Reasonable people can disagree about whether, ultimately, she deserved to lose her job or whether anyone in charge during such an incident would have to resign. But it’s probably not pure chance that Pierson, who held that position for just a year-and-a-half, was a woman. Time and again, women are put in charge only when there’s a mess, and if they can’t engineer a quick cleanup, they’re shoved out the door. The academics Michelle Ryan and Alex Haslam even coined a term for this phenomenon: They call it getting pushed over the glass cliff.In other words, put the blame where it belongs. Pierson didn't hire herself. As I put it yesterday: "It's as if they thought having a female director would fix — image-fix — their women-related problems." It's really quite gross that they brought a women to clean up after the prostitutes in the hotel room. Like she's the maid!
Pierson was, in fact, explicitly brought in to clean up a mess. When President Obama nominated her last year, it was on the heels of news that Secret Service employees hired prostitutes in Cartagena, Colombia ahead of the president’s arrival. Pierson was meant to be a breath of fresh feminine air to clear out the macho cobwebs still dogging the agency....
Breath of fresh feminine air, indeed. There was stale feminine air in the room, those horrible prostitutes. But I don't want to hear about feminine "air." Men had a problem, men chose to make a woman look like the solution, men continued to screw up, and men chose to the political theater of ousting the woman in another effort at a solution.
I'm not sure if all my uses of the word "men" in that last sentence are correct. I'm sure the first one is, and I'm pretty sure the third one is, but the second and fourth ones are iffy. There is at least one man, however, who should be held responsible for the choice to hire Pierson and the choice to oust her, and that is Obama. I don't know who else was in on that choice, and Obama being a man with quite a few female advisers, I don't really think they were all men.
पोस्ट्स
१२६ टिप्पण्या:
men continued to screw up,
Both men and women continued to screw up.
Yeah, Obama put her in there in part because people who think like the people in this article think, thought she would change things. That there was importance to her being female.
And no, she couldn't fix things because she wasn't up for the job. She wasn't put in the job because she had the skills to fix it. She was put in the job because she had the right chromosomes.
In other words, the problems with the Secret Service aren't unsolvable. She wasn't qualified to solve them. Not because of her gender, but because she was over-promoted because of her gender.
New Republic could take this to the logical next step which is that hiring and firing and promotion should instead be based on merit and not identity politics, as the latter can lead to more situations like this where a woman is in the position of taking the fall.
There are many jobs that women have no business filling (and the same for men). If the hiring agent doesn't know that uncomfortable truth, the women themselves should at least be honestly self-aware enough to not apply, or accept the job, if offered.
This was Obama's primal mistake. He should have known he was not Presidential material, even though he was able to fool the voters.
And if a not-for-women-job, say a quite physical one, could theoretically be filled competently by someone like, say, Serena Williams, then that just makes my point. It's not a job for (normal) women.
Reality is so constructed that you can ignore it, if you wish to. You will NOT, however, be able to ignore the consequences of ignoring it. It's constructed that way, too.
I listened to This American Life about the Fed Regulators yesterday. One problem discussed was how afraid underlings are to contradict their superiors or even bring them problems. The same has been reported as the problem at the Secret Service.
The VA fired people who brought up the problem with the secret waiting lists.
There is obviously an overarching culture in government jobs that does not encourage excellence.That has to change, and it doesn't take one gender or another to do it. But it does take a strong leader at the top.
"In other words, put the blame where it belongs. ... There is at least one man, however, who should be held responsible for the choice to hire Pierson and the choice to oust her, and that is Obama."
Well, yes. And to finish the thought about "put[ting] the blame where it belongs" for allowing Obama to be in that position, the group mostly responsible is American women (the men having voted against him in both elections).
Leaders lead us to a place the see in a vision of who we are and what we can do. That is Obama's problem.
Obama sees us as horrible and greedy people that need to be destroyed. So that is where he is leading us as he laughs at the ease with which he dictates alternate reality smoke screen through media sock puppets claim to see a great intelligence.
"Time and again, women are put in charge only when there’s a mess, and if they can’t engineer a quick cleanup, they’re shoved out the door"
Holy shit! if you can't change that culture in 18 months by instilling discipline, something is wrong. In fact, it has gotten worse than just skipping out on paying hookers, now the secret service seems to have a problem performing their basic mission. I don' think it has anything to do with her gender but lefties want to support the whole #waronwomen campaign theme so we get dreck like this.
Whether of not you believe in this "glass cliff" concept, there has to be accountability somewhere along the way. It wasn't like someone held a gun to Julia Pierson's head, she was offered a job. She could have chosen to turn it down. Are women so featherbrained that they can't be held accountable for anything?
Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not suggesting that it was all her fault. This administration seems to have a serious leadership vacuum in all areas, and there's really only one man who bares ultimate responsibility.
Don't organizations bring in ... men to do the same thing, and also fire them when it doesn't work, for the same damned reason*?
(* That reason being that the fix is a bandaid on a compound fracture, either not intended or not allowed to address the underlying issue properly.)
As bad as the Obama on the elevator with the contractor incident was, what made her resignation mandatory was the fact that she tried to prevent the normal investigation of the incident.
It was a decision she made, not a problem she inherited, that did her in.
The ideological women are the answer to all problems is a smoke screen. It is not working, of course. It might work the day a Joni Ernst type woman is promoted to real power.
It is not their gender that makes a successful leader person. It is their world view and their discernment between good people and bad people to do the work, and their faith in a good God. That is what makes one a successful leader in America.
As I recall, the Secret Service agent in the best position to stop that man from coming through the door was a woman.
I put the blame on a culture and mindset that thinks that "feminine values" wouold fix a situation where good old-fashioned discinpline and attention to orders, along with some judicious firings, was clearly needed. Since Pierson was picked by the Obama administration, she almost certainly is a member of that culture and shares that mindset, so she gets a piece of the blame. It's not that woman couldn't do the job - I am sure the right one could - it's just that Pierson clearly not that woman.
Yes and no. Julia Pierson could not change the Secret Service by herself any more than Eric Shinseki could change the Veteran's Administration. And Shinseki was a 4-star general in his previous incarnation.
And a man, but out he went, just like Pierson.
If there is any wisdom to be gained here, it is that you should not take a job as a mere figurehead and flak-catcher for a wilfully and intentionally imcompetent administration.
Covert doesn't offer much credit to Pierson. Is it because the former director was a woman? He certainly has a low opinion of women's ability to lead.
Perhaps the problem is comprehensive and did not originate with the Secret Service. Perhaps the problem is progressive and it was coincidental that the dysfunctional convergence was realized in the Secret Service.
Actually, we have conclusive evidence that this is both a systemic and progressive condition. There's something about centralization (e.g. monopolies) which promotes corruption among people. It did not begin with the current administration, but is has been amplified with present policies.
It's revealing to observe the difference in treatment of Palin and Pierson. This controversy is not about women. It's not even about men. Consider the difference in treatment of Nixon and Obama. This is about political and social leverage.
Reasonable people can disagree about whether, ultimately, she deserved to lose her job or whether anyone in charge during such an incident would have to resign.
No. Given the level of screw-ups and the disregard of the law (i.e., failure to report and follow up on the CDC elevator incident) anyone so obviously and so thoroughly in over her head would have to be asked to resign.
The original screw-up was caused by our gummint promotion of the institution of marriage. Marriage is often a prison institution for women and a growing number besides prostitutes are liberating themselves and their partners from it.
Married Secret Service men surely have the right to sleep with their wives when off-duty, so why shouldn't single (or even married) ones have the right to entertain hookers in a hotel room?
The argument is that the SS guys who entertain hookers open themselves up to blackmail, which was the old and tired argument used to deny opportunities to gays and lesbians.
Solving the blackmail problem requires that our gummint admit the obvious and explicitly state that sex between or among consenting adults in any position is none of the gummint's business, whether paid for or given away for free.
@SomeoneHastoSayIt, lots of people desire the power, perks, and prestige of high office. But few seem to grasp that it comes with an in-basket.
Only in government is the solution to "A lot of people have been hiring hookers," "Let's promote a woman!"
In the private sector, it would have been more, "Well, fire them all. Maybe turn them over to the authorities. Now, replace my staff with people who understand that prostitutes are not welcome during work hours."
Bull Time and again, women are put in charge only when there’s a mess, and if they can’t engineer a quick cleanup, they’re shoved out the door.
as I pointed out yesterday:
From the Examiner Story Agents became alarmed during Obama’s trip to Atlanta after discovering that a private security contractor working for the CDC with a criminal record had a gun within arms-length of the president, but superiors told them not to file "any paperwork" or initiate an investigation, according to two sources familiar with the case.
Secret Service Director Julia Pierson asked a senior officer to stay behind in Atlanta to handle the situation, but there was no formal review of the matter.
Well before the president travels, Secret Service advance teams extensively screen anyone who comes in close proximity with the president for criminal records and no one but cleared law enforcement officers are allowed to carry guns.
Cover-up of a fuck-up, not a Glass-cliff
TNR may be apt with that "glass cliff" metaphor, but not in the way it thinks.
