There’s a logical fallacy I know called ‘distinction without a difference.’ It occurs when an author or speaker attempts to describe a distinction between two things where no discernible difference exists. I think this is the situation with the Education Department. Well, no, that’s not exactly right. I think it occurs in EVERY department that the Administrative branch can’t legally shut down – only Congress can close a department established by Congress – but claim they CAN cut off it’s money and fire the workers.

So, what’s the difference? The various buildings in question aren’t the departments. Besides, these “business geniuses” want to sell the buildings. The departments, themselves, are the functions of the office along with people who perform those functions. The fact that the buildings still exist doesn’t mean the department still exists if nobody does the work. I’m not sure why it’s legal for the current maladministration to dispose of the people and take the department’s money. How are they not, de facto, “closing” the department?

In my opinion, if you eliminate all the workers, you have, for all intents and purposes, “closed” the department. I continue to believe that’s true even if you “only” eliminate so many workers the department can’t function anymore. This all reminds me of that nasty con assoholic, Grover Norquist, when he said, “I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”

It seems to me that if Congress authorizes any given department – you know, like they NEVER have with DOGE – there is an implicit presumption that the department will be staffed and funded. I’d like some help from any of my legal friends. Could a member of Congress sue the maladministration? Don’t get me wrong, I’m clear they won’t. Congress is CLEARLY complicit in the coup. I’m just asking if, in the long-lost Better America, could a member of Congress have sued the Administrative branch for not properly funding a department Congress has established?

The really irksome part is that there’s a goal, here: privatization. It works like this: you underfund and understaff a department, any department. THEN, when that department starts to fail, as it must, you pretend it’s because “government can’t do things right.” THEN you allow private industry to swoop in and take over because, you pretend, private business never makes mistakes (I mean, how stupid ARE you?) and will ALWAYS do the job better and for less money.

I want to say it’s a moron’s game but it’s really just destructive greed. We’ve been privatizing things for quite some time now. That dumbass idea appeared decades ago and cons have continued to push and push and push for “privatization.” Here are three LAWS of privatization:
One, privatization ALWAYS leads to reduced services and reduced efficiency in the long run.
Two, privatization NEVER lowers costs in the long run. BUT…
Three, some self-important, greed-head blowhard gets to stick his grimy and crooked little fingers into the government trough and make off with a nearly endless supply of money.

Of course, in the minds of the self-important, greed-head blowhards, the third law, there, is FAR more important the the first or the second. It’s summed up beautifully in the rock band Weezer’s immortal words: “gimme-gimme, gimme-gimme…”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, how is this not extortion? The First Felon abuses his office and threatens to remove the security clearances and cancel the contracts of a law firm he doesn’t like, primarily because they commonly represent left-leaning issues, or participated in one of the oh-so-many, true and honest legal cases against him. (He’s a petulant little prick, you know.)

So… no, I’m just going to post the paragraph from the Guardian, “To avoid the consequences of Trump’s order, the White House said (emphasis added), the firm had agreed to “take on a wide range of pro bono matters that represent the full spectrum of political viewpoints of our society”. The firm reportedly agreed to disavow the use of diversity, equity and inclusion considerations in its hiring and promotion decisions and to dedicate the equivalent of $40m in free legal services to support Trump administration policies on issues including assistance for veterans and countering antisemitism.”

“Nice little law firm ya got, here. Be a shame if something were to happen to it. I mean, we could protect you from any harm, for, say, $40 million dollars in free services? How does that sound to you?”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think it’s funny to watch Gavin Newsom tacking right – he would say “toward the center” – in an effort to kick off his presidential campaign for 2028. Is there ANYBODY who STILL doesn’t understand that 47 WILL BE “47” for life? I mean, sure, there will be “elections.” Hell, Russia has “elections.” We, the people, get THOSE kind, now. You know, the kind where ‘Dear Leader’ “wins” with 94% of the vote. (That’s 94%, because, realistically, nobody could win 100%. 94% makes it look “honest.”)

So go ahead, Gavin. Keep trashing your own reputation by snuggling up to Steve Bannon and Charlie Kirk in an effort to woo the right. But do yourself a favor: stay out of tall buildings, lest you suddenly “decide” to unexpectedly jump out of a window…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, which speaks more loudly to you, the car sales promotional event The Felon hosted at the White House to promote “Teslers,” or the fact that after just under a year and a half on the roads, Musk’s SwastiTruck – and I mean ALL of them – are being recalled – for the eighth time? Eight times in just under eighteen months! That’s one crappy vehicle people are overpaying for.

Apparently, the rolling crematoriums just… fall apart while you’re driving down the road. Well, no, they don’t “fall apart.” They experience a “rapid unscheduled disassembly.” That’s so much better.

Climbing in to a SwastiTruck gives you options. You might, in fairness, get to where you’re going. You MIGHT burn to death, trapped inside after an accident when it bursts into flame. Then again, you might just experience a refreshing blast of cooling air up your knickers as bits and pieces of your car fall off while you’re cruising down the road. “You pays your money, you takes your chances.” How exciting!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pretty much everybody wants violent foreigners deported when possible, despite what MAGA media tells their adherents. I don’t agree with MAGA on undocumented people who aren’t violent, but I honestly DO understand their position on those who slip past the gates. “They should do it the right way,” is fair, if a bit simplistic. (The “right way” involves a huge number of barriers.)

But now? 47 is revoking Green Cards and other forms of staying here AS legal residents. In short, they DID “do it the right way.” He’s sending them away, anyway. So now there IS no “right way” to immigrate to the US? That kind of makes MAGA look like gullible fools, doesn’t it? “Do it the right way” was the fallback position. It was hard to debate. Now The Felon has destroyed that one, too, leaving them all just looking like a bunch of xenophobic, bigoted rubes.

It’s also a pretty narrow focus on whom, exactly, they want out of the country. So, if you’re brown or poor, there’s no “right way” to enter, but rich white guys are always welcome. Hell, they can even BUY their way in with a $5 million dollar “Gold Card.”

It’s also irritating that he’s revoking people’s LEGAL status based on nothing more than his unsubstantiated assertions that this person or that is a “terrorist sympathizer.” If it’s true, show me the evidence. It SHOULD be easy. “Oh, no, we could NEVER do that,” they say, “it’s a matter of national security.” My, how convenient.

So we’re just left to take the word of someone who lies so often the actual news stories are about when he accidentally tells a truth? I prefer a credible source…