Government At Work (No Irony Here)

Break up has arrived in Anchorage.  It waited until almost April this year, but finally, the messy harbinger of warmer weather, of white replaced by green, is with us. 

Below is a picture of the small lake at the end of my street.  (The Municipality had already sent in plows to scrape the ice off the roads in our subdivision.  They even (for the first time) posted No Parking signs every hundred feet or so in the ice berms the day before.  

So the streets were in good shape on April 1.  It was just at the last 100 feet  to the main road where things were bad.  I had to walk through this obstacle course on my way to and from my volunteer gig at my local elementary school. 

 

Looking from the other side of the lake and ice field.

On Tuesday, March 31, when I got back home,  I called the Street Maintenance Department and explained the problem.

On Thursday, April 2, when I was walking to school, there was a big truck with hoses at the corner, and on my way home, the water was mostly gone, but not the ice.

But by later in the day, the ice was gone too and the sewer drain had been cleared so newly melting snow had a place to go.  If you look closely at the photo below you can see the drain on the left just below the middle - the black rectangle.  

This is a kind of responsiveness we haven't seen in Anchorage for a while.  

People tend to notice government when it doesn't work.  When it's working fine, we take it for granted and don't notice the mostly invisible work being done to keep things running smoothly.  

So I just want to thank Mayor Suzanne LaFrance's administration for being responsive and clearing the streets.  

I'd also note that during the winter, the sidewalk snow plows along Lake Otis - at least between Tudor and Northern Lights - were out early after every snow storm and making a walkable space for pedestrians.  

Why Was Stephen Colbert Told To Pull James Talarico Interview?

Fascist states censor. They want to control what people believe to be true.  

Stephen Colbert interviewed Texas state representative James Talarico, a Democratic candidate for US Senate in Texas.  His opponent in the upcoming primary is Member of Congress Jasmine Crockett.  Both appear to be strong candidates.  Both have Democratic detractors.  Or bots doing it.  I've seen social media posts saying Talarico isn't really a Democrat and will be another Fetterman.  And there are those that say a Black woman can't win in Texas.

But, apparently the White House doesn't want Talarico to be the Democratic candidate.  Watch the Colbert show where Colbert tells us that CBS didn't let him play the Talarico interview, but that you can see it on Youtube.  (By the way, Colbert did interview Jasmine Crockett July 2025.)  (Googling "Colbert interview with Jasmine Crockett July 2025" gave me four pages of links to stories about the Talarico interview!!  I had to work to find the link to the Crockett interview.)

And then watch the interview that was blocked, on Youtube.  

I'm guessing that the Republicans are more concerned that a white guy who's a Christian pastor will be more more competitive against the eventual GOP candidate than a fiery, smart Black woman.  Or they think that it will be easier (and more fun) for them to smear the Black lady than the choir boy.  But there's backlash against Talarico from the left too.

"There's a definite battle waged on behalf of
the old guard "dems" who believe that a safe
white man is always the answer. . ."

I'm not sure they're wrong.  But I'm also not sure they're right.  

We've been told that Texas was going to go blue with Beto O'Rourke and then with Colin Allred , both formidable candidates.  So I'm not counting my Senators before they're elected.  

But Trump's heavy handed misadministration has set up 2026 to be the year of the Democrats. One could well argue that if it doesn't happen this year, it's not going to happen.  But it will eventually, given that the demographic shifts continue.  And that's one reason ICE is trying to deport as many people as possible.  

But non-citizens can't vote and don't vote (no matter how loudly the GOP yell about the need for every voter to prove they are citizens), so at this point they aren't thinning the rolls through deportation.  Though the SAVE Act would have a massive impact on elections.  [The SAVE Act link goes to a post from May last year, and there have been some changes, but you can see this is intended to prevent as many people as possible from voting, particularly those more likely to vote blue, like women.]

From what I've seen, both Talarico and Crockett are formidable candidates.  Will Talarico get more white Christians and maybe get votes from Republicans?  Possibly.  But will a white candidate cause Black voters to skip voting because he beat their bright and most in-your-face Black candidate?  Will Crockett get out the Black vote that other candidates haven't reached?  

Step one is the primary, which has already begun in Texas.  From the Texas Newsroom via the Texas Standard:

"Texas voters can now cast their ballots early for the state’s March 3 party primaries. The results of these elections will determine who represents Republicans and Democrats on the ballot in November.

Despite the important role party primaries play in state politics, Texas has consistently seen low voter turnout for them. Take 2022, during the last midterm election year. During those primaries, only 3 million Texans cast ballots — just 17% percent of the state’s registered voters at the time.

Because relatively few of Texas’ more than 18 million eligible voters show up for these elections, that means those who do vote have an outsize influence on the Lone Star State’s political landscape."

Somewhat relevant to all this is the video below I came across of Texas Rep. Barbara Jordan telling us what impeachment is all about in 1974.  I've been a giant fan of Barbara Jordan since I first came across her about that time.  Just listen to the authority in her voice.  But with no condescension or sarcasm. (or am I missing it?)  If I were doing a movie that had God as a character, her voice would be perfect.  

Some Of The Best Commentary At The Moment

Time is passing on fast forward.  Today is April Fools Day, 2025, but it's hard to come up with anything crazier than what the US president and his team of thugs do every day.  But a few things that happened on this day:

Cory Booker completed his 24 hour plus speech to Congress.  

Wisconsin voters reelected the left-leaning Susan Crawford  to the Wisconsin Supreme Court with 55% of the vote (with 95% of the votes counted) despite (or maybe because of) Elon Musk's various schemes to shower those who voted for her opponent with millions of dollars.

The GOP retained the two Florida seats, vacated so Matt Gaetz could be nominated (unsuccessfully) for Attorney General, and Michael George Glen Waltz could become the U.S. national security advisor and just last week managed to invite Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg into a Signal chat to plan an attack on the Houthis rebels in Yemen.  These are heavily Republican districts - Waltz got 67% of the vote in 2024 - but his replacement only got 56% of the vote this time.  That's still a decisive margin.  

The first video is an interview with Atlantic editor, Jeffrey Goldberg,  byAnne Applebaum, one of his writers at the New Orleans Book Festival.  Those who are attentive to the news, already know most of the information. 

In the second video, Goldberg is the moderator and asks questions of four of his writers, in conversation with Atlantic staff writers  Anne Applebaum, McKay Coppins, Elaina Plott-Calabro, and Adam Serwer.

This one is bubbling with insights about what is happening in the second Trump administration.  Serwer, especially, boils things down to what seem like accurate takes to me. 

Some of the key points:

• speed of destruction - in the first administration, Trump had traditional Republicans keeping him from straying too far beyond the normal boundaries.  Not this time.  Those around him believe in their mission to tear down the evil bureaucracy.
• institutions were slow to accept how much things would change and for the most part hadn't prepared strategies to resist.

I would add that destroying the government in the information age, isn't about destroying buildings, but messing around in the computers - to destroy files, to steal data, to identify 'enemies.'  

If DOGE were blowing up buildings, I suspect Congress would be trying to stop them.  But what they are doing is basically off camera and beyond most people's ability to conceive as 'destroying the United States" as we know it.  People know something bad is happening - particularly when they are directly affected, like when they themselves, or people they know well, lose jobs, their benefits, or people they know get disappeared.  But most of us still haven't felt the real impact yet.  

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 these 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 be (and in many cases probably is) 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.