Right, and I think that, ethically speaking, the stopping of funds should come only after an investigation that shows extensive corruption and waste. If there were no legal mechanism in place allowing this freezing of funds, then how is it being effected. It's a genuine question since I know little about the US system.

The point about DOGE's activities is that NOBODY knows on what basis all of these wild claims about 'fraud and corruption' are being made. — Wayfarer

You are assuming the claims have no substance. How could you know that? And also, you are forgetting "waste". One man's waste is another man's judicious spending. the American people voted for Trump and so will be subject to his definition of waste.

How could you know that? — Janus

Because they have been vetted by nobody. Musk and Trump will trot out these claims that U.S.A.I.D. is a 'criminal organisation' and roll their eyes about 'massive fraud and waste', and millions of the uninformed will believe it. But the funds they've frozen, and the programs they've cut, have already been approved by Congress. And Congress is the House of Representatives, they represent 'the people'. So people like you, uninformed and only interested in stirring the pot, will simply believe what you read, without actually reading much. Musk and Trump have no intrinsic right to act without congressional consent. That is why every one of his executive orders - every one! - is under challenge in the court system.

If there were no legal mechanism in place allowing this freezing of funds, then how is it being effected. It's a genuine question since I know little about the US system. — Janus

The Executive Branch has the prerogative of writing orders that many times are challenged by Judicial Branch objections. These can come from both Federal and State courts. The question at the moment is whether such restrictions will be respected.

According to the Constitution, it is the Legislative Branch that has power over the purse, and it is only under particular periods of crisis that the Executive Branch can intervene upon the process. Due to the present ubiquity of the GOP over all branches of Government, the jealousy of the Legislative Branch, which has often flared up in the past at their loss of power, has been neutered.

How are they actually stopping the people responsible for disbursing the funds from disbursing them? Can you answer that?

"Stiirng the pot"! You presumptuous person! I am interested in understanding what is going on, and I don't just believe anything I read, I try to understand both sides of the argument and reserve judgement until more information comes to light, unlike hysterical people like you who are always jumping ti unwarranted conclusions on some moral crusade.

So, it would seem the legality of what the DOGE are doing turns on the question of whether or not this is a "time of crisis"?

So, it would seem the legality of what the DOGE are doing turns on the question of whether or not this is a "time of crisis"? — Janus

I don't think so. In the past, there was a general agreement among the Branches that the shit had hit the fan before such a move. And a lot of that involved bad decisions. The legality of the present decisions turns upon respecting the rule of law concerning the separation of powers. That one of those powers checks out in a rubber room until the outcome is complete is not a question of legality, per se.

Are past precedents always the best guides to action? Some would think the currently precarious situation the US (and the world) is in qualifies as a time of crisis. As I said earlier this is a significant development, it is certainly no "business as usual". But what is really needed? Just more business as usual? Don't get me wrong—I don't agree with much of what Trump seems to be doing and least of all with his (lack of) environmental policies.

It's going to be very interesting to see how this all pans out.

How are they actually stopping the people responsible for disbursing the funds from disbursing them? Can you answer that? — Janus

They’re going into the actual offices where the metaphorical ‘cheques are being written’ and saying ‘stop writing that cheque.’ This is what all of the clamour is about. One of the heads of the Treasury resigned over it on the spot, rather than let what he saw as unqualified outsiders into these systems.

The dismantling of U.S.A.I.D was a particularly pernicious example of that. 10,000 overseas workers were summarily locked out of their computer systems and told they were being recalled, practically overnight. Musk made a wisecrack about ‘staying up all night feeding U.S.A.I.D into the woodchipper’ instead of going to parties. These USAID services provide poverty relief, medical and related services in many situations of dire poverty and distress - like helping fit Ukrainian veterans with prosthetics and treating HIV/AIDS in Africa or distributing emergency food aid in Somalia. US foreign aid was a lifeline for hundreds of thousands of people. But Musk declared it a ‘criminal organisation’ and it was shut down practically overnight. These are all facts, which have been reported in the media. Do you think it is ‘hysterical’ to report on these facts, or to express abhorrence for what has taken place?

It is indeed a time of crisis, but Trump is pouring gasoline on the flames. Don’t forget he was under indictment for crimes against the State when elected, and had he not been, faced the very real prospect of prison time. And that is not ‘being hysterical’, it is a statement of fact.

And, sure, it’s already been said - cut foreign aid, dismantle the agency - that is what was voted for. That would normally be thrashed out in Congress, the passing of legislation, arguments from both sides. What is being objected to is not that, but rule by decree, carried out by an unelected representative, who just happens also to be the World’s Richest Man.

I live here and i don't know what precedents are helpful at this point. The proposed changes involve the fortunes of my family and friends. Your question of "But what is really needed?" is the right one to ask.

