me? If you're talking Goldwater-Nichols, there's a specific proviso authorizing a waiver, i.e. specifically authorizing what the president has done, i.e. meets the requirements.And it's too bad there isn't a single 4 star in the military who has a background that's anything similar.
------
Our SECDEF literally said he'd always doubt whether former CJCS got his job because of skill or race. We've now appointed somebody who doesn't meet the established pre-reqs for the position. The only thing that's been brought up for why Trump knows him is he wore a MAGA hat and said he could beat ISIS in a week (lol).
Do we give a shit about merit or not?
Well, that is what we voted for.because he's been pretty clear that all he cares about for "merit" is if that person will do what the administration asks
I'm not following the pre-reqs for CJCS. Can you share them with me? If you're talking Goldwater-Nichols, there's a specific proviso authorizing a waiver, i.e. specifically authorizing what the president has done, i.e. meets the requirements.
I think I already wrote something about how dumb it is to focus on somebody's hat.
Can you point me to anywhere that I second-guessed GEN Brown's appointment? Because I don't think I did. That call was the President's to make, just like this one was.You're correct the president can, if it's in the national interest. Which goes back to my point; there's not a single qualified 4 star general, so we had to pull a 3 star out of retirement?
Again, is this merit or because the President met the guy? Why is second guessing his qualifications somehow different that CQ Brown?
----------
I wanna make it clear that I'm not trying to argue Caine is or is not qualified. Much to my point earlier about consistent, I'm willing to look at people who don't traditionally meet all "prefered requirements". It's a broader discussion about how we apply "meritocracy", and where the boundaries are for that.
Can you point me to anywhere that I second-guessed GEN Brown's appointment? Because I don't think I did. That call was the President's to make, just like this one was.
GEN Brown's predecessor was a guy who checked all the blocks for "pre-reqs" but then bragged about undermining the Commander in Chief and ran his mouth about him while in uniform and after. Some would say he did a terrible disservice to the military profession. Hopefully this pick will be better.
Would you hire him as a VP for your company if someone with a similar resume was up for it?
------------
Now you’re getting it. “Force your enemy to adhere to their own rules.” - Saul Alinsky.Remember, DEI is bad because we prefer meritocracy; hiring tv personalities, podcasters, and a general who put on a MAGA hat is all totally based on actual merit and not vibes.

You missed one important role merit plays- when the side that doesn't care about merit wants to try and wield your own values against you, they'll default to what they think the "merit" of your picks are as if they ever cared about it. Merit is VERY important in that regard.Merit s a funny thing.
...snip
I overall agree with this one. The only thing I could think of is the previously posted missive from Elon- "We think that there is some amount of people that absolutely do nothing, don't answer emails at all AND there could be even be dead people on the rolls."Talking to folks at work the concern isn't justifying our jobs, but all important wording. What is too much or not enough? AI is crawling through the responses, if the AI doesn't like your reply does a human investigate? In short, what is the overall process and standards?
I have yet to speak to one person who is scared of providing bullets. What concerns every single one of us are all of the unknowns. Task? Check. Conditions? Check. Standards? Yeah, nah. We don't know the standards or how they (if they even exist) are applied. And one where the task is vague; "approx. 5 bullets." Is that 4-6? Why not say that? Is 3 okay because over halfway to 5? Is 7 too many? A bullet is a single sentence, what if we use two sentences per bullet?
This is why the 5 Bullets directive is dumb and causing concern. No standards, vague orders, no defined end state. Pretty much like a lot of things so far.
Elon Musk admits email to government workers was a ruseI overall agree with this one. The only thing I could think of is the previously posted missive from Elon- "We think that there is some amount of people that absolutely do nothing, don't answer emails at all AND there could be even be dead people on the rolls."
IF I was being the absolute most gracious I could be, I could hypothesize it's not about the content of the answers, but any answer at all.
If it takes 6 minutes to respond to an email and provide your bullets, you get moved off the list. If you don't reply at all, you go on another list- call it the "do you actually exist" list. Now, is there a follow on where the content is explored and then evaluated somewhow? Maybe, but right now, that's not communicated and people are making assumptions, and that's fair. I think the framing of, "They're going to evaluate my livelihood off of five bullets and some AI, and they're going to fire me because of the answers" is a bridge too far until that happens, but again- DOGE owns that assumption because they haven't explained it. Clinton fired 250K federal employees and was lauded for it, but he also involved Congress in those decisions.
To be super clear, until we know what the process is (it hasn't been explained), we will keep having these conversations, and I agree with the overall feeling of "what's going on".