Overnight, D.C. District Court Judge Tim Kelly issued an order requiring the Trump administration to immediately reinstate MS NOW, CNN, and Politico’s White House access. But, this morning, MS NOW White House reporter Laura Barrón-López was denied access. She shares her experience. Former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade and New York Times Chief White House Correspondent Peter Baker also join Erielle Reshef to discuss the judge’s order.
I’m not usually a fan of such ideas, but it does seem very, very suspicious to me, given that the leaders of the world’s most powerful countries are apparently doing everything in their power to undo the civilizational progress of the last hundred years—and are clearly doing so in a fairly well-coordinated manner.
Have you ever been close to the top of of a large organization? While conventional wisdom is that the higher you go, the more informed, skilled, coordinated, wise, and even Machiavellian it is. My experience is that its usually the opposite. Sure, there are pockets of those things in individual people, but the people at the top are usually really good at a few things only. If they’re truly wise, they surround themselves with other people that cover their own gaps in knowledge, skill, temperament, etc. However the larger and more complicated the organization, the more outer rings of people are required with those other pockets of skills.
In short, complex organizations (this includes governments) are the opposite of " fairly well-coordinated manner". There are just too many moving parts and the environment changes so quickly that the rules that worked a second ago changed. Most successful organizations I’ve seen make “okay” decisions most of the time “good” decisions every now and then, and the best orgs do everything they can to limit their internal fuck ups.
The best vaccine against conspiracy theories about high groups of coordinated humans in leadership working against you is actually seeing humans in leadership trying to coordinate.
I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Of course tech companies have a lot of employees if you count all the “mechanical turks”. That’s simply misleading.
None of that has much to do with what my original comment was about.
You’re saying that it’s impossible for powerful, completely degenerate people to be capable of playing their power games.
My take on this is that a look at the history books proves you wrong. LinkedIn-style fairy tales about leadership and all that bogus doesn’t change much about that.
None of that has much to do with what my original comment was about.
The whole headcount thing was your point, not mine. I could never tell where you were going with it.
You’re saying that it’s impossible for powerful, completely degenerate people to be capable of playing their power games.
No, I never said its impossible. I said the closer you get to seeing those in power, the less likely it appears to happen for a number of reasons, but mostly because they are simply not as smart or capable as we generally give them credit for. Wealth and power does not equal intelligence.
I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Of course tech companies have a lot of employees if you count all the “mechanical turks”. That’s simply misleading.
Are you seriously dismissively calling tech workers from outside the West “mechanical turks” like they’re throwaway people? I’ll say this as nicely as possible: Fuck that racist bullshit!
These are people like you and me. No different. They contribute high tech and high quality work to multi million and billion dollar programs. They may make a fraction of the wage we do here in the West, but that isn’t because they are any less smart, skilled, ambitious, or honest. That is only the product of history and geopolitics. I’ve personally gone to India and seen first hand the work they do, and worked alongside them. They work as hard as we do for a better life for themselves and their families. Fuck you for thinking less of them.
This post of mine can probably get me banned, but if it goes that way I’ll take that if the alternative is accepting open racism.
I’d be an idiot to say here what I do for a living, but yes, I regularly deal with CEOs -and it’s precisely this experience that makes it all the more likely to me that a conspiracy like the one mentioned above is underway. While I’m nowhere near that level, I’m still quite familiar with the politics in companies with 500 or more employees. For me, this is all the more reason to entertain such thoughts, because I know of hardly any company where performance or competence is even remotely appreciated. The people I know as “the decision-makers” should actually be the very last ones to make decisions—they’re self-absorbed, unscrupulous people.
I regularly deal with CEOs -and it’s precisely this experience that makes it all the more likely to me that a conspiracy like the one mentioned above is underway.
I’m confused by this statement. If you’re familiar with the regular pockets of incompetence that is present in any leadership organization, what leads you to believe they would be successfully executing a broad coordinated conspiracy like this? I’m not suggesting its a lack of greed or narcissism at the top for them to try, but to actually succeed seems pretty unlikely to me.
Because they have the money to do so. Those who have it simply pay good people. You should know this if you’ve ever dealt with large companies. It doesn’t take good management—just the money to pay the people who do the work. You should also know that giant online corporations like Meta have an incredibly small number of employees compared to industrial companies, and labor is the biggest cost factor in any business.
What do you actually do for a living? You claim to have insights. Where did you get them?
Because they have the money to do so. Those who have it simply pay good people. You should know this if you’ve ever dealt with large companies. It doesn’t take good management—just the money to pay the people who do the work.
The problem isn’t the resources to execute, its forming a coherent strategy, and actually following through with it while balancing their own interests against their co-conspirators that are also all trying to do the same thing. Many times the failure is simply not forming the right initial question. If that step is messed up, then the best implemented plans are solving the wrong problem or addressing the right problem only incidentally at best.
You should also know that giant online corporations like Meta have an incredibly small number of employees compared to industrial companies,
What is leading you to that conclusion? Unless you’re intentionally omitting many offshore resources, the biggest tech giants rival large industrial companies. Meta has more employees than Exxon Mobile. Alphabet has more than 4x the number of employees as Bechtel. Microsoft has 100,000 more employees than Koch Inc.
Are there tech firms with a smaller headcount than other industrial firms? Sure. Even then, I’m not seeing where you’re going with the headcount-to-successful-conspiracy metric.
and labor is the biggest cost factor in any business.
I agree labor is the biggest cost of nearly all businesses. What does that have to do with the ability for a core group of leadership in multiple competitive organizations successfully coordinating a worldwide conspiracy?
What do you actually do for a living? You claim to have insights. Where did you get them?
I agree with your prior statement for myself too : “I’d be an idiot to say here what I do for a living”
If you want to dismiss my observations because I’m not presenting my bona fides, you’re welcome to.
Have you ever been close to the top of of a large organization? While conventional wisdom is that the higher you go, the more informed, skilled, coordinated, wise, and even Machiavellian it is. My experience is that its usually the opposite. Sure, there are pockets of those things in individual people, but the people at the top are usually really good at a few things only. If they’re truly wise, they surround themselves with other people that cover their own gaps in knowledge, skill, temperament, etc. However the larger and more complicated the organization, the more outer rings of people are required with those other pockets of skills.
In short, complex organizations (this includes governments) are the opposite of " fairly well-coordinated manner". There are just too many moving parts and the environment changes so quickly that the rules that worked a second ago changed. Most successful organizations I’ve seen make “okay” decisions most of the time “good” decisions every now and then, and the best orgs do everything they can to limit their internal fuck ups.
The best vaccine against conspiracy theories about high groups of coordinated humans in leadership working against you is actually seeing humans in leadership trying to coordinate.
I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Of course tech companies have a lot of employees if you count all the “mechanical turks”. That’s simply misleading.
None of that has much to do with what my original comment was about.
You’re saying that it’s impossible for powerful, completely degenerate people to be capable of playing their power games.
My take on this is that a look at the history books proves you wrong. LinkedIn-style fairy tales about leadership and all that bogus doesn’t change much about that.
The whole headcount thing was your point, not mine. I could never tell where you were going with it.
No, I never said its impossible. I said the closer you get to seeing those in power, the less likely it appears to happen for a number of reasons, but mostly because they are simply not as smart or capable as we generally give them credit for. Wealth and power does not equal intelligence.
Are you seriously dismissively calling tech workers from outside the West “mechanical turks” like they’re throwaway people? I’ll say this as nicely as possible: Fuck that racist bullshit!
These are people like you and me. No different. They contribute high tech and high quality work to multi million and billion dollar programs. They may make a fraction of the wage we do here in the West, but that isn’t because they are any less smart, skilled, ambitious, or honest. That is only the product of history and geopolitics. I’ve personally gone to India and seen first hand the work they do, and worked alongside them. They work as hard as we do for a better life for themselves and their families. Fuck you for thinking less of them.
This post of mine can probably get me banned, but if it goes that way I’ll take that if the alternative is accepting open racism.
I’d be an idiot to say here what I do for a living, but yes, I regularly deal with CEOs -and it’s precisely this experience that makes it all the more likely to me that a conspiracy like the one mentioned above is underway. While I’m nowhere near that level, I’m still quite familiar with the politics in companies with 500 or more employees. For me, this is all the more reason to entertain such thoughts, because I know of hardly any company where performance or competence is even remotely appreciated. The people I know as “the decision-makers” should actually be the very last ones to make decisions—they’re self-absorbed, unscrupulous people.
I’m confused by this statement. If you’re familiar with the regular pockets of incompetence that is present in any leadership organization, what leads you to believe they would be successfully executing a broad coordinated conspiracy like this? I’m not suggesting its a lack of greed or narcissism at the top for them to try, but to actually succeed seems pretty unlikely to me.
Because they have the money to do so. Those who have it simply pay good people. You should know this if you’ve ever dealt with large companies. It doesn’t take good management—just the money to pay the people who do the work. You should also know that giant online corporations like Meta have an incredibly small number of employees compared to industrial companies, and labor is the biggest cost factor in any business.
What do you actually do for a living? You claim to have insights. Where did you get them?
The problem isn’t the resources to execute, its forming a coherent strategy, and actually following through with it while balancing their own interests against their co-conspirators that are also all trying to do the same thing. Many times the failure is simply not forming the right initial question. If that step is messed up, then the best implemented plans are solving the wrong problem or addressing the right problem only incidentally at best.
What is leading you to that conclusion? Unless you’re intentionally omitting many offshore resources, the biggest tech giants rival large industrial companies. Meta has more employees than Exxon Mobile. Alphabet has more than 4x the number of employees as Bechtel. Microsoft has 100,000 more employees than Koch Inc.
Are there tech firms with a smaller headcount than other industrial firms? Sure. Even then, I’m not seeing where you’re going with the headcount-to-successful-conspiracy metric.
I agree labor is the biggest cost of nearly all businesses. What does that have to do with the ability for a core group of leadership in multiple competitive organizations successfully coordinating a worldwide conspiracy?
I agree with your prior statement for myself too : “I’d be an idiot to say here what I do for a living”
If you want to dismiss my observations because I’m not presenting my bona fides, you’re welcome to.