• SADIE

    One man, one letter on one day. I acknowledge there are hundreds and thousands of places where people work like a salmon swimming upstream. Unfortunately and miserably, we’re paying the salaries and perks of these pricks, who having never swam upstream or crossed a river or waded in a pool they didn’t pee in!

    David Wright, director of the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) in the Department Of Health And Human Services quit his job, writing a scathing resignation letter that was published by the website ScienceInsider. In the letter he claimed most of his time was spent negotiating his way through the dysfunctional federal bureaucracy making his time at ORI “the very worst job I have ever had.”
     
     
    http://www.yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2014/03/hhs-official-resigns-viahhs- official-resigns-via   

     

    • JKB

      Ah, that is DC.  When I was assigned there, to our headquarters, I found that regardless of what idea I had three people aligned against it for no particular reason.  And it was hardly ever the same three people.  I take it that this bureaucracy.  
       
      Just read this on the topic by Captain Capitalism:  The Mel Gibson Career Paradox

  • JKB

    A couple days ago, Tyler Cowen had a post about Daniel Hannan’s book(How the English-Speaking Peoples Made the Modern World) where he opined about having a bit of sentimentality when he visited the birthplace of liberty, i.e., England.  The pushback in the comments is telling or sad, I can’t quite settle.  Such as, England, liberty but empire.  Or a comment I just saw equating the Englishman’s liberty with the German’s welfare state in the 19th century.  Guess which one the commenter thinks was best.  
    *Inventing Freedom*
     
    Admittedly, I was commenting off of, hmm, the top of my head, but to the argument that the rights and liberties were initially only afforded the Englishmen, I followed this thought:
     
    We can think of the “rights of Englishmen” as a patent. For a time, the Englishman enjoyed the rights, refined the rights, and profited from the rights. But even before the patent ran out, the rights were being copied by others. And eventually all Englishmen claims were cast aside and the invention was open to all comers for use, improvement and advancement. One wonders, would those rights have been permitted out of the laboratory of thought if their ultimate transformative effect on the lowest in the social/economic order was known? The inventors had selfish interests and hoped for personal profit from the invention of rights. It is doubtful they ever considered the broader market for the invention or the new ways they would be employed to create the modern world. 

  • Ron19
    • JKB

      EPA: Ban Bossy

    • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

      Ponds are only for elite Democrats to enjoy.

  • JKB