Isn't the "glass ceiling" metaphor meant to explain the unseen barrier preventing the ascendency of women, which might otherwise be confused for the normal tendency not to rise because of gravity?
So, wouldn't a "glass cliff" imply something unseen holding somebody up against gravity in the first place, namely politically correct gender preference, until some event required that unseen, artificial platform to be withdrawn?
Move the Secret Service back to the Treasury Department.
It is not possible, of course, that overlooking other qualifications beyond being a member of a protected class led to the placement of unqualified people, ahem, into important jobs.
This is how Europe screwed up for so many centuries, placing incompetent aristocrats with the politically correct bloodlines into positions of power.
But I have it on strong authority that that is not what is happening hear on account of lefty ideology.
This is definitely a skirmish in the
war on women. Blatant misogyny.
Skyler said...
As I recall, the Secret Service agent in the best position to stop that man from coming through the door was a woman.
Usually female cops are better at defusing confrontations, but have a more compressed range of options. e.g. talk to them, shoot them, where men have the intimidate and baton options...
In this case, I wonder if her first reaction was "WTF, who are you" as he charged her, where a man would have analyzed the situation as a "fight" choice in fight/flee and met the man with physical force.
The SS is real lucky that the guy didn't take her gun away and use it.
Marriage is often a prison institution for women
That is just so fucked up jimbino, that there is no responding to it. Aren't you the same guy who hates other people's children and pets and thinks people shouldn't reproduce?
Glass plank I can picture. Glass cliff is not an image I can see in my head.
Brando said...
New Republic could take this to the logical next step which is that hiring and firing and promotion should instead be based on merit and not identity politics, as the latter can lead to more situations like this where a woman is in the position of taking the fall.
Ding ding ding, Brando for the win. If the problem is tokenism and identity politics trumping an insistence on competence and/or excellence, that problem won't be solved by firing one person. The solution is a change in the mindset, but since that mindset is a solid (thought often unstated) plank in the Left-Progresive platform don't expect any changes. Also if you're hired in part because of your special trait I don't think you get to complain when you're fired that it was in part because of your special trait--the ugly part is in the hiring/promotion, and we know who did that. So yeah, don't expect any acknowledgement of that problem in the media, either.
Its to the point here where the person in charge is not the only one who needs to be held accountable (i.e. fired), although that's surely the place to start. That's not how the federal government usually works but in the case of the Secret Service, there's not a lot of time to work it out.
Tim in vermont: you can't respond to a rational argument since all you know is the ad hominem attack.
Why don't you google "marriage is a prison" and respond to arguments made by the hundreds?
When I lived in South America, a group of Amerikan tobacco traders took me along to a brothel they had on retainer--much like the SS situation. Funny thing is that all the guys who went off with girls were the married ones, while the singles continued to drink and dance.
Hire more women...but don't hold them accountable.
Good plan.
What I will never get is that Progressives want the government to do ever more...but they have less than zero interest in them doing anything very well.
Yo damikesc,
In English, it's "...less than zero interest in their doing anything very well."
Google "proper use of the gerund in English."
Hired in part because she's a woman = media happy, "yeah, clean up that old boys club, a woman is just what's needed at the top, you go girl! etc"
Fired for not meeting expectations = media angry, "why are we blaming this on a woman, why does the woman always take the fall for men's mistakes?"
Message to people doing hiring...?
Oh for God's sake. Women can screw up in a job too, and you know what: It has nothing to do with their gender.
And I agree with mccullough: Glass Cliff is a terrible metaphor here. You fall off a cliff when you don't know where you're going (or when you're being chased by a bunch of topless women). Is that what New Republic is suggesting, that Pierson of the SS didn't know where she was going?
At the time Julia was hired to fix the problem, was there an actual operational problem in protecting the President? Were people running loose in the WH at that time? We're armed felons accompanying the President from floor to floor in elevators at that time?
Yes damikesc, women should be given the chance to fix (non-existent?) problems, and, when they fail, they are not to take any responsibility. Jesus, that makes Zero a woman - any success, he's the man, failure = Bush/Clapper/etc did it.
So jimbino, it is not you who writes posts about germs from pets crapping on your lawn and how people should not have children?
If it is not you, I take it back, but I think it is. I don't see how accurately describing your positions on other matters can be considered "ad hominem"
Julia Pierson should resign because this happened on her watch, but it is a fact that you could appoint Clint Eastwood in his prime to be the Secret Service Director, and he would get precisely nowhere with any reform program without the President's full backing and active participation.
The music stopped and she was the only one standing.
"Oh for God's sake. Women can screw up in a job too, "
Sure they can, and if they are hired for their lack of a penis, rather than their experience, abilities, and proven leadership to a leadership job, they are more likely to fail.
