Civil Service - Who Are These People ET Are Firing? - Part II

INTRO:  Part I is here.  

If you find this topic dry and hard to get your head around, then you are half way there.  Because some of the most important things to know about government are dry and hard to get one's head around.  And that makes it easy for politicians to bamboozle voters with falsehoods and misinformation.  

So if you want to understand why ET's firing of civil servants (most of government employees) is a violation of law and various regulations, you'll have to buck up and read carefully.  Even take notes.  

This content is based on testimony I gave in a local discrimination case.  So I had to pare it down to as simple an explanation as possible so that I didn't lose the jury.  The attorney was nervous that his expert would talk over their heads, but when I was done he was relieved that I'd made it very easy to understand.  And the jury said the local government was guilty.

So good luck.   [I explained ET in the Intro to Part I, but it's not critical.]

From a February 19, 2018 post: 

Graham v MOA #9: Exams 2 - Can You Explain These Terms: Merit Principles, Validity, And Reliability?

The Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) Charter [the city's constitution] at Section 5.06(c) mandates the Anchorage Assembly to adopt

“Personnel policy and rules preserving the merit principle of employment.”   AMC 3.30.041 and 3.30.044 explain examination types, content, and procedures consistent with these merit principles.  

Âs defined in the Anchorage Municipal Code Personnel Policies and Rules,

“Examination means objective evaluation of skills, experience, education and other characteristics demonstrating the ability of a person to perform the duties required of a class or position.” (AMC 3.30.005)

[OK, before I lose most of my readers, let me just say, this is important stuff to know to understand why the next posts will look so closely at the engineer test that Jeff Graham did not pass.  But it's also important to understand one of the fundamental principles underlying government in the United States (and other nations.)  And I'd add that the concepts behind merit principles are applied in most large private organizations to some extent, though they may have different names. 

Jeff Graham's attorney made me boil this down to the most basic points to increase the likelihood I wouldn't put the jury to sleep.  So bear with me and keep reading. 

And, you can see an annotated index of all the posts at the Graham v MOA tab above or just link here.]  

Basic Parts of Government In The United States

Governments can be broken down into several parts.

• The elected politicians who pass the laws and set the broad policy directions (legislature)
• The elected executive who carries out the laws.
• The administration is led by the elected executive - the president, the governor at the state level, and the mayor at the city level.
• Civil Service refers to the career government workers who actually carry out the policies.  There are also appointed officials at the highest levels who are exempt from some or all of the civil service rules.

Merit principles are the guidelines for how the career civil servants are governed.  

So What Are Merit Principles?

Probably the most basic, as related to this case, are:

• Employees are chosen solely based on their skills, knowledge, and abilities (SKAs) that are directly related to their performance of the job. 
• The purpose of this is to make government as as effective and efficient as possible by hiring people based on their job related qualities and nothing else.  
• That also means other factors - political affiliation, race, color, nationality, marital status, age, and disability should not be considered in hiring or promotion.  It also means that arbitrary actions and personal favoritism should not be involved. 
• Selection and promotion criteria should be as objective as possible.   

So Steve, what you're saying, this sounds obvious.  What else could there be?

Before the merit system was the Spoils System.  Before merit principles were imposed on government organizations, jobs (the spoils) were given to the victors (winning politicians and their supporters)   The intent of the Merit System is to hire the most qualified candidates.

In 1881, President Garfield was assassinated by a disgruntled job seeker, which spurred Congress to set up the first version of the federal civil service system - The Pendleton Act.

Only a small number of federal positions were covered by this new civil service act, but over the years more and more positions were covered and the procedures improved with improvements in the technology of testing.  The merit system, like any system can be abused, but it's far better than the spoils system.  Objective testing is a big part of applying merit principles.

What does 'objective criteria' mean? 

Objectivity has a couple common and overlapping meanings:

• Grounded on facts.  Grounding your understanding or belief on something concrete, tangible.  Something measurable that different people could 'see' and agree on.
• Unbiased.  A second, implied meaning from the first, is that you make decisions neutrally, as free as you can be from bias, preconceived ideas.  That’s not easy for most people to do, but there are ways to do it better. 

What Ways Can Make  Tests More Objective And Free Of Bias?

I think of objectivity as being on one end of a continuum and subjectivity being on the other end.  No decision is completely objective or subjective, nor should it be.  But generally, the more towards the objective side, the harder it is to introduce personal biases.* 

objective ...............................................................................................subjective

First Let's Define "Test"

In selection and promotion, we have tests. Test is defined as any thing used to weed out candidates, or rank candidates from poor to good.  So even an application form can be a test if it would lead to someone being cut out of the candidate pool.  Say candidates are required to have a college degree and someone doesn’t list one on an application.  They would be eliminated already.  

Again,  how do you make tests more objective?

There are two key terms we need to know:  validity and reliability.

What’s Validity?

Validity means that if a person scores higher on a test, we can expect that person to perform better on the specific job.  

Or saying it another way, the test has to truly test for what is necessary for the job.  So, if candidates without a college degree can do the job as well as candidates with a degree, then using college degree to screen out candidates is NOT valid.  

And what is reliability?

Reliability means that if  a person takes the same test at different times or different places, or with different graders, the person should get a very similar result.  Each test situation needs to have the same conditions, whether you take the test on Monday or on Wednesday, in LA or Anchorage, with Mr. X or Miss Y administering and/or grading the test.  

How Validity and Reliability Relate To Each Other

To be valid, the selection or promotion test must be a good predictor of success on the job. People who score high on the exam, should perform the job better than those who score low.  And people who score low should perform worse on the job than people who score high. 

BUT, even if the test is intrinsically valid, the way it is administered could invalidate it.  If the test is not also reliable (testing and grading is consistent enough that different test takers will get a very similar score regardless of when or where they take the test and regardless of who scores the test) the test will no longer be valid.  This is because the scores will no longer be good predictors of who will do well on the job. 

How do you go about testing for validity and reliability?

