I already don't have a full time job. I've used a bit of that job search time to participate in protests and call my reps.
>Even if you are the only one, do it anyway.
It'd be useless. What we lack in power we have in numbers. Protests only work as a collective action.a collective action that can kick out bad reps and replace them with ones who will do their jobs.
Any suggestions? Seems that some of my triggers may be happening already. Perhaps we can go with:
1. Global economic collapse
2. WW III
3. Major Pandemic
4. Martial Law declared (might be too late)
5. Elections cancelled
6. All of the above.
The actual quote is the other way around. What evidence does the parent have for intentions to harm instead of just making stupid cuts, completely inline with their well documented history of simplistic, sledgehammer solutioneering ?
It's hard to take a war on public health measures, public-interest science institutions like NOAA, and public education as evidence of good faith.
It's not as if they're starting where the obvious bloat is (defence, fossil fuel subsidies...) and working back to the rounding errors.
It's entirely predictable supremacism - the doctrine that wealth and skin colour define virtue, and government in the public interest, which interferes with the "freedom" to abuse and exploit inferiors for profit, is an unnatural abomination.
Simplistic, sledgehammer solutioneering is an intention to harm. Randomly firing entire teams whose director feels they are "the 'gold standard' of civic technologists" produces immediate and knowable damage. Nobody who wanted government technology to function well would do such a thing.
Is it possible that they have some other, important objective which can only be achieved by degrading the quality of government technology? In principle. But I haven't seen any explanation of what that objective could possibly be, and I have seen people with arguments for why they think it should not be easy to get access to NOAA weather data and it should not be easy to file your taxes with the IRS.
>What evidence does the parent have for intentions to harm instead of just making stupid cuts, completely inline with their well documented history of simplistic, sledgehammer solutioneering ?