Or do you dispute that on the grounds that your ideology does not allow for it?
Poverty is a prison. One of the quickest ways there is to have children without a husband.
Over the last 25 years, the rush to victimhood has become a flood. It started with AAs having many legitimate complaints, as were many by some feminists. However, it is now the default response when anyone not old, white, straight and male screws up.
The reality is that people make mistakes and some people are incompetent at their jobs. Let's accept it, fix the situation and move on. Stop the childish excuses.
The Age of Obama seems to be the culmination of the trend.
Ann Althouse said...I'm sure the first one is, and I'm pretty sure the third one is, but the second and fourth ones are iffy.
Well, the "third one" is men continued to screw up so I'd say that one's suspect, as well--as far as I know the "screw ups" now aren't anything specific to men (a la the prostitution scandal) but more related to general agency competence, which isn't strictly a problem with/of men. This is especially so if the reports that the WH intruder got by the female SS agent who was first line of defense inside the door are true.
It does raise the question, if you are asked to take one of those "clean up the mess" jobs, should you take it?
This is going to wind up like the VA. A 15% increasse in budget so that they can hire 10% more people and give everyone a raise.
It is stimulus and all good.
Hagar said...
Julia Pierson should resign because this happened on her watch, but it is a fact that you could appoint Clint Eastwood in his prime to be the Secret Service Director, and he would get precisely nowhere with any reform program without the President's full backing and active participation.
No.
I think she was fired because:
1. her team f'd up at the CDC
2. She covered it up instead of doing a full review
3. she hid the fuck up from the WH CoS.
let's consider that the SS POTUS Detail are a Delta Force Team?
Any time a Delta team goes out on a mission, they come back and do a full, and I mean full review of what worked and didn't. It's call in the Army a "Hot wash". In the engineering world, a "Root Cause Analysis". In the NFL, watching the tapes. all organizations that want to get better do this. Her's apparently doesn't.
After the CDC and after the East room, but let's focus on the CDC, she covered it up instead of analyzing what and who F'd up. They should have taken apart the SOP's, the agent assignments, the movements.
The results are plowed back into improvements, but if you: asked a senior officer to stay behind in Atlanta to handle the situation, but there was no formal review of the matter.
You get a culture of cover-up and shoddy performance, and No accountability.
We're very lucky that her SS did not lose a POTUS.
There was a war on women, and Obama put someone in a position that didn't have the skills for it because "EQUALITY" Doesn't matter if you can do the job or not, we have to do things equally now. (Look at the case involving the New Haven Connecticut Firemen test to see other cases like this)
There is obviously an overarching culture in government jobs that does not encourage excellence.That has to change, and it doesn't take one gender or another to do it. But it does take a strong leader at the top.
And do away with government employee unions.
This isn't about men-women. This administration is filled with people in positions of responsibility, including the President, who aren't up to the jobs and cover up to avoid being caught out.
Nobody needs your advice on writing, jimbino; you can't even spell "America" correctly. As for dogs, I would wish some on you, but I wouldn't wish you on them. As for your deal on the parks, you are a lunatic. In fact I think that about covers it.
Ann,
Clearly she screwed up significantly in areas unrelated to the previous issues, then tried to cover it up. Don't try to blame that on her being put in an impossible situation. You're guilty of the bias of lower expectations of women.
Quickly skimmed the article to see if Covert drew any conclusions other than the preening gotcha its so unfair political ones. Didn't see any.
I'm not saying that I'm convinced that either or both of the following are true, but let's stipulate the "glass cliff" is real. Also let's stipulate that women are given less leeway for failure than men.
OK. That's the playing field. It doesn't absolve the woman in question of not knowing into what she's getting. Particularly in this case where she's a two decade plus internal hire and the secret service's problems have been plastered all over the news before she took the job. It was full-on Admiral Akbar and she should have known it.
So the practical (not the oh so unfair Covert) conclusion to draw is that if you don't have organizational turnaround experience, or suspect that is not part of your basic personality or skill set, then DON'T take the job.
I was particularly unimpressed with Covert's Katie Couric and Diane Sawyer examples. Network news anchors are news readers. They are not the one's writing the copy, calling the shots strategically, and therefore ultimately responsible for the networks losing share or eyeballs. Confusing the public face of the enterprise with the CEO is bush league.
So people who want to flog this need to ask themselves which is more important; feeling good about yourself because of the moral outrage of the injustice of it all, or learning the tools to success other than gender or skin color.
Obama and Bill Ayers are from Chicago and the object of the Hyde park crowd is to undermine the Daley organization by infiltrating it and getting weak people appointed to head the City department and agencies.