This can get complicated, especially for  factors that are not easy to measure.  I didn't go into this during the trial.  I wanted to point out some pages in a national Fire Safety Instructor Training Manual used by the Municipality of Anchorage, but I was not allowed to mention it.  It talks about different levels of validity and how to test for them.  It also says that for 'high stakes' tests, like promotion tests, experts should be hired to validate the test.  The jury didn't get to hear about this. But it's relevant because as I wrote in an earlier post, the people in charge of testing, and specifically in charge of the engineer exam, only had Level I certification, which allows them to administer training and testing designed by someone with Level II certification.  It's at Level II that validity and reliability are covered.  

There really wasn't need to get detailed in the trial, because the oral exam was so egregiously invalid and unreliable that you could just look at it and see the problems.  And we'll do that in the next posts. 

That should be enough but for people who want to know more about this, I'll give a bit more below.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Extra Credit

*"the harder it is to introduce bias"  There are always ways that bias can be introduced, from unconscious bias to intentionally thwarting the system.   When civil service was introduced in the United States, there was 'common understanding' that women were not qualified for most jobs.  That was a form of bias.  Blacks were also assumed to be unqualified for most jobs.  Over the years many of these sorts of cultural barriers have been taken down.  But people have found other ways to surreptitiously obstruct barriers.  

Merit Principles

If you want to know more about merit principles I'd refer you to the Merit System Protection Board that was set up as part of the Merit System Reform Act of 1978.  

A little more about reliability problems (because these are important to understand about the engineer promotion exam)

In the main part of this post I wrote that all the important (could affect the score) conditions of the test need to be the same no matter where or when or with whom a candidate takes the test.  Here are some more details

• Location - If one location is less comfortable - temperature, noise, furniture, lighting, whatever - it could skew the scores of test takers there.
• Time -  could be a problem in different ways.  
• All candidates must have the same amount of time to take the test.  
• Instructions - all instructions have to be identical
• Security of the test questions - if some applicants know the questions in advance and others do not, the test is not reliable.

The scoring, too, has to be consistent from grader to grader for each applicant. 

And there are numerous ways that scoring a test can go wrong.

• Grader bias  - conscious and unconscious.   Raters who know the candidates may rate them differently than people who don’t know them at all. 
• The Halo effect means if you have a positive view of the candidate, you’re likely to give him or her more slack.  You think, 'I know they know this.' 
• The Horn or Devil Effect is the opposite - If you already have a negative opinion about a candidate, you consciously or unconsciously give that a candidate less credit.  These are well documented biases.
• Testing order bias affects graders and candidates.  
• After three poor candidates, a mediocre candidate may look good to graders.  

• Grading Standards - Is the grading scale clear and of a kind that the graders are familiar with?
• Are the expected answers and how to score them clear to the graders?
• Do the graders have enough time to calculate the scores consistently?
• Grader Training -
•  If they aren't well trained, it could take a while to figure out how to use their scoring techniques, so they score different at the end from the beginning. 

How Do You Overcome the Biases In More Subjective Tests Like Essays, Interviews, and Oral Exams?

Despite the popularity of job interviews, experts agree that they are among the most biased and result in the least accurate predictions of candidate job performane.  Or see this link.

You have to construct standardized, objective rubrics and grading scales - this is critical, particularly for essay and oral exams.

On November 9, 2016 when the electoral college vote totals were tallied, everyone saw the same facts, the same results.  But half the country thought the numbers were good and half thought they were bad. When evaluating the facts of a job or promotion candidate, the organization has to agree, before hand, what ‘good’ facts look like and what ‘bad’ facts look like. Good ones are valid ones - they are accurate predictors of who is more likely to be successful in the position.   Good and bad are determined by the test maker, not by the graders.  The graders merely test whether the performance matches the pre-determined standard of a good performance.

What’s a rubric?

It’s where you describe in as much detail as possible what a good answer looks like.  If you’re looking at content, you identify the key ideas in the answer, and possibly how many points a candidate should get if they mention each of those ideas.  It has to be as objective as possible. The Fire Safety Instructor Training Manual has some examples, but even those aren't as strong as they could be. 

Good rubrics take a lot of thought - but it's thought that helps you clarify and communicate what a good answer means so that different graders give the same answer the same score.

Here are some examples: 
UC Berkeley Graduate Student Instructors Training
Society For Human Resource Management - This example doesn't explicitly tell graders what the scores (1,2, 3, 4, 5) look like, as the previous one does.
BARS - Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales - This is an article on using BARS to grade Structured Interviews.  Look particularly at Appendices A & B. 
How Olympic Ice Skating is Scored - I couldn't find an actual scoring sheet, but this gives an overall explanation of the process.

My experience is that good rubrics force graders to ground their scores on something concrete, but they can also miss interesting and unexpected things.  It's useful for graders to score each candidate independently, and then discuss why they gave the scores they did - particularly those whose scores vary from most of the scores.  Individual graders may know more about the topic which gives their scores more value.  Or may not have paid close attention.   Ultimately, it comes down to an individual making a judgment.  Otherwise we could just let machines grade.  But the more precise the scoring rubric, the easier it is to detect bias in the graders. 


Accountability

Q:  What if a candidate thinks she got the answer right on a question, but it was scored wrong?

Everything in the test has to be documented.  Candidates should be able to see what questions they missed and how they were scored.  If the test key had an error, they should be able to challenge it. 

Q:  Are you saying everything needs to be documented?

If there is going to be any accountability each candidate’s test and each grader’s score sheets must be maintained so that if there are questions about whether a test was graded correctly and consistently from candidate to candidate, it can be checked. 

In the case of an oral exam or interview, at least an audio (if not video) record should be kept so that reviewers can see what was actually said at the time by the candidate and the graders. 

Q:  Have you strayed a bit from the Merit Principles?

Not at all. This all goes back to the key Merit Principle - selecting and promoting the most qualified candidates for the job.  There won’t be 100% accuracy. But in general, if the test is valid,  a high score will correlate with a high job performance.  But unless the test is also reliable, it won’t be valid. The more reliable the test, the more consistent the scores will be under different conditions and graders.  The best way to make tests more reliable is to make them as objective as possible.

Civil Service - Who Are These People ET Are Firing? - Part I

Intro:  Civil Service and Merit System are terms most Americans have heard, but I'd guess that few could tell you, very accurately, what they mean or anything about their history or why they are important bedrocks of American democracy.  

