My thoughts on various political topics at the state and federal level
There was a Christmas Truce that occurred in 1914, just at the beginning of World War I.
French, British, and German soldiers ceased fighting for two days to celebrate with each other.
Hostilities were put on hold to enjoy a brief moment of joy.
If they were able to stop… couldn’t they just…not restart?
Reading Between the Edicts – Executive Orders and Presidential Memoranda issued in the past 100 years that have targeted specific law firms by name.
Did I miss one? It’s possible – I’m human 🙂 Post any omissions in the comments with a link and I’ll add it.
Reading Between the Edicts – this Executive Order focuses on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c). I encourage you to read this order in its entirety in addition to reading the excerpts below.
2025-03-11 — Executive Order – Ensuring Enforcement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c)
One key mechanism is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) (Rule 65(c)), which mandates that a party seeking a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order (injunction) provide security in an amount that the court considers proper to cover potential costs and damages to the enjoined or restrained party if the injunction is wrongly issued.
Consistent enforcement of this rule is critical to ensuring that taxpayers do not foot the bill for costs or damages caused by wrongly issued preliminary relief by activist judges and to achieving the effective administration of justice.
Therefore, it is the policy of the United States to demand that parties seeking injunctions against the Federal Government must cover the costs and damages incurred if the Government is ultimately found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained. Federal courts should hold litigants accountable for their misrepresentations and ill-granted injunctions.
Consistent with applicable law, the heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies), in consultation with the Attorney General, are directed to ensure that their respective agencies properly request under Rule 65(c) that Federal district courts require plaintiffs to post security equal to the Federal Government’s potential costs and damages from a wrongly issued injunction. The scope of this directive covers all lawsuits filed against the Federal Government seeking an injunction where agencies can show expected monetary damages or costs from the requested preliminary relief, unless extraordinary circumstances justify an exception.
(b) the security amount the agency is requesting is based on a reasoned assessment of the potential harm to the enjoined or restrained party; and
(c) failure of the party that moved for preliminary relief to comply with Rule 65(c) results in denial or dissolution of the requested injunctive relief.
Reading Between the Edicts – let’s look at another Executive Order related to hiring. I encourage you to read the order in its entirety in addition to reading the excerpts below.
2025-01-20 — Executive Order – Reforming the Federal Hiring Process and Restoring Merit to Government Service
prioritize recruitment of individuals committed to improving the efficiency of the Federal government, passionate about the ideals of our American republic, and committed to upholding the rule of law and the United States Constitution
…prevent the hiring of individuals who are unwilling to defend the Constitution or to faithfully serve the Executive Branch
This Federal Hiring Plan shall include specific agency plans to improve the allocation of Senior Executive Service positions in the Cabinet agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Office of Management and Budget, the Small Business Administration, the Social Security Administration, the National Science Foundation, the Office of Personnel Management, and the General Services Administration, to best facilitate democratic leadership, as required by law, within each agency.
Next up for Reading Between the Edicts is an Executive Order and related OPM memos affecting the Executive Branch’s Senior Executive Service (SES). I encourage you to read all sources in their entirety in addition to reading the excerpts below.
2025-01-20 — Executive Order – Restoring Accountability for Career Senior Executives
Because SES officials wield significant governmental authority, they must serve at the pleasure of the President.
2025-02-25 — OPM Policy – Basic Appraisal System
Old Critical Elements for Senior Executive Service Performance:
1. Leading Change
2. Leading People
3. Business Acumen
4. Building Coalitions
5. Results Driven
2025-02-25 — OPM Memo – New Senior Executive Service Performance Appraisal System and Performance Plan…
New Critical Elements for Senior Executive Service Performance:
1. Faithful Administration of the Law and the President’s Policies
2. Government Efficiency
3. Merit and Competence
4. Holding Others Accountable and Treating Them Fairly
5. Achieving Organizational Goals
Faithful Administration of the Law and the President’s Policies. This is the most critical element for reviewing the job performance of someone who serves under the elected President. All senior executives must clearly and demonstrably execute congressionally-authorized tasks pursuant to the leadership and executive authority of the President. Faithful administration of one’s role in the Executive Branch requires commitment to the principles of the Founding, including equality under the law and democratic self-government. Senior executives must demonstrate specific results that align with and advance the President’s specific policy agenda.
For agencies with five or more executives, no more than 30% of total ratings shall be Level 4 or Level 5, unless the President waives this provision by certifying that the performance of the agency’s executives was outstanding during the relevant time period*
*This requirement will only become effective after OPM has completed rulemaking to revise 5 C.F.R. § 430.305(a)(5). Until that rulemaking is completed, agencies should treat the 30% cap on Levels 4 and 5 as general guidance for ensuring “performance evaluation results that make meaningful distinctions based on relative performance,” 5 C.F.R. § 430.405(b)(1)(iii), and not a hard-and-fast rule or requirement.
New series here. No opinions. No commentary from me. Just quotes from recently released directives that caught my attention. Maybe they’ll trigger something in your mind too.
First up is an Executive Order related to Independent Regulatory Agencies. I encourage you to read the order in its entirety in addition to reading the excerpts below.
2025-02-18 — Executive Order – Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies
“Agency,” unless otherwise indicated, means any authority of the United States that is an “agency” under 44 U.S.C. 3502(1), and shall also include the Federal Election Commission.
The Director of OMB shall establish performance standards and management objectives for independent agency heads, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, and report periodically to the President on their performance and efficiency in attaining such standards and objectives.
No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law,…
For the Federal Government to be truly accountable to the American people, officials who wield vast executive power must be supervised and controlled by the people’s elected President.
The heads of independent regulatory agencies shall establish a position of White House Liaison in their respective agencies.
Recent events sparked some new thoughts on a concept I introduced in a previous post.
Pay attention to the rules before engaging in the game. Intimately understand the system and identify the levers that achieve maximum impact.
I did not participate in the 28 February economic blackout:
*We’ll ignore for now the rare instance where a blackout day falls on the last day of a fiscal quarter.
If financial impact was the goal, a barrage of wooden arrows just shattered against tank armor.
If the goal is to stand in solidarity with a specific community or cause – great.
Unify.
Drive change.
I support the intent – just recognize the false lever and re-evaluate the strategy.
So no, I did not participate in the Feb 28 economic blackout:
I did shop at local stores though – because I typically do anyway.
I still used my credit card sparingly – I always do anyway.
These two actions form the core of the normal spending habits I established over the past decade.
Looking to make an impact? I emphasized “normal spending habits” twice in this post for a reason. Incrementally alter daily habits, fiercely and resolutely guard that checking account, and allow the desired global impacts to become a side-effect of individual self-improvement.
We scream from the rooftops that we want our independence. We need no one. We should be treated as individuals, and allow ourselves to live our lives.
Perfectly fair.
But unless you’re sewing your own clothes, building your own home, assembling your own car, generating your own electricity, and growing your own food, then you are obliged to acknowledge that you are reliant on others. Very few achieve – or even want, I’d argue – total independence.
We cannot selectively decide that we want individual treatment in certain situations that favor us, but then demand equitable treatment when the benefits are unfavorable.
We are a social species. Like it or not, we need each other. Embrace the help. Support your fellow humans.
Imagine a world where a landlord sends this letter to their tenants:
“Because I had such a great investment year and my needs are well covered, I am reducing your monthly rent by 5% for the next year, at which point we will reevaluate.”
A preposterous thought, right? I mean – what landlord in their right mind would offer such a ludicrous deal? A rent decrease? Not in our growth-minded system.
Pull that thread a bit. See what answers come to you. How did we come to believe that this concept is so ridiculous? Why is there a constant demand for growth that drives our current behavior?
Maybe it only seems crazy to us because the suggestion runs counter to our current mental models. What if we changed the system conditions to allow for it?
Indifference runs wild without firm boundaries.
If you wait until you’re in the moment to decide where you stand, you will default to indifference, and eventually, with each passing decision, you’ll find yourself deep in enemy territory, condoning actions you abhor.
Define your positions and values ahead of time, so there’s no thought required when faced with tricky situations.
Locked in on a certain position?
Temporarily take the opposing viewpoint and come up with every possible counterargument imaginable.
Pick it apart. Take every angle you can think of to disprove what you think. You owe it to yourself to develop these counterpoints, as they’ll either disprove your original stance, or help you solidify it. Either outcome is acceptable. In the former case, you evolve your viewpoint. In the latter, you have a coherent and competent rebuttal if the position ever comes up in discussion.
Saying you believe something and then immediately relying on anger to defend it is unacceptable.
Develop a full case for your position so you can defend it properly – and respectfully.
Generalizations are useful.
They can also mislead you.
We derive our generalizations from specific direct or anecdotal experiences so that we can subsequently recall them when our brains recognize something similar. From there, we should use that knowledge as a starting point to form a specific judgment about any new scenario. Generalizations are complex, however, and if we don’t develop and implement them properly, they can feed us false information. In order to prevent misuse we must:
It takes mental work to handle generalizations properly – making it very tempting to disregard these two bullets – but ignore them at your own peril. If you develop any mental statements that follow this structure:
“All [nouns] are [adjective].”
You are morally obligated to validate those assumptions when you apply them to future experiences. Generalizations are merely starting points – general mental models – from which you should then develop a unique judgement about a specific scenario. Otherwise, you may run the risk of misguiding yourself.
The consequences of taking shortcuts can vary immensely. Mindlessly applying your own generalization across all future circumstances is negligent. Doing the same with someone else’s generalization that you haven’t personally vetted is dangerous, especially when dealing with non-trivial subjects. Used incorrectly, you run the risk of inciting unjustified hatred.
Wield the power of generalization wisely, as the concept is more complex than it seems. Reclaim responsibility for developing your own generalizations, and implement them with care.
brainsbri 