But for me and mine, the question is how do we survive the storm.

I am not seeing a lot of references to Rousseau's or Land's actual statements In the comments as yet. Will this be forthcoming?

I am not seeing a lot of references to Rousseau's or Land's actual statements In the comments as yet. Will this be forthcoming? — Paine

It is really important, if one wants to understand this, not to be hypnotized by what's going on now, but to get one's head around the background - Land, and then accelerationism. But it will take time and effort. Still, this is clearly not going to be a nine-day wonder, so it will likely be worth it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gESbfgDRozw

https://youtu.be/9nPTHiPPCak?si=LwDnI4L_lFepLmRZ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbN2pkAFN2Q

And you cannot make this up, it's so hilarious:

Remember when Trump ridiculed the idea of tanks running on electric motors as obvious woke nonsense? See here starting at 1:00:



And now, the Defense Department is buying 400 million worth of "electric armoured vehicles" from Tesla. :rofl:

And uh oh, as that doesn't look good, so they ditched the "Tesla" and just use a generic term, but who on Earth thinks there's going to be any bidding process. Those contracts are the reason Elon is so interested in working at the White House. :wink:

(The Guardian, 13th Feb 2025)The US Department of State has removed the name “Tesla” from a list of planned purchases, after an earlier version of the list said it would spend $400m buying new electric armoured vehicles, even as the carmaker’s boss, Elon Musk, leads efforts to slash government spending under Donald Trump.

A procurement forecast produced by the department showed the $400m (£320m) proposed spending on “armoured Tesla (production units)” in December. The most likely Tesla model was the Cybertruck, the company’s electric pickup, given Musk’s claims that the vehicle is bulletproof.

However, a spokesperson for the department said the document was incorrect, and should have been a generic entry reading “electric vehicle manufacturer”. The department said the order was on hold.

Nevertheless, the listing raises the possibility of more conflicts of interest for Musk, who is one of the biggest beneficiaries of US government contracts through the companies he controls.

And as Elon's Tesla cars are facing hard times as it is now a political statement to buy a Tesla, Elon surely will need those government contracts for sure!

Another day in Corruptoland...

Are you saying that Land's thesis is germane to the attempts of the present administration?

Nick Land?

frank has proposed that the ascendancy of Trump is an outcome of the processes discussed by Nick Land, whose essay is available here.

:up: I don't know anything about US politics, I just know what I don't like. :wink:

Well, Land refers to your neck of the woods more than the U.S.A. For example, Singapore gets a big thumbs up.

Could be. It would be fair to say I take very little interest in politics,

What then, is your interest in the present topic?

To see what others who are interested think and why. I said “little” interest not no interest.

Okay. Read the essay and get back to me.

I often work with politicians and bureaucrats and find the enterprise fairly disgusting. I understand the attractions of an authoritarian and technocratic state like Singapore. The streets are clean and safe. Just don’t talk about human rights. Seems to me the era of neoliberalism is ending and a new bunch of corporate elite are in charge. There guys don’t fuck around with niceties. Surprising it hasn’t come sooner. The left has become a cultural left of identity politics and has surrendered its reformist left origins. Class is dead, Rorty seemed to be onto this 30 years ago.

Suddenly, you are in the game.

‘Trump administration officials fired more than 300 staffers Thursday night at the National Nuclear Security Administration — the agency tasked with managing the nation’s nuclear stockpile — as part of broader Energy Department layoffs, according to four people with knowledge of the matter.’ :yikes:

@Wayfarer - you probably saw this.

Elon Musk's DOGE agency is at the centre of controversy in the US. So what is it?

It suggests the main game might be setting up "Government by AI"... Not at all concerning, that. All good.

What could possibly go wrong?

Are you saying that Land's thesis is germane to the attempts of the present administration? — Paine

It was written in 2012. Call it deep background for philosophers. But it's not analytic philosophy. It's written in the context of post-modernism and articulates what was going on at the time in a dialectical framework. It's easier to follow than much stuff that goes under the label of post-modernism, but it's a wild ride nonetheless. No, I don't buy it, but I think I understand the issues better - and why Musk and Trump are behaving as they are.

You also need to get your head around accelerationism as well. Try Andy Beckett in the Guardian of 11 May 2017 or a Google search for "accelerationism.

It suggests the main game might be setting up "Government by AI"... Not at all concerning, that. All good. — Banno

Perhaps. But has links that suggest a more mundane motivation, and that's almost a relief.

Nothing about Elon Musk activities or demeanour are a source of relief. He is almost a Hollywood caricature, a Bond movie villain. But unfortunately, it’s not a movie.

I did say "almost" a relief. Don't get me wrong. This stuff is really scary. Philosophy is a way of coping, given that there's nothing I can do about it.

He is almost a Hollywood caricature, a Bond movie villain — Wayfarer

True.