Part I - is a repeat of a post I put up last August 31, 2025.  Part II will be another old post.  It gets into more detail and is based on testimony I gave in a discrimination case years ago.  Although there will be repetition, I'm sure that will be helpful for readers to grasp the concepts. 

This topic is critical to understanding why what is happening right now is both illegal and will lead to serious damage to the U.S. government's ability to efficiently and effectively serve the people of the United States.  

*ET - my conflation of Elon and Trump, though someone else thought it meant Evil Tyrant.  Evil Twins might also work.  Maybe Elon and Trump can journey to Mars and it can then have its original meaning of Extra Terrestrial.  

From the August 31, 2024 post:

From the August 31, 2024 LA Times: [Note the digital and facsimile editions have different titles.]

 

As someone who taught public administration at the graduate level, I'm well aware of the lack of knowledge of what 'the civil service' is.  So let me give you some background.  

Before the civil service was created in local, state, and federal governments, we had what is often called "the spoils system."

Briefly, 'to the victor, go the spoils.'  Winning candidates gave jobs to the campaign supporters.  This was the payoff for working on a campaign.  Qualifications were not nearly as important as loyalty.  This included positions as low as garbage collector and as high as the head of the budget.  

Aside from the incompetence and corruption this led to, it also meant that whenever someone from a different party won, the whole government was thrown out and new people were put in place.  And had to learn from scratch, generally without any help from the fired former workers.

Political machines, like Tammany Hall in New York, would recruit new immigrants coming off the ships to work on their campaigns with the promise of a job if they won.  [US citizenship was not required to vote back then.  That changed later.  The Constitution gave the states the power to run elections and decide qualifications to vote.  The Constitution didn't ban women from voting, the states did.]

At the national level, this came to a head when Andrew Jackson was elected president and invited 'the riffraff' that elected him to the White House in 1830.  But it wasn't until a disgruntled office seeker assassinated President Garfield in 1881 because he didn't get the position he sought, that Congress got serious. 

In 1883 they passed the Pendleton Act that set up a civil service system based on merit.  

Merit, as in the 'merit system' means that positions are filled based on merit, or on one's qualifications for the job, not on who you know.  

Local governments in New York and Boston didn't move to merit systems until the early 20th Century.  

Those merit systems weren't perfect.  The inherent biases of the day meant that women and Blacks weren't qualified except for what Trump would call 'women's jobs' and 'Black jobs.'  

And even today, the top level jobs in most governments are still filled with people who are loyal to the head of the government - whether that's a mayor, governor, or president.   Not only does that include cabinet officials but a top layer of 'exempt' positions.  Exempt meaning they are not covered by the merit system.  They can be hired and fired at will.  Usually the newly elected official picks people based on their loyalty to the policy as well as their professional qualifications to do the job.  But clearly that second part doesn't always happen.  The only check on this, is a required vote of approval by a legislative body - the US or state Senate, a City Council.  But if the newly elected executive  has a majority in the legislative branch too, that approval is often pro forma.

People hired through a merit system process also have job protections.  They cannot be fired except for cause - for violating the law, the policies or procedures, for gross incompetence etc.  Whereas the appointed (exempt) positions don't have such protections.  

After his 2016 election, Trump was frequently frustrated by career civil servants, who didn't jump to follow his often illegal instructions. The media have dubbed these people (who included many appointed positions as well) 'the guardrails' that kept Trump somewhat in line. He wanted the Justice Department to punish people who opposed him.  He did battle with the civil servants in various regulatory agencies who followed the law rather than Trump's illegal bidding.  

So, when we hear that Trump wants to destroy the civil service, as stated in the LA Times headline above, this is what we're talking about.  

He doesn't want a system that hires qualified people who cannot be fired except for cause.  (Again, for cause, means they have to do something that violates the laws, the rules, or is grossly incompetent or corrupt.)  He wants government workers that do his bidding without any resistance, without them telling him 'it's against the law.'

He wants to fire all those people who were hired based on merit (their qualifications to perform the job).  These include Democrats, Republicans, and non-partisan employees.  He wants to replace them with people whose main qualification is undying loyalty to Trump.  

That's pretty much all I want to say.

One of the very best books on this subject is Robert Caro's The Power Broker.  It's a biography of Robert Moses who played a major role in getting a merit system in place in New York.  It's a massive [1168 pages] book.  But it is also riveting as it goes into detail on how the young, idealist Moses evolved into the powerful and corrupt power broker of New York. And in doing so tells the story of the civil service. Not only did the book win the Pulitzer Prize, it was also selected on most lists of the 100 best non-fiction books of the 20th Century. I challenge you to read the first hundred pages and not want to keep turning the pages.

Introduction to Robert Caro's The Power Broker 

Part II is here.

Whoops, Forgot the Title: Tech Bro Plans For The Future

[Overview:  The key here is the video.  Find 30 minutes to watch/listen.  It puts lots of important things into place.  The rest of the post includes thoughts I had about the video and the people described in it.  Something about the narrator of the video.  But the video is the important thing.  It's not just someone's opinion - it's a well documented overview of the role of the billionaire tech bros in the Trump election and administration

This video came across my screen this morning.  It offers much more depth to the previous post  that said a coup was happening.  While we all knew that the tech guys were involved - Musk, of course, and that Peter Thiel bought Vance's election to the Senate and the vice presidential nomination, etc. - my impression had been that Project 2025 had been something from the Heritage Foundation - (from the ACLU):

"Project 2025 is a federal policy agenda and blueprint for a radical restructuring of the executive branch authored and published by former Trump administration officials in partnership with The Heritage Foundation, a longstanding conservative think tank that opposes abortion and reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, immigrants’ rights, and racial equity."

The Heritage Foundation has been around a long time and among other things, created a whole conservative law society that groomed right wing attorneys with their ideology and got them onto the Supreme Court.  

But this video outlines a different set of influences for Project 2025 - libertarian leaning, billionaire tech bros.  And as we watch live - but not like we watched January 6 live - Elon Musk sucking up government data, this video makes much more sense of what's happening and why.   