Power to the people!
And to them, Washington, D.C. is just Chicago writ large.
men continued to screw up
I believe the agent that failed to overpower the intruder was a female. That means "men and women" screwed up.
Hopefully for 2016 voters will put a high premium on electing someone who has positive leadership and management experience (ideally an effective governor). We are seeing the effect of putting someone in charge who never headed anything bigger than his Senate office (for a few years) and arguably his campaign.
Hillary has headed a major cabinet department, but we see how well she did that, hence my point about "positive" experience.
"There was a war on women, and Obama put someone in a position that didn't have the skills for it because "EQUALITY"
Well, no, EQUALITY is far too simple. At a minimum, EQUALITY isn't likely to get you even close to proportional representation.
The meme here is EQUITY. What feminists want is EQUITY. Because, it can mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean.
Why was the Spanish Armada sunk? Because its construction and deployment were put under a fop whose only qualification was that he was a "politically correct" choice at the time, having the right parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins.
But that is just history, stuff like that will never happen again because liberals know everything and have thought it all through in every detail.
Listening to this woman for two minutes was enough for me to see that I would not hire her for any position. Ever.
There is a type of person afoot in the modern world that has learned how to speak at length without saying a meaningful word. I hear this corporate bullshit all the time and it really is about people having learned a language of obfuscation, delay, blame shift and duck all spoken in a steady monotone. The word "conversation" appears often. As to the words "team" and "excellence" and "best practices" and on and on.
This is the way that woman speaks. This talk today passes for "management".
This is bullshit. Under ANY other president and if she were a man, Pierson would have been crucified by the press.
The word "conversation" appears often. As to the words "team" and "excellence" and "best practices" and on and on.
You forgot, "rolled up their sleeves". As far as Pierson is concerned...does she resign with benefits? I'm getting sick and tired of the publicly-funded golden parachutes these high-ranking political appointees "resign" with.
No, Julia Pierson was a victim of Obama's wanting women in visible administration slots.
He wanted them so bad he got one that did not have the experience nor management ability
The Navy did the same thing with Kara Hultgreen. Pushed her to a very visible position (but dangerous) before she was fully trained.
But she didn't just resign. She died.
It's the price of affirmative action: if you might have benefited from it, then your competence will forever be questioned.
Sometimes with justification, of course.
Scott M:
Apparently, those issues are only a concern in the private sector. People who wield power over the "folks" are exempt from the same standards. Probably an exemption offered by the same group who dreams of authoritarian monopolies, but loses sleep over private corporations.
Here's how I see it:
Obama, with feet up on desk, shooting the breeze with Valerie. Michelle storms in..
"What the hell is this I heard the maid..the FUCKING MAID found bullet holes upstairs where MY CHILDREN SLEEP!!
Obama: calm down, we weren't even home.
Michelle: Weren't home? WEREN'T HOME?? HOW DID THEY KNOW WE WEREN'T HOME?? I GREW UP IN CHICAGO, GOT OUR KIDS OUT OF CHICAGO, AND WE STILL HAVE TO PUT UP WITH DRIVE-BY'S? You lazy-ass bleep...bleep bleep...get someone in here NOW that can protect my kids!!
Valerie: I'll see to it.
Michelle: YOU SEE TO IT...OR I'LL RIP YOUR LUNGS OUT.
Michelle exits...door slams.
Obama to Valerie: You better get with the Chief of Staff this time....see if he's got anyone on a short list.
TL;DR version of article:
"People hired for reasons other than competence are more likely to be fired for lack of competence."
"It's the price of affirmative action: if you might have benefited from it, then your competence will forever be questioned."
That's the problem with affirmative action--it doesn't even help the supposed beneficiaries, who are then seen as less qualified (even if that wasn't the case--and if they were in fact qualified, the AA was unnecessary under a merit system), and for those who actually are less qualified they are being set up to fail.
The only purpose of AA is for whites to try and appear less racist and for race hustlers to pretend that they've achieved something for their "constituents". Unfortunately a lot of well-meaning people have been convinced that they need it and would benefit from it, when that is simply not the case.
Would Pierson have been made head of the SS if her gender wasn't a factor in Obama's decision? We don't know, because it clearly was a factor, and now her downfall leaves her worse off than she was before. The idea that affirmative action hiring is "compassionate" is absurd.
A good thread, and many very lucid, persuasive arguments of people who obviously have experience. The professor could learn from these.
And a few completely idiotic statements not worthy of rebuttal but getting it anyway.
Peter:
Affirmative Action was supposed to be a supplemental measure (e.g. rehabilitation, ex post facto review). It was not supposed to violate merit-based standards. It should not establish a standard of institutional discrimination by color, gender, etc., thereby violating equal protection.
Brando:
The fact that Pierson is a woman does not establish that her appointment was motivated by affirmative action. There are two steps to follow in order to determine the basis for her hire. One, interview her superiors. Two, review her background. Reconcile both set of data to identify a coherent conclusion.
"Time and again, women are put in charge only when there’s a mess,"
Oh, for crying out loud. Pretty much all executives are hired to clean up the mess of the last person.
Matthew Sablan:
Unfortunately, they have argued for separate judgments of workplace and bedroom behaviors. The absence of a formal office and hours complicates the situation. Still, their options are limited by their public positions, albeit justified by notoriously selective principles.
"The fact that Pierson is a woman does not establish that her appointment was motivated by affirmative action."
It may not prove that Obama specifically said "get a woman in that position" but the fact that she was picked in the wake of the prostitution scandal--which surely was seen as likely to outrage women--it seems like too much of a coincidence that Pierson happened to be the most qualified candidate, and what luck, happened to also be a woman.
How many famous Hollywood stars have women as bodyguards?.......Does some kind of hormonal imbalance cause women to fail to recognize the perils of glass cliffs? I would want the President's director of security to have a preternatural ability to recognize glass cliffs.
The next Secret Service director should be Jamie Gorelick. Then pretty soon we'll be able to read about the President being assassinated by a hooker.
It's not the "fact" they wanted a woman in that position that is the problem. It's the perception they thought "a woman" would fix whatever they were trying to fix. As in, "any woman will do".
Incompetence, laziness, will get a woman like Pierson hired....then fired.
Binders full of women, properly, painstakingly vetted, will get you the right woman. Not Fired.
The next Director should definitely be a female impersonator. That gives us the best of both worlds: Female image with a testosterone fueled linear attack brain.
In almost everything Obama does, there is an element of circumventing the established order and "the powers that be." I think it is in his DNA, so to speak.
Brando said...
Hopefully for 2016 voters will put a high premium on electing someone who has positive leadership and management experience (ideally an effective governor).
10/2/14, 1:03 PM
HAHAHAHAHAhhahaaahaahaaaa....
God that one was so good I think I wet myself a little...
"The fact that Pierson is a woman does not establish that her appointment was motivated by affirmative action.
You are right of course, it just increases the odds that it is true greatly.
Seeing her in front of Congress, can you envision her sparkling in an interview for the job? Or did it seem more like she was the only plausible candidate without a penis?
But I forgot, liberal ideology has repealed the laws of probability and the validity of logical inferences.
So much for the Life of Julia. Interestingly, the president's folks have taken that down from the website. Now that's a short half-life.
tim in vermont:
I did not make an affirmative statement to support or reject the "affirmative action" or "ulterior motive" hypothesis. I am cautioning that we do not become what we are confronting. To that end, I have described an experiment consisting of two steps, which is capable of rationally testing the hypothesis.
"Glass cliff" is just a stupid term. I'm on the fence as to whether it is better or worse than just adding "gate" to the end of something to denote a scandal.
A glass cliff would be what? A cliff you can't see? Which would mean it would look like you had reached the edge of a cliff before you actually had -- not very dangerous. Or maybe it means a cliff you cant break through?
Earlier this am I posted a comment (following others in the comments section) about the obvious physical short-comings of women in certain organizations and opined that this case was a PRIME example, if ever there was one, (among many other reasons) for supporting the case that women should not be assigned to direct combat units in the armed services. I thought my comment to be an appropriately tangential one.
Unfortunately Ann seems to have neither the intellectual honesty nor the backbone to allow the argument as she seems to have erased it Some "moderation." Cruel "neutrality?"
Ah, no - the concept was that men had made this problem and that the nature of the problem was due to men being in charge. Therefore they needed a woman to clean it up. More attention to detail and less likely to act like "one of the boys." It was a woman's "turn".
This is the same rhetoric being used to support Hillary Clinton's Presidential candidacy. It'll have the same result if she's elected.
It seems to me that claiming she was scapegoated because she was a woman is the corrollary to the argument that she wasn't qualified because she was a woman.
It seems to me that claiming she was scapegoated because she was a woman is the corrollary to the argument that she wasn't qualified because she was a woman.
It is damn near impossible to get fired for failure in the Obama administration, so she stands with Shinseki as the only two.
"which is capable of rationally testing the hypothesis."
Well, not that the word of this White House holds any water, but they were defending the pick on the "optics" of picking a woman. Maybe that is not official capitalized Affirmative Action, but it is something very close.
I am perfectly comfortable drawing my own conclusions when presented with enough evidence. I think there is enough evidence here, if it is not an ontological certainty.
Let's not lose focus on what happened here. In previous years the situation was that the Secret Service was doing it's job - protecting the President - but they were sloppy on the image stuff, things like drinking and whores off duty. So they brought in a woman.
So the drinking and the whores stopped. The image cleaned up. But the actual competency on what was really important - protecting the President - went down. Who cares if these guys are sleeping with prostitutes if they keep nuts from running across the White House lawn, through the front door and almost getting in the East Room?
This is what's known as focusing on style over substance. I don't care if a Secret Service agent has 3 whores and a brass band in his room off-duty as long as some nut with a gun doesn't make it 100 feet across the White House lawn before he ends up with the dogs fighting over his bullet-riddled body.
This is what we'll get with "The First Female President": pontifications over the Rights Of Women and Diversity and Inclusion and the Great Triumph of Feminism while actual issues like the collapse of foreign policy, our infrastructure, border security, education, etc. will go even further in the shitter than it has in the Obama Administration.
"Well, yes. And to finish the thought about "put[ting] the blame where it belongs" for allowing Obama to be in that position, the group mostly responsible is American women (the men having voted against him in both elections)."
Actually, married women voted for Romney by a slim margin. Single women, however, voted for Obama in a relative landslide. I propose that's because single women, finding a suitable mate harder and harder to come by as they get older, look to government to provide them with security instead of entering into a partnership with a man.
Alternate explanation as to why she was fired when the rest of the lackeys in the administration have not been:
Elijah Cummings refused to carry water for her.
It's no coincidence that she got canned the day after Cummings threw her under the bus. It turns out there are limits to how far even he will go to cover for the White House.
"And Shinseki was a 4-star general in his previous incarnation."
Shinseki was a walking talking Obama general if there ever was one. Now, we have the services filled with them. God help us.
This woman had no other qualification to be Director besides ovaries. They would have done better with the female three star general who was blocked from command of the Air and Space command of the Air Force because she refused to see a guy screwed by the PC rules on "sexual harassment."
She has balls.
She retired after Obama withdrew her nomination We lost another good officer to PC bullshit.
"Time and again, women are put in charge only when there’s a mess, and if they can’t engineer a quick cleanup, they’re shoved out the door. "
Oh, bull crap. When they hired her they didn't know the SS would screw up so royally, so weren't setting her up to fail. This sounds like women bitching that they are held to a standard where they are accountable for their actions or the actions of the people under their watch.
If they can't hack it, don't take the job.
"Time and again, women are put in charge only when there’s a mess, and if they can’t engineer a quick cleanup, they’re shoved out the door. "
This is basically saying the women hired to do thi aren't qualified and so shouldn't be hired. So ok, let's get competent people in their who can handle the job. If that means women aren't hired, oh well.
The fact that Pierson is a woman does not establish that her appointment was motivated by affirmative action
The fact that she is a woman, combined with her thin resume, makes affirmative action the most likely explanation for her appointment.
That's one of the problems with this administration, they're so eager to fill their race and sex quotas, you can't assume their picks are competent.
"Pierson, who worked during high school at Walt Disney World as a costumed character and park attendant, said: “We need to be more like Disney World. We need to be more friendly, inviting."
Got rid of her just in time, I'd say.
It reminds of the local MLB team who hired a famous ex-player as an analyst on their local broadcasts. He was so unbelievably bad at the job that it became a local joke.
I didn't blame the ex-player; he was doing his best. I blamed the team Media Director who hired him.
fresh feminine air
Brought to you by...Massengill.
The President is apparently too insecure to hire people smarter than he is for jobs in his Administration that he doesn't understand.
He's a better speechwriter than his speechwriters, you know.
Revenant:
A "thin resume" establishes probable cause to conduct the investigation. The experiment I suggested would determine if the hypothesis is valid. It would also determine where and why the violations of standard hiring protocols occurred. If the incident is indeed a consequence of "affirmative action" or "ulterior motives", then the resultant corruption at that consequential level is an issue which should concern all Americans.
Where is The Washington Post when you need them? The implications of corruption stemming from this incident (and so many others) eclipse the great Nixon scandal. Perhaps the possibilities are simply overwhelming or self-incriminating.
In the Republicans' ongoing #WarOnWomen the Democrats claim another hard kill.
tim in vermont:
I don't doubt the validity of the hypothesis. The preponderance of evidence establishes it a priori or at least demonstrates probable cause to test it.
My interest is two-fold. One, to establish a clear procedure for identifying the use of "affirmative action" and "ulterior motives", which evade or compromise reasonable hiring practices. Two, to establish a clear procedure for exposing the use of "affirmative action" and "ulterior motives", which evade or compromise reasonable hiring practices.
