ADVERTISEMENT

Afghanistan - what a mess by Biden and Trump...

It is your fault I just started this book.

So far, wow, it seems to suggest what we all thought, someone never thought he would win.
I have broad shoulders . . . I can take the blame . . . .

Yeah, it starts that way . . . and over time becomes something of a love letter regarding the US government. We get all kinds of services that we take for granted, at a fraction of the cost that we'd be paying to private providers . . . who likely wouldn't provide the services under any circumstances.

If this is the Deep State that others complain about . . . then sign me up to be a sheep.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marvin the Martian
I have broad shoulders . . . I can take the blame . . . .

Yeah, it starts that way . . . and over time becomes something of a love letter regarding the US government. We get all kinds of services that we take for granted, at a fraction of the cost that we'd be paying to private providers . . . who likely wouldn't provide the services under any circumstcances.

If this is the Deep State that others complain about . . . then sign me up to be a sheep.
I am loving the book. The problem with the US government is it doesn't have a good process for tooting its own horn, I am not far into the book and that is obvious. I just started a new thread on it because the section on the USDA is online.

He mentions the group that recognizes innovation inside the government and how it receives no press (drawback to listening to it on walks, some details such as the group's name I don't have). But the group observed that most of the winners were first-generation Americans. The explanation they provide is that people who come to America from failed nation-states appreciate a government and work to improve it. In America, we take government so much for granted many of us hate it.

The book is making it clear the US government does one hell of a lot that never gets into front-page news. The only time it makes front page news is when something goes wrong which leads to the WRONG perception that all the government does is wrong. The section on the Hanford cleanup is incredible.

We WILL have a long thread on this book when I'm done (unless you want to start it before).

Oh, so far my favorite quote was something like knowledge is bad for a worldview. I think we all create worldviews as a shortcut to make the world simple and easy like relativity. I believe the real world is messy and complex like quantum mechanics. If one wants to keep a worldview that everything is handled by relativity one better never read about quantum.
 
I am loving the book. The problem with the US government is it doesn't have a good process for tooting its own horn, I am not far into the book and that is obvious. I just started a new thread on it because the section on the USDA is online.

He mentions the group that recognizes innovation inside the government and how it receives no press (drawback to listening to it on walks, some details such as the group's name I don't have). But the group observed that most of the winners were first-generation Americans. The explanation they provide is that people who come to America from failed nation-states appreciate a government and work to improve it. In America, we take government so much for granted many of us hate it.

The book is making it clear the US government does one hell of a lot that never gets into front-page news. The only time it makes front page news is when something goes wrong which leads to the WRONG perception that all the government does is wrong. The section on the Hanford cleanup is incredible.

We WILL have a long thread on this book when I'm done (unless you want to start it before).

Oh, so far my favorite quote was something like knowledge is bad for a worldview. I think we all create worldviews as a shortcut to make the world simple and easy like relativity. I believe the real world is messy and complex like quantum mechanics. If one wants to keep a worldview that everything is handled by relativity one better never read about quantum.
I'm just using the book as a means for responding to the "government is bad" and "less government is better, no government is best" mentalities I see here all too frequently. So have at the new thread.

I was floored at the description of the USDA as the "Department of Science". And the description of the DOE as the "Department of Risk Management".

BTW, [spoiler alert] later in the book there's a chapter on NOAA and one of the central themes is why don't people follow up tornado warnings with life-saving action. The story there is incredible . . . and may explain a bit why folks don't get vaccines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_6hv78pr714xta
I'm just using the book as a means for responding to the "government is bad" and "less government is better, no government is best" mentalities I see here all too frequently. So have at the new thread.

I was floored at the description of the USDA as the "Department of Science". And the description of the DOE as the "Department of Risk Management".

BTW, [spoiler alert] later in the book there's a chapter on NOAA and one of the central themes is why don't people follow up tornado warnings with life-saving action. The story there is incredible . . . and may explain a bit why folks don't get vaccines.
I'll probably give the book a read. I don't have much interest in books about the Trump Administration (not much we don't already know or suspect), but it sounds like Lewis' book is more than that.
 
I'll probably give the book a read. I don't have much interest in books about the Trump Administration (not much we don't already know or suspect), but it sounds like Lewis' book is more than that.
Its entry point is the lack of respect that the Trump administration had for its responsibilities as leaders of the governmental departments, but it is more of a primer regarding what the government actually does, and lauds some of the people who've provided those services . . . at a fraction of what those services would likely have cost if provided by the private sector. Reading this book, it's pretty clear that the whole notion that financial incentives are what primarily motivates people is pretty darned ludicrous.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: anon_6hv78pr714xta
It's entry point is the lack of respect that the Trump administration had for its responsibilities as leaders of the governmental departments, but it is more of a primer regarding what the government actually does, and lauds some of the people who've provided those services . . . at a fraction of what those services would likely have cost if provided by the private sector. Reading this book, it's pretty clear that the whole notion that financial incentives are what primarily motivates people is pretty darned ludicrous.
I used to write Medicare hospital payment regs and joked there was an entire industry of health lawyers earning double or triple what I did who were dependent on finding our mistakes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sope Creek
Lol libs. People blame Obama more than Trump.

LOL dbm . . . that article concludes by saying that more Americans are concerned today about domestic terrorism than international terrorism.

Congrats! You've gotten some attention . . . .
 