   

Here's an outline of the video from the YouTube channel:

"chapters

00:00-01:00 Introduction

01:01-04:25 The Dark Agenda of Tech VCs

04:26-07:10 Networks and Patchworks: Reinventing the State

07:11- 09:44 Praxis and Pronomos

09:45 –12:37 Making it a Reality 

12:38 –18:03 Vance, Thiel, and Yarvin

18:04 –19:28 Tech and Project 2025

19:29-20:00 Butterfly Revolution Step 1: Campaign on Autocracy

20:01-21:42 Butterfly Revolution Step 2: Purge the Bureaucracy 

21:43-23:00 Butterfly Revolution Step 3: Ignore the Courts

23:01-23:50 Butterfly Revolution Step 4: Co-Opt the Congress

23:51-25:06 Butterfly Revolution Step 5: Centralise Police and Powers

25:07-27:54 Butterfly Revolution Step 6: Shut Down Elite Media and Academic Institutions

27:55-28:35 Butterfly Revolution Step 7: Turn Out the People

28:36-29:40 Conclusion"

While this may make things seem worse, I'd argue that this guys had the right set of skills to get rich in the tech age in the US, but their smarts are limited.  As Musk has shown with Twitter, there are important interpersonal skills he's lacking.  When I read Atlas Shrugged in my late teens, it only took me about 150 pages to realize how repulsive the main characters were.  But these guys think they know much more than they do, and want to create a libertarian world where they are free from government interference, where they are the government (and thus free to interfere with others.)

Now, I can understand how a bunch of rich techies with no serious background in the history of government, liberty, democracy, etc. can feel oppressed by government that seems to (and in many cases probably is) be a bit behind the changing technologies, but is trying to apply regulations to the industry and, even worse, tax their earnings.  But that's only because they think their tech ability and the fact they got rich makes them smarter than everyone else.  Sort of like doctors who think they have expertise in every other field beyond medicine.  

So while I expect they're going to do a lot of damage to democracy, the world economy, and the planet* (by not fighting climate change particularly), I also think they're going to have a lot of failures and a lot of disagreements with each other and with the older legal far right architects of the US move to fascism.  

But understanding what's happening is the first step to effective corrective steps.  

* "doing damage to . . .the planet" - I'd like to clarify that 'damage to the planet' is a human-centric idea.  The planet, it seems to me, follows the laws of nature.  Does a volcano do damage to the planet?  I'd say it changes the planet, but 'damage' is a word that judges the change negative.  Climate change will make life more difficult for many plants and animals.  Some will probably thrive.  As I think about this, probably the only 'objective' use of 'damage the planet' would be to describe its total annihilation at which point pieces of the earth would, I guess, scatter in space, and still exist, but in a different way.  

Who is the narrator, Blonde Politics/The Silly Serious? 

Finally, I've never seen this YouTube presenter before,  I was impressed with the presentation, but I did want to at least minimally vet her before sharing with my readers.  So I did look her up.  Here's what I found in a quick search.  She's Australian Joanna Richards.

"Hey.

I am a writer, actor, and academic.

I love to create art, and feel fortunate to be able to blend my various interests to create meaningful work. Above all else, I love to laugh, and make others laugh! Using art to tackle important and controversial topics, I hope to create work that challenges people without making them feel defensive.

My academic research focuses on the relationship between gender, political authority, and language philosophy. I frequently appear in print and on television to discuss issues relating to gender and representation. Sometimes I am on tv pretending to be someone else!

Please reach out if you want to chat.

Affliations

Institute for Governance Policy Analysis - Doctor of Philosophy (in progress)
University of Canberra - Bachelor of Philosophy (First Class Honours)
Moscow Art Theatre School - Fine Arts Conservatory (Stanislavski Intensive)

Australian National University - Bachelor of International Relations"

The reach out seems serious.  At the bottom of the page it says:  

"email: hello@joannarichards.com     Currently in: New York City"

   

Solano, California - one of the cities tech bros are trying to create  

On the video, Joanna talks about one the tech bros billionaires goals to build private tech, corporate owned cities.  Which made me think of stories I read when I still had a subscription to the LA Times about tech billionaires buying up land in northern California to build such a city.  Only the story didn't get into the more sinister underpinnings Joanna mentions.  You can read an AP story about this here.  They did qualify to put the proposal on the ballot, but later withdrew it.  But they're planning to be back in 2026.  And as I listened to the video again, Joanna does mention Solano. (about 11:40 in the video).

[Let me add one more note:  I'm using Tech Bros as the technical term for white men who get rich through IT and generally think they know more than everyone else and that the rule of law doesn't apply to them.  This definition is open for editing.]

The Coup Is Happening But Media Aren't Treating It That Way

There's a coup happening in DC.  There's no other way to describe it. 

The president is nominating and the Senate is approving candidates whose basic qualifications are loyalty to the president. 

He's illegally firing employees and  shutting down federal funding to the states.  

He's implemented 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada.  

The Republicans in the Senate are approving his nominees.  

He's fired all the heads of agencies that deal with airline travel and safety, then blamed two crashes on Biden, women,  and people of color.  The new N word is DEI.  

He's fired a large number of federal attorneys and FBI agents.  

He's wiping out all traces of programs that work for justice for people who aren't white hetero males.

His unelected, unapproved, honorary vice president (some argue the true president) Elon Musk has slipped into key agencies and people are worried he's collecting data for his own business uses and other nefarious purposes.

Gutting important health and other websites.

He's released water from a dam in California that was being saved up for when it's needed in the summer.  

This is just a tiny fraction of the acts he's taken.  

Even if Congress stood up to Trump, he would simply ignore them and do what he wants.  Who is to stop him?  (I'll try to address this question in another post.)

What seems to drive his decisions?  There seem to be four key factors, though readers can probably think of others:

• Getting everyone to focus on Trump.  He just can't deal with being ignored or criticized
• Punish those who don't kowtow to his whims
• Whip up the fear and anger of his supporters
• Reward his wealthy supporters

No mainstream media mention coup yet

While the main media outlets might mention his actions, none that I've seen have put it all together and called it a coup.  When I google Trump coup - everything that comes up is about January 6, 2021. Cyber coups are as easy to convey visually as military coups.  