Either equal protection of individual rights means something or we will continue to suffer from progressive corruption. The current protection racket (i.e. special interest) is only good to sponsor the latter. It has failed to uphold, let alone recognize, individual dignity. The selective (i.e. unprincipled) division of Americans is intolerable.
In my experience in corporate politics, the main reason why a woman is given this position is that all the male candidates already turned down the job.
She's the sucker, the one who took a position that nobody else wanted.
And the reason why so many women end up getting bamboozled this way, is that so few of them know how the game of corporate politics is played.
A "thin resume" establishes probable cause to conduct the investigation. The experiment I suggested would determine if the hypothesis is valid.
Bored now.
Look, she had already been moved to HR. You only do that because you have a loser that you can't fire.
"The implications of corruption stemming from this incident (and so many others) eclipse the great Nixon scandal."
The scandal does not have a vengeful ex-FBI executive dictating the details to the cub reporters who were so thrilled to get Nixon that they never noticed how they were used.
And they didn't care.
Instead of "men" use "Democrats" and you'd be correct.
I think they call that "cramming the walrus"
Michael, Mark Felt, if it was he that did the dirty work, was the No. 2 man at the FBI at the time.
Nothing "Ex-" about him, or whoever it was.
If she wasn't competent enough to make the changes she was asked to do, or explain to her boss why it couldn't be done, she deserves to be fired for the utter failures.
And the number of reporters, pundits, and commenters who keep yammering about the mental case charging the White House brandishing a KNIFE! pisses me off. The official report said he had a knife in his pocket. So do I, at thiss very moment.
"Michael, Mark Felt, if it was he that did the dirty work, was the No. 2 man at the FBI at the time.
Nothing "Ex-" about him, or whoever it was."
He was passed over by Nixon in favor of L Patrick Gray a very competent man.
By the time Gray had successfully defended himself against five federal grand juries and four committees of Congress, he had been vilified by the press and denounced by the prosecutors who could not prove his guilt. Gray remained publicly silent about the Watergate scandal for 32 years, speaking to the press only once, near the end of his life; this was shortly after Gray's direct subordinate at the FBI, Mark Felt, unexpectedly proclaimed himself to have been the secret source to The Washington Post known as “Deep Throat”.
The apocryphal "honest man" in the whore house of Washington DC.
From Instapundit:
File this under You Can't Make This Shit Up:
Gender was not a factor, she got one door secured but was pushed over while trying to get the second door shut,” the source said.
Honestly these people are either blinded by ideology, or the WH has been taken over by internet trolls.
Interesting that the author notes that the Secret Service is short staffed and underfunded. I do wonder if that is a matter of mission creep taking resources away from its first priority - protecting the President - into other empire building activities.
As for the resignation, if she didn't resign she should have been fired. Frankly, she should have been fired immediately after the elevator cover up came to light. This is like that internet meme "YOU HAD ONE JOB." The Secret Service exists to protect the President first and foremost. While the President is still alive, that was more of a matter of good luck than any competence. If this is not a firing offense, then nothing is, perhaps other than the President bleeding out in the Oval Office. Omar Gonzalez should have been shot dead on the White House lawn.
bored now
Me too. Goodnight.
Michael K:
I didn't frame the context properly. My perception is that in the present context, the corruption is more diverse and comprehensive. It's not limited to the immediate actors. It has since metastasized and manifests itself throughout the government, press, and society.
This soldier fell asleep on watch, so to speak. She endangered the unit and the mission.
Remember that the mission is the safety of the First Family, and the security of the institution of the Chief Executive. It is appalling that any journalist would waste a single brain cell on Julia's fate.
Althouse: "There is at least one man, however, who should be held responsible for the choice to hire Pierson and the choice to oust her, and that is Obama."
Wrong. Men are bad. Obama is not bad. Therefore, Obama is not a man.
Or: Men are in the outgroup. Obama is in the ingroup. Therefore, Obama is not a "man" in the sense that term is used here.
Instapundit links to this interesting discussion of political group-think. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/
"Secret Service is short staffed and underfunded."
Right, it's the Republican's fault.
Why are prostitues horrible? They're just doing their job.
The glass cliff is covered by feathers and veils in the usual performance.
More like: we hired someone based on their gender instead of merit. Turns out she was incompetent.
"but they were sloppy on the image stuff, things like drinking and whores off duty."
No. As any platoon sgt will tell you, that kind of lapse indicates a greater problem. The SS is undisciplined.
This may be the time to note that Ann voted for Obama.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा