Wah Wah Wah or Bureaucracy for Bureaucracy's Sake?

I stumbled upon this article from MSN. The headline reads: "Nearly all members of National Park Service advisory panel resign in frustration." I, of course, noting the article was from a leftist source and had something to do with Trump and his surely dastardly administration, assumed it was going to be a typical fear-mongering, Trump-hating, SJW "We're all gonna die!" tripe.

Being the pessimistic optimist I am and with the recent news Trump's Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke had recently reversed some of his decisions about off-shore drilling (which I was rather glad he did), I decided I'd best read the article.

I am also aware of the reality that in many cases, bureaucracy exists for the sake of bureaucracy. Consider, for instance, how likely it is any employee would ever make an argument to their employer that the employee is unnecessary. If it ever happens, it won't be on a large scale. Few people intentionally talk themselves out of a job.

The article begins with the plight of the National Park Service advisory panel. The details are stunning. Why, the certainly soulless Zinke "refused to meet with them or convene a single meeting last year." It gets worse... Then we learn "[t]he resignation of nine out of 12 National Park System Advisory Board members leaves the federal government without a functioning body to designate national historic or natural landmarks"! Alright, that's a thing, but... people, we are far from talking about lives on the line. I mean only that perspective matters.

We are then graciously informed by MSN such behavior "...underscores the extent to which federal advisory bodies have become marginalized under the Trump administration." Well... maybe, but isn't that all of one example? That's like saying your kid is definitely going to become the worst of criminals because he was okay with stealing a candy bar at age five.

Oh... but there is more. And the details are juicy to say the least. It seems Zinke once "suspended all outside committees "! Is this guy outta control or what?!? Revolt! Rebel! The possible designation of national or historic or natural landmarks is in peril! Hold on, what's this? He suspended them "while his staff reviewed their composition and work." Well, that actually could be useful. I would think if you're going to run an organization, it would help to fully know what they're about and do.

We learn also former governor of Alaska Tony Knowles, the board chairman who decided to bounce in, I guess, outrage, wrote a stinging letter to Zinke stating: "...our requests to engage have been ignored and the matters on which we wanted to brief the new Department team are clearly not part of its agenda." The letter was signed by eight other frustrated board members all of which were conceivably on their way out anyway (their terms were set to expire in May).

It seems a little late to say this, but to make a long story short, to the discerning reader, what the article basically does is give you the leftist (MSN's target audience) angle but by reporting simply the truth (the Trump/Zinke angle), causes them to produce, as Rush Limbaugh says, "random acts of journalism". For practically every intended shocking nugget, there follows a rather reasonable explanation for why. Reasonable if one is willing to be informed and critical as opposed to simply outraged.

I say that last bit because I believe it to be true a certain side of the current dominant political ideologies in America is far less interested in truth than emotion but also because of the title of this writing. I stopped reading article when I reached this line: "Two of the Bureau of Land Management's 38 resource advisory councils..." Two of only the BLM's thirty-freaking-eight advisory councils!! A single agency has thirty-eight advisory councils?!? To be a "council" you obviously need more than one person. Who even knows how many people are on these councils. Maybe some of the people on some of these councils works for free, but I doubt it's many.

So, yes, one government agency feels it cannot possibly be effective without thirty-eight councils to advise it. That's not encouraging to me. Then I consider that if that one agency has such an insanely high number of advisory councils, what about the other hundreds of government agencies? Why would not they also have as many advisory councils as possible? What incentive do they have to not expand their size and income? Yes, I am italicizing these words for emphasis. On the one hand, there is the sheer number of "advisers". On the other there is the fact these people simply advise. Are they not also the workers on the ground? Not to say they aren't necessary, but shouldn't it be at least desirable to determine they are?

My point is this: It may be true Zinke isn't doing everything completely right or desirable, but it is also true no one is going to talk themselves out of a job (especially not a cushy one). Instead, that person is going to droll on about how necessary their work and thus they are. So, when I hear that a bunch of dudes quit because they feel they aren't being heard and then learn the guy not doing the listening may just be deciding if they need to keep getting paid, I'm not so quick to feel tremendous sympathy for them and automatically demonize their boss.

UPDATE! One day after making this post, I happened to catch former governor of Alaska and former board chairman of the National Park Service advisory panel, Tony Knowles, on NPR discussing the dire situation with Trump. When asked essentially why his team is important his response was that they have made a lot of progress in (let the suspense build for the totally shocking and not at all predictable answer...) "climate change" and "education". Remember, now, the purpose of the National Park Service advisory panel (according to the very article which brings us here) is to ..."designate national historic or natural landmarks". Sure. I can see how "climate change" and some unspecified claim of  "education" might have a bearing on designating stuff.

Like I said: "bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy." From what I can tell, these jackasses just want to keep the money flowing to them for a cake job.

Somali Police Lady Arrested

Here is a very brief summary of the episode.

It is true all of the reporting on this I'm aware of has given simply the charges; the location of the arrest; the venue; and the sex, nationality, and occupation of the offender. It is also true none of the reporting I have heard or seen on this has made any overt implications. No, no trace of "Aha! And therefore... something about immigration generally or immigration for or against certain countries."

None of that anywhere. However, when I realized that my mind had made that connection, I began wondering why, then, this arrest had received even the attention it had.

While always unwelcome and justifiably upsetting, it's hardly unheard of that some cops some times don't act the way a citizen expects them to. Those instances are often reported. Depending on the press-value, they may become national headlines.

Nearly every account of this story I'm aware of begins by mentioning that this is Maine's first Somali police officer. Why? Sure, yes, I can see it in the way that the first black whatever tends to make headlines simply for being the first black whatever. The link I gave to an article about the arrest is from The San Antonio Express-News, a paper based in Texas. Here's one from The Seattle Times in Seattle, Washington.

The arrest was made in Massachusetts. The officer, from Kenya, lived in Maine. Both of those states are in the northeast of the U.S. Why in the world does a relatively minor story like this (no one was killed, right?) make its way to the headlines of papers literally on the other side of the country and parts in-between?

I cannot help but feel that reason is for the purpose of shaping opinion on immigration.

Make no mistake, I support not only true immigration reform because the policy we've been "acting" under for too long has proven grossly ineffective. I'm even a fan of a merit-based system as opposed to a lottery system. I'm cool with all of that.

I'm also well aware of the fact that Somalia has a bad reputation for a reason. And I'm fine enough with that.

What I'm not so cool with is what occurs to me as the implied message that this one officer may very well be evidence that Somalis are or could be problematic. Of course I can't prove that this is the intent of any of the reporting including even the initial local report. Yet, as I mentioned, why would Seattle care what a lone officer of any background does in Massachusetts?

Yeah, yeah, the "information age" and all that, but still. Is it necessary to publish something simply because its available to you? I doubt it. If that were true, we'd be even more inundated with all sorts of drivel and minutia from across the globe.

My thinking on this may be wrong, but until I'm offered a more plausible reason for the reporting, I'm trusting my gut. And for now, that trust leaves a bad taste in my mouth.