But on social media, people are starting to call this what it is.  Here are just a couple of examples:

From Bluesky/ was bustling with coup references today.

"But the longer we fail to recognize the current situation for what it is—a slow-rolling coup attempt—the longer it will take for us to recover."

A privatization coup of the US government?

[image or embed]

— David Corn (@davidcorn.bsky.social) February 1, 2025 at 3:25 PM

Not just a coup but a coup by a corrupt Putin- and Nazi-aligned foreigner. Too bad we no longer have a real DOJ.

— Andrew Wallingford (@andrewwallingford.bsky.social) February 1, 2025 at 2:02 PM

Another step in the coup & Trump still doesn’t realize Musk has taken charge.

[image or embed]

— Dana Houle (@danahoule.bsky.social) February 1, 2025 at 10:00 AM

https://spoutible.com/. didn't offer as many examples when I searched for 'coup'

Even on Musk's own Twitter people are calling it a coup

We are in the middle of a fast moving putsch, a right wing authoritarian coup, a five alarm fire, and our media are treating it as if it were a little backyard bonfire.

— Norman Ornstein (@NormOrnstein) February 1, 2025

If this isn’t a coup d’etat, I don’t know what is. Someone not elected to office is methodically taking full control of the United States government. pic.twitter.com/zxUMcsFv8G

— Senator Scott Wiener (@Scott_Wiener) February 2, 2025

Elon Musk is staging a coup. Was that not clear? https://t.co/AcCNI1caNK

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) February 1, 2025

Democrats are still talking about winning the 2026 Congressional races, as if there will be free and fair elections.  But Trump's team has studied all the possible ways to disenfranchise opposition voters and ways to game the electoral process, I can't imagine that the next elections will be conducted with a fat thumb on the scales.  

At the moment, most people are living pretty much the way they were six months ago.  Except for dark skinned immigrants, pregnant women with complications, LGBTQ folks, people are still going about their lives relatively normally.  

They haven't grasped that soon they will be affected.  Maybe when disaster funds are withheld, or people they work with disappear, or their health care or social security are sharply reduced or disappear.  

But most authoritarian governments in world history end.  Some faster than others.  Find ways to resist in your community - whether it's joining a group, contacting your federal representatives on a regular basis, confronting disinformation when you hear it, and many other ways.  Here's Robert Reich's list of ten things to do to resist.  

I'd note Reich reminds people to find joy in their lives - get out and appreciate the beauty of nature, of art, music, a meal with family and friends, play with your pets.  

Agave, The Beach, Ethiopian Food, Bumps

 I'd like to write a post about key problems our democratic system hasn't been able to handle - like preventing a convicted rapist, etc. from being elected president.  Not the comparatively less important issues that pop up on social media and mainstream media headlines focused on this or that person or event, but the truly serious systemic failures.  The inability of the justice system to mete out timely justice to a well financed presidential candidate.  The inability of the First Amendment to cope with propaganda magnified by social media which rewards people for spreading lies and outrage, and enables foreign enemies to stoke fears and spread dissension.  

But that's a much longer post that requires a lot of documentation.  

So I was just going to put up some photos today

Agave

I wrote succulent on the photo titles, but agave was also in my head.  The link above on agave proved me right.  The first one is down the street. 

The second one is in my mom's front yard.  They don't bloom that often, but when they do they're impressive.  This flower is about 9 feet long.  I'm not sure how, in this droughty climate, it manages to stay upright.

There was a humming bird filling its tank, but it didn't wait around for me to get my phone out.  

There are speed bumps on the street, but these natural obtrusions - the roots from the Italian Stoney Pine trees - are much more effective.  If you don't navigate this just right, your car is going to make serious noises as the bottom hits elevated parts of the street.  There are others with cones up the street, but this one goes almost all the way across the street.  Where the cone is, it's higher than the curb.  

We hear this all the time, even cars going very, very slowly.  You have to go all the way over to this side of the street to get by without notifying the neighbors that you are there.  And then there are the cars that don't slow down before hitting this.  

This is a good example of the importance of good government.  The cost to drivers - at repair shops and then increased insurance costs - probably will be greater than the cost of repairing the street.  Though the street has been repaired and the roots come roaring back.  Other benefits of a good government are less tangible. Say the benefits of a good school system.  You just don't see the immediate effects of a bad school system the way you see (and hear) the impacts of these gnarly streets.  

It's also a reminder that if people disappeared, much of human activity would be hidden by nature reclaiming its space.  

We had dinner at an Ethiopian restaurant.  Underneath is the bread - injera - a spongy, pliable food that you tear off and use to scoop up the food.  We ordered two vegetarian combos and one serving of lamb.  (In the middle.) We also got extra injera  to use until we could easily get to the injera underneath.  

On Fairfax, between Pico and Olympic, is a row of Ethiopian restaurants and shops.  

Today (Monday) the ladies drove to the beach and I biked down to meet them.  It's not exactly warm by LA standards - in the mid to high 50sF - and there seemed to be a mix of fog and haze in the distance in most directions.  But there's something about sitting on the sand and having the waves pounding.  Enough to lure this guy in the picture into the surf.  I used to swim all year as well when I was a student at UCLA.  I worked as a noon duty aid and after school playground director at an elementary school in Pacific Palisades.  All my classes were early morning.  Between lunch and afterschool, I'd honda down to the beach where a regular group of guys played volleyball and body surfed.  

This guy was sitting with his bike and surfboard a little in front of us.  At some point he was getting ready to leave.  He pulled out a brush and started brushing sand off everything - the surfboard, the backpack, his wetsuit, his feet before putting on his shoes.  Then got the surfboard strapped onto the backpack and made his way to the boardwalk.  

I just wiped the sand off my feet with my hands before I put on my shoes and biked home.  But I'm intrigued by his use of the brush.  

Some Much Needed Civil Service History

From the August 31, 2024 LA Times: [Note the digital and facsimile editions have different titles.]

 

As someone who taught public administration at the graduate level, I'm well aware of the lack of knowledge of what 'the civil service' is.  So let me give you some background.  

Before the civil service was created in local, state, and federal governments, we had what is often called "the spoils system."

Briefly, 'to the victor, go the spoils.'  Winning candidates gave jobs to the campaign supporters.  This was the payoff for working on a campaign.  Qualifications were not nearly as important as loyalty.  This included positions as low as garbage collector and as high as the head of the budget.  

Aside from the incompetence and corruption this led to, it also meant that whenever someone from a different party won, the whole government was thrown out and new people were put in place.  And had to learn from scratch, generally without any help from the fired former workers.

Political machines, like Tammany Hall in New York, would recruit new immigrants coming off the ships to work on their campaigns with the promise of a job if they won.  [US citizenship was not required to vote back then.  That changed later.  The Constitution gave the states the power to run elections and decide qualifications to vote.  The Constitution didn't ban women from voting, the states did.]

At the national level, this came to a head when Andrew Jackson was elected president and invited 'the riffraff' that elected him to the White House in 1830.  But it wasn't until a disgruntled office seeker assassinated President Garfield in 1881 because he didn't get the position he sought, that Congress got serious. 

In 1883 they passed the Pendleton Act that set up a civil service system based on merit.  

Merit, as in the 'merit system' means that positions are filled based on merit, or on one's qualifications for the job, not on who you know.  

Local governments in New York and Boston didn't move to merit systems until the early 20th Century.  

Those merit systems weren't perfect.  The inherent biases of the day meant that women and Blacks weren't qualified except for what Trump would call 'women's jobs' and 'Black jobs.'  

And even today, the top level jobs in most governments are still filled with people who are loyal to the head of the government - whether that's a mayor, governor, or president.   Not only does that include cabinet officials but a top layer of 'exempt' positions.  Exempt meaning they are not covered by the merit system.  They can be hired and fired at will.  Usually the newly elected official picks people based on their loyalty to the policy as well as their professional qualifications to do the job.  But clearly that second part doesn't always happen.  The only check on this, is a required vote of approval by a legislative body - the US or state Senate, a City Council.  But if the newly elected executive  has a majority in the legislative branch too, that approval is often pro forma.

People hired through a merit system process also have job protections.  They cannot be fired except for cause - for violating the law, the policies or procedures, for gross incompetence etc.  Whereas the appointed (exempt) positions don't have such protections.  

After his 2016 election, Trump was frequently frustrated by career civil servants, who didn't jump to follow his often illegal instructions. The media have dubbed these people (who included many appointed positions as well) 'the guardrails' that kept Trump somewhat in line. He wanted the Justice Department to punish people who opposed him.  He did battle with the civil servants in various regulatory agencies who followed the law rather than Trump's illegal bidding.  

So, when we hear that Trump wants to destroy the civil service, as stated in the LA Times headline above, this is what we're talking about.  

He doesn't want a system that hires qualified people who cannot be fired except for cause.  (Again, for cause, means they have to do something that violates the laws, the rules, or is grossly incompetent or corrupt.)  He wants government workers that do his bidding without any resistance, without them telling him 'it's against the law.'

He wants to fire all those people who were hired based on merit (their qualifications to perform the job).  These include Democrats, Republicans, and non-partisan employees.  He wants to replace them with people whose main qualification is undying loyalty to Trump.  

That's pretty much all I want to say.

One of the very best books on this subject is Robert Caro's The Power Broker.  It's a biography of Robert Moses who played a major role in getting a merit system in place in New York.  It's a massive [1168 pages] book.  But it is also riveting as it goes into detail on how the young, idealist Moses evolved into the powerful and corrupt power broker of New York. And in doing so tells the story of the civil service. Not only did the book win the Pulitzer Prize, it was also selected on most lists of the 100 best non-fiction books of the 20th Century. I challenge you to read the first hundred pages and not want to keep turning the pages.

This Lady Has Put It All Together For You

 A good, clear, emphatic explanation of why people need to vote every election for Democrats.  She explains how the government works for people who don't seem to get that presidents can't do most things without Congress.  How the Supreme Court can also stymie and president, especially the one that the Federalist Society has stacked in favor of the rich and against most people - especially people of color and women.  

It won't take long and it will seem to go by faster because of how she presents it.  

This is one to share with others, particularly those who don't vote cause "it's not their thing."    

US Political Accountability Is Badly Broken

[There are so many forces and issues intertwined.  Every day there are new shocking reports to support one thing or another that I argue here.  This is several drafts along and so I'm just going to post it.  Yes, we are in crisis and I'll probably be writing more about the nature of the crisis.  Here the focus in on the lack of accountability.]

The reports of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' benefits from wealthy benefactors who have interests in the outcome of Supreme Court cases has already told us things weren't working.  

The fact that people who participated in the January 6 insurrection are still in their Congressional seats and voting like other members of Congress, also tells us this.

The fact that most Republicans in Congress voted against Trump's impeachments, and continue to support him publicly and take no action on corrupt Republican Senators and Members of Congress, tells us that accountability is broken. 

The report on Rep. George Santos says it once again, loud and clear.  Our accountability of elected officials and Supreme Court justices is broken.  From the Table of Contents of the report released last week:: 

"III. FINDINGS........................................................................................................ 10

A. OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS ......................................................................................... 10

B. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL LAW, HOUSE RULES, AND OTHER

APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT ......................................................................... 13

 1. 2. 3.

C.

1. 2. 3.

Campaign Finance Violations............................................................................ 13 Willful and Knowing Financial Disclosure Violations ...................................... 37 Lack of Diligence and Candor During the ISC Investigation............................ 48

OTHER ALLEGATIONS REVIEWED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE..................................... 51 

Sexual Misconduct Allegation ............................................................................ 51 Conflict of Interest Violations ............................................................................ 52 Additional Allegations Charged by the Department of Justice.......................... 54"

You can read the complete report here. 

WHAT DO I MEAN BY BROKEN?

One could argue that the release of this report on Santos, and his subsequent announcement that he will not be running for reelection, shows that there is accountability.  

The problem is that we have known of evidence of widespread wrongdoing by Santos since shortly after he was elected.  Nevertheless, he's been allowed to serve as a Member of Congress, influencing US public policy through his committee work, public announcements, and votes all this time.  And unless the House votes to expel him, he'll continue doing that until his successor is sworn in.  