Its entry point is the lack of respect that the Trump administration had for its responsibilities as leaders of the governmental departments, but it is more of a primer regarding what the government actually does, and lauds some of the people who've provided those services . . . at a fraction of what those services would likely have cost if provided by the private sector. Reading this book, it's pretty clear that the whole notion that financial incentives are what primarily motivates people is pretty darned ludicrous.
I thought his idea near the beginning of the book, that the US government is the largest manager of risk that has ever existed in the history of the world was pretty eye opening.

In corporate risk management settings, does anyone know if there is analysis/discussion of the costs and benefits of decentralizing vs. centralizing risk management? Because that's what the political fight over more/less government could be analogized to, I think.

One thing to be careful of with Lewis is that he often simplifies the story so much to create a protagonist for his story that he doesn't really do a great job of telling the other side of the story. That makes for an easy read and easier to teach subject, but robs the issue of realistic complexity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC and Sope Creek
I have broad shoulders . . . I can take the blame . . . .

Yeah, it starts that way . . . and over time becomes something of a love letter regarding the US government. We get all kinds of services that we take for granted, at a fraction of the cost that we'd be paying to private providers . . . who likely wouldn't provide the services under any circumstances.

If this is the Deep State that others complain about . . . then sign me up to be a sheep.
Your application was approved a long time ago. ;)
 
I used to write Medicare hospital payment regs and joked there was an entire industry of health lawyers earning double or triple what I did who were dependent on finding our mistakes.
I'm sure they weren't disappointed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bawlmer
The equipment figure is about $18 billion from 2001-2018 according to a July 2019 report from the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction. Naturally one of the myriad groups of Trumper trio of stooges, (Boebert, Blackburn, and the Orange one himself) latched on to the $85 Billion for all costs in Afghan figure so they could exaggerate the equipment cost and stir up their base. Must've worked, since you're repeating it here...


When I first read the article you linked, I was astounded that a "military media source" could be so off on the actual amounts, and keep repeating incorrect, highly inflated numbers. You know since the SIGAR had previously issued his official account 2 yrs earlier and anyone connected to the Defense Dept would know the actual facts? So I checked the "about" tab for "American Military News" and discovered it is in no way any accurate military source...

Did you think you were quoting a credible source?

"American Military News LLC is a private media company owned by our Founder and CEO, Kellen Giuda. You can read our mission here.

To contact American Military News please email info@americanmilitarynews.com.

OUR TEAM​


Kellen Giuda
CEO, OWNER
Kellen Giuda is the founder, owner and CEO of American Military News LLC. Giuda previously owned and operated an operations management firm in New York City and Washington, DC and prior to that he was a Project Manager at an architecture firm in downtown Manhattan, NYC.
Giuda is a member of Business Executives for National Security (BENS), the Online News Association (ONA) and the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ).
Giuda grew up in a Navy family moving from base to base and his family eventually settled in New Hampshire where he was raised. He attended the University of Miami and graduated with a Bachelor of Architecture."

So what's next? Somebody is going to repost the lie that Biden looked at his watch during the ceremony, despite the 45 min video from CSPAN (which wasn't edited to score political points) clearly, shows that the vans have driven off and the ceremony has ended before Biden looks at his watch? Are you going to repeat that lie as well...

When someone makes a false claim on FB and doesn't reply (or suddenly disappears) when fact-checkers contact them and ask them to "defend" their claim, that's usually an indicator that if you believe the claim you're being conned... Congrats?
“Somebody is going to repost the lie that Biden looked at his watch during the ceremony, despite the 45 min video from CSPAN (which wasn't edited to score political points) clearly, shows that the vans have driven off and the ceremony has ended before Biden looks at his watch? Are you going to repeat that lie as well...”

I assume you now know that it wasn’t a lie about President Biden checking his watch. This ceremony wasn’t good for him.

 
“Somebody is going to repost the lie that Biden looked at his watch during the ceremony, despite the 45 min video from CSPAN (which wasn't edited to score political points) clearly, shows that the vans have driven off and the ceremony has ended before Biden looks at his watch? Are you going to repeat that lie as well...”

I assume you now know that it wasn’t a lie about President Biden checking his watch. This ceremony wasn’t good for him.

Probably not true he was checking his watch - he probably was checking to make sure he'd washed the blood off his hands.
 
Probably not true he was checking his watch - he probably was checking to make sure he'd washed the blood off his hands.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: 76-1 and DANC
Falls under W t F (?!?) :


Get them out to a third country and then vet them if that's the issue! What the hell is wrong with these people at State...

 
  • Angry
Reactions: Lucy01 and DANC
Falls under W t F (?!?) :


Get them out to a third country and then vet them if that's the issue! What the hell is wrong with these people at State...

Blinken is what's wrong with them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1
Where's all that "leverage" the Biden Administration has been telling us about?

I guess I should have asked: How many pallets of cash will Joe send to the Taliban?
Surely they will give Joe credit for what he already left there? Shows what this libs in charge think of money. They left pallets of it in Afghanistan. It’s no problem to leave. They can print more.
 
Surely they will give Joe credit for what he already left there? Shows what this libs in charge think of money. They left pallets of it in Afghanistan. It’s no problem to leave. They can print more.
OK, patriot,
Tell us what Biden could've done to finish the job Trump started. It's also refreshing to see you didn't say a word about what Trump did before Biden came aboard.
 

Looks like McCain had Blinken figured out:


He may very well be the true architect of this disaster...
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT