A Friendly Guide to Bureaucracy

Bureaucracy is the collective organizational structure, procedures, protocols, and set of regulations in place to manage activity, usually in large organizations and government.it is represented by standardized procedure (rule-following) that guides the execution of most or all processes within the body;. A bureaucracy traditionally does not create policy but, rather, enacts it. Law, policy, and regulation normally originates from a leadership, which creates the bureaucracy to put them into practice. In reality, the interpretation and execution of policy, etc. can lead to informal influence. A bureaucracy is directly responsible to the leadership that creates it, such as a government executive or board of directors.As a matter of practicality, the bureaucracy is where the individual will interface with an organization such as a government etc., rather than directly with its leadership.

Midwest Voices: I suddenly realized how easy it might be to get “the bureaucracy” working for you. If there existed a “consensus” on what the greater good should be- and maybe even the means to get there (ends justifying the means) by the various ruling elites in this country (and/or world), then the few people willing to take a personal hit for justice might never get his or her message out due to the machinery of the bureaucracy working against them.

The bureaucracy doesn’t question orders or take the initiative to question assumptions. The bureaucracy obeys. And once the government bureaucracy gets moving in a certain direction it isn’t that easy to get it derailed- no matter how idiotic what they are doing seems. It is a self-licking ice cream cone, as some call it. Paradigms are not questioned nor directions changed- until maybe there’s a lot of embarrassing press and Congressional inquiries.

ClimateGate, challenging the “bureaucracy” and “the consensus” that the Global Warming Religionists have built up. And how the media is on board with the “consensus” and unwilling to question it.

Just like Health Care Reform.

Just Like ACORN.

Just Like Cap & Trade.

Just Like “terrorism”, a word a Liberal can’t even think let alone discuss.

The wheels of bureaucracy grind very slowly.

And when the media is in on it. It’s positively Orwellian.

IBD:  Here’s a dirty little secret about the New York Times: It likes to leak things. Important things. Things that change the course of the public conversation. From the Pentagon Papers to the ruined terrorist-surveillance programs of the Bush era, the Times has routinely found that secrecy is a danger and sunlight is a disinfectant.

Until now. A troublesome hacker recently released e-mails going to and from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Britain, e-mails that exposed how the “scientific experts” cited so often by the media on global warming are guilty of crude political talk, attempts at censoring opponents and twisting scientific data to support their policy agenda.

The e-mails prove just how dishonest this left-wing global warming agenda truly is.

And now suddenly, the New York Times has found religion and won’t publish these private e-mails. Environmental reporter Andrew Revkin, who’s more global warming lobbyist than reporter, quoted — sparsely — from the e-mails, but declared that he would not post these texts on his “Dot Earth” blog on the Times Web site: “The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.”

That rule didn’t apply to things like the disclosure of the Swift global bank monitoring program against terrorists.

Unlike our secret terror-fighting efforts, there is no grave matter of national security to protect here. There is only a danger of shredding the undeserved reputation of some global-warming alarmists as nonpartisan, nonideological, just-the-facts scientists with no preconceived environmentalist or statist agenda.

The networks also have ignored this emerging scandal with all the ignorance they could muster.

But in the seven days after the New York Times revealed the existence of an NSA program to monitor communications to terrorist cells abroad, the three networks ran a combined 23 stories about the program, more than one story, per network, per night.

How many have run stories on ClimateGate?

Virtually none, and the few, like CNN’s micro-mini blow-off is about what you get.

It doesn’t fit THEIR agenda.

Their bureaucracy.

Their “perceived wisdom”

Their “consensus”.

So it’s no big deal.

Charles Krauthammer:  The United States has the best health care in the world but, because of its inefficiencies, also the most expensive.

The fundamental problem with the 2,074-page Senate health care bill (as with its 2,014-page House counterpart) is that it wildly compounds the complexity by adding hundreds of new provisions, regulations, mandates, committees and other arbitrary bureaucratic inventions.

Worse, they’re packed into a monstrous package without any regard to each other. The only thing linking these changes — such as the 118 new boards, commissions and programs — is political expediency.

Each must be able to garner just enough votes to pass. There isn’t even a pretense of a unifying vision or conceptual harmony.

The result is an overregulated, overbureaucratized system of surpassing arbitrariness and inefficiency. Throw a dart at the Senate tome:

• You’ll find mandates with financial penalties — the amounts picked out of a hat.

• You’ll find insurance companies (who live and die by their actuarial skills) told exactly what weight to give risk factors, such as age. Currently insurance premiums for 20-somethings are about one-sixth the premiums for 60-somethings. The House bill dictates that the young shall now pay at minimum one-half; the Senate bill, one-third — numbers picked out of a hat.

• Y ou’ll find sliding scales for health-insurance subsidies — randomly picked — that will radically raise marginal income-tax rates for middle-class recipients, among other crazy unintended consequences.

The bill is irredeemable. It should not only be defeated. It should be immolated, its ashes scattered over the Senate swimming pool.

But the Bureaucracy demands to be fed. And the Democrats want to gorge it on 1/6 of GDP of this country.

They believe it benefits them.

The Frankenstein’s Monster of Bureaucracy will be created by them and they will be Frankenstein.

They will still have the illusion of being in control of it.

Even after the creature breaks out and terrorize everyone it won’t be their fault. 🙂

And considering they were off by on Medicare cost projections. They  were 1/9 of the reality and it’s getting worse every day. Can you imagine what this going to look like in your kid’s life time??

God help us all.

(oh, sorry left wingers that was a right-wing extremist evil Christian moment)

Allah Akbar.

Feel better now 🙂

Try Nate Silver, a statistician and liberal-media favorite, recently named one of Time’s 100 Most Influential People. He says scientists in this exchange were unethical:

“Dr. Jones, talking candidly about sexing up a graph to make his conclusions more persuasive. This is not a good thing to do — I’d go so far as to call it unethical — and Jones deserves some of the loss of face that he will suffer.”

But then he adds the typical liberal disclaimer: “Unfortunately, this is the sort of thing that happens all the time in both academia and the private sector — have you ever looked at the graphs in the annual report of a company which had a bad year? And it seems to happen all too often on both sides of the global warming debate.”

When conservatives are wrong, conservatives are wrong. When liberals are wrong, everyone does it, don’t you know?

It’s no big deal.

Nothing to see here.

Hey, did you remember Mark Foley? , wasn’t he just awful… 🙂

In another e-mail from Jones to Mann, the Washington Post reported, there’s talk of cutting skeptical scientists out of the official U.N. report: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

But you can’t take that literally, it was “out of context”. That’s not really what he said… 🙂

But Tea Bag Protests are all shills for Insurance Companies.

And anyone who denies the “consensus” on Global Warming must be a shill for the fossil fuels industry… 🙂

Fascinating, isn’t it folks.

This kind of censor-your-opponents activity ought to disgust a journalist who values openness and rigorous debate above all.

Every day the networks avoid this story, they’re saying they don’t really care about either of those values. In fact, they become willing accomplices in a cover-up of global proportions.

So what else aren’t they willing to tell you? Hmmmm…. 🙂

That is, after they get over their obsession with the couple who crashed the State Dinner, that is.

After all, that is really big news.

And ClimateGate is not.

And the formation of massive new bureaucracies is not either.

Nor is massive tax increases in a recession.

And we all know that bureaucrats are vastly more tolerant, kind, flexible, efficient, and more willing to help you out in a real crisis. 🙂

Don’t worry, be happy.

“Hope and Change” is on it’s way.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s