In most any other job, if employees are found to have lied on their applications or resumes, have been found to have violated organizational rules, or state or federal laws, they can be fired immediately.  At the very least they can be put on suspension and not allowed to continue using their position for personal gain or to otherwise work against the interests of the organization.  It's trickier to remove an elected official because one can argue 'they were elected by the people in their district." But we still have procedures to do it.  Republicans just won't do it for one of their own.  

Accountability Too Slow

Santos shouldn't have lasted this long.  Trump is using all the courts' protections for the innocent to delay his trials as long as possible.  Just the other day Judge Cannon is allowing delays that mean the classified documents case won't be decided before the 2024 election.  This clearly should be an expedited trial.  The consequences of stealing secret documents, showing them to unauthorized eyes, and probably selling them to enemy nations should be high priority and fast tracked.  

Supreme Court justices continue to rule on cases that have horrendous consequences for democracy.  Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has outlined four types of cases on which the conservative  Justices consistently vote together to help large corporation get their way:  [The link includes his time at the Amy Coney Barrett hearings.  This court background discussion begins around minute 21 on the video.]

1. unlimited dark money; 
2. knock down the civil jury trial down; 
3. weaken regulatory agencies  
4. voter suppression and gerrymandering  on that weaken government powers to regulate, voting rights, women's rights, etc. even though it's now clear that there is no accountability for clearly corrupt judges, and we're moving very slowly if at all to correcting that.  

In other presentations I've heard him include anti-labor cases.  The point is that these are all decisions that significantly weaken opposition to large corporations.  And there are further conflicts of interest due to Justices owning stock that is affected by their rulings on cases before them.  

Corrupted Officials

Republicans in the US Senate refused to impeach Trump despite overwhelming evidence of wrong doing.  They've allowed January 6 co-conspirators to remain in Congress.  

• the lust for power and fear of losing it - Republicans are afraid to buck the party because they fear  loss of GOP funds and the Republican voters in the next primary. They won't hold their colleagues accountable because they fear losing their majority in the House.  They support a Supreme Court that looks the other way in the face of gerrymandering that keeps many Republicans in power.
• the lust for the prestige of being in Congress - Maybe they don't care that much for power, but rather they enjoy the prestige and privileges that come with being a Member of Congress.  The same issues arise as for the lust for power.
• the lust for money for campaigns and personal benefit - Money for campaigns is intertwined with lust for power and prestige.  But Members of Congress also get hefty salaries, travel, health insurance, and retirements.  Additionally there are other opportunities to get richer than they already are.  Staying loyal to their corrupt party seems to be the safest way to hold onto these benefits.  
• mental slowness - I first labeled this 'utter stupidity' but that seemed too simplified.  

• short term thinking - as Republicans reveled in the ending of Roe, they didn't see the backlash that was coming.  And while they feel the need to cater to rabid Trump cultists to win the primary, they fail to see how their actions (and inactions) mean greater risks of losing in the general elections.  And even if they are in a highly gerrymandered district and will win, they are likely to lose the majority in the House.
• sheltered thinking - their beliefs and prejudices are reinforced by the people they spend their time with.  They see people who don't agree with them as caricatures  of evil rather than as rational human beings with different, but reasonable world views
• lack of empathy for others - whether they are sociopaths or have other afflictions that allow them no sense of understanding of other people's issues and problems
• inability to break from outdated (if ever even accurate) explanations of how the world works - things like individual responsibility even in a society that favors some over the many; religious and racial stereotypes; belief in the correlation between work and worthiness even as automation makes much work unnecessary and wealthy people need not work at all; belief that money and power will solve all their problems; 
• lack of analytic abilities - they can't understand the complexities of modern life and are stuck on simplistic and black and white explanations

Additionally, Republicans in the Senate allow Senator Tuberman to block appointments of military officers and others to delay the appointment of judges and high government officials.  For various reasons - 

Blocking military appointments only hurts our military readiness and can only help our military adversaries.  Blocking judicial and senior civil service positions, some argue, fits in with the Project 2025 [see below] blueprint, by keeping these positions vacant making it easier for Trump, in a second presidency, to fill them with his loyalists.  

The Republicans in Congress allow (and in many cases support) all the dragging out of these delays.  They refuse to work with Democrats to speed up the accountability of the egregiously guilty.  

HOW ARE THINGS DIFFERENT TODAY THAT MAKES THIS MORE OF A PROBLEM?

In the past, the idea of Democracy was never at stake.  Notice I said 'idea of Democracy.'  For non-whites and non-Christians democracy in the US has been spotty to non-existent.  Voting rights didn't exist for Blacks in the South and their courts were made up of all white juries. US citizens of Japanese descent were locked into camps during WW II and their property taken over by whites.  Immigrants have always been vilified.  Native Americans were displaced and massacred.   

But for white politicians, the idea of Democracy was pretty sacred.  The US was touted as the bastion of democracy in a world of dictators.  

Today, that's not the case.  To say that the election is about Democracy vs. Authoritarianism (whether that be Fascist, White Christian, or whatever democratic antonym is probably not that crucial)  simply is NOT an exaggeration.

You think people like me are alarmist?  Even long time Right Wing Anchorage Times and then Anchorage Daily News columnist Paul Jenkins says democracy is at stake.

"Trump is a danger to US democracy. How can so many good people still support him?"

Just take a look at Project 2025.  (The link is to Wikipedia which is written in a calm, pseudo-objective tone. If democracy and fascism are both equally moral and viable option, that might be ok.  But they aren't.  If you don't read it carefully, you might not see the real danger.  Sentences like:

"Project 2025 seeks to place the entire Executive Branch of the U.S. federal government under direct presidential control, eliminating the independence of the Department of Justice, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission and other agencies.[4]"

For people who don't have a deep understanding of how our government works, that sentence might not be alarming.  But trust me, it is the path to an all powerful president.    

Even NPR's (Here and Now) interview with a key author of Project 2025, while pushing back some, doesn't really give the sense of how this is a full blown attempt to overthrow Democracy.  While they talk about getting rid of 50,000 civil servants by making them 'at will' employees (who can be fired for no reason), they don't mention the long struggle to set up a merit system which hires people based on qualifications for the job rather than political allegiance and which protects civil servants against political firing by requiring their dismissal be based on just cause (such as not doing their job as required by law.)  Despite GOP rhetoric, staffing the government with educated and dedicated civil servants is a good thing if you want a government that runs well and provides the public the services they want and need.  But not if you want to use government to carry out your personal vendettas.

Project 2025 is a Heritage Foundation plan to give the next Republican president the power to obliterate the obstacles that would keep a Trump from controlling the US government as he sees fit.  It eliminates safeguards, it puts Trump's sycophants into power - the kind of people who told him the 2020 election was rigged and that he actually won.  It's a blueprint for taking down Democracy and setting up an authoritarian government.  It's written by the type of people spent 40 years plotting to pack the Supreme Court with Right wing extremists who ignored precedent to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Prior to the Trump presidency, we had lots of lines that politician's didn't cross.  They respected the many unwritten rules because, for most, they had a sense of decency and propriety.  For other because violating them would lead to censure or expelling.  But Trump and his supporters see those lines as challenges.  How many can they mow right over?

Trump violated every such rule that got in his way.  To the point that overthrowing Democracy and replacing the Constitution with the Bible seem to be reasonable to large numbers of people - including the current Speaker of the US House of Representatives.   

We've got January 6 enablers still serving in the Congress.  This would not have been accepted before Trump.  

The Heritage Foundation is behind Project 2025 - aligned surely with the Federalist Society that planned the takeover of the Supreme Court for forty years.  This is not just a band of crazies ready to attack at Trump's command.  Those crazies are are more sophisticated and more than willing to use Trump's cult as their attack dogs.  

The Supreme Court, restructured by Federalist Society judges that Trump dutifully appointed, has overturned long standing precedents - like Roe v Wade - even though each of the Trump nominees swore that such long standing precedents would be respected.  

• Political Violence Is One Of Those Lines

Nancy Pelosi's husband was attacked in her house in San Francisco by a Right Wing conspiracy consuming fanatic and the prospect of more political violence aimed at elected officials, judges, and election officials is on the rise.  

From AP via Anchorage Daily News Nov 19, 2023

The Trump types are using the slow and deliberate court processes to subvert justice.  We've never had an ex-president under multiple indictments who was also running for president again.  There's an urgency to these cases because they are running up against the election deadline.  The Trump team ignores the basic standards and pushes everything way past normal standards of conduct.  Because an ex-president is on trial and because the court's aren't used to this kind of a full court press, they continue to use constraint and deference as if we were in normal times.  We aren't.  I'm not asking judges to go around the law. I'm asking them to stand up to the bully defendants and not tolerate the flouting of their orders.  

SO, ARE YOU SAYING DEMOCRACY IS DOOMED?

If we don't take every action necessary to prevent Trump or any Republican from winning the 2024 election, Democracy as we know it is doomed.  

Senate and House Obstacles 

The US Senate is, in essence, gerrymandered by the Constitutional requirement that every state has two US Senators.  That wasn't a big deal in 1800 when state populations were comparatively (by today's standards) even.  But today state's like Alaska and Wyoming have fewer than one million people and get two Senators just like California with 39 million people.  And the smaller, more rural states tend to be redder.

"With the even split in the current Senate, the 50 Democratic senators represent 56.5% of the voters, while the 50 Republican senators represent just 43.5% of the voters. In 2018, the Democrats won nearly 18 million more votes for Senate than the Republicans, but the Republicans still gained two seats." (From the Brookings Institute)

In the House, the slim Republican majority is almost certainly the result of Republican gerrymandering of districts so that Democrats were either pushed into one or two districts or scattered into Republican majority districts.  

The US Supreme Court Leans Way Right

It used to be that Republican Supreme Court Justices used the Constitution as their guide for making decisions.  Today's Federalist Society judges use a pro-business ideology to find ways to twist the Constitution to favor the rich over the poor.  Individual rights - like abortion rights, voting rights - suffer.  How the Supreme Court will rule if the 2024 election is challenged by Trump does not give me hope.  

Another Insurrection, but larger

Trump persuaded lots of people to come to the Capitol on January 6 to try to stop the Congress from ratifying the election.  Many of them have been convicted of various crimes.  How many others are out there who are ready to make armed protests should Trump lose again?  

People support Trump for various reasons.  The US economy has shifted and good working class jobs no longer pay as well or are lifetime guarantees.  The array of GOP tax cuts for the rich over the years has created a an unbalanced division of wealth, with the top 10% controlling nearly 70% of US  wealth!

People's lives and prospects are not as good as they were.

With greater legal protections for women and people of color, there are more people competing for jobs.  Before the 1960s, white males were the only people competing for the better jobs.  The Republicans have convinced many of those white males, that the decline is because women and non-whites are taking over.  That's what the extreme abortion laws are about and the diatribes against immigration.  Arrows aimed straight at the emotional parts of the Trump cult members.  

IS THERE ANY HOPE?

Part of me takes hope from the elections, particularly those related for abortion, since the 2022 election.  The vast majority of voters do not support Trump.  It's possible the Trump team and the wealthy conservatives they are proxy for to simply collapse.  I hope that happens.  But I also don't want to be in shock the way we were after Clinton lost in 2016.  We need to be in shock now.  If we work harder than necessary to win, that's better than not trying hard enough and losing.

NPR reported that 80 million people DID NOT VOTE in 2020.  That's a lot of votes.  Convincing 10 million of them that Trump means the end of Democracy, would save Democracy, for now.  

But with all the lies and conspiracy theories, with mainstream media acting like the GOP is a normal party to be treated with respect, and with the many calls for violence, I'm convinced that the Trump campaign will do everything it can to obstruct voters, to subvert the election, and to repeat Jan 6 type insurrections, but with more discipline, if they lose again.  Trump's biggest incentive right now would appear to get back the power to pardon, starting with pardoning himself.  

So the votes have to be so strongly for the Democrat that there is no question about who won.  And that will take a lot of grassroots organizing to get non-voters educated and voting.