Michael Schellenberger

Rank 42 of 47
|
Score -120
2/22/2025, 2:32:46 AM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
329d
PS: "If you're tired of starting over, stop giving up." — Master SLB
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
329d
There has long been cynicism about a president's ability to shrink the federal government to make it more efficient.

This ruling proves it can be done, with no "constitutional crisis" required.

As the kids say, "You can just do things."

/END
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
329d
The caricature of government employees is that they act entitled to their jobs. Well, that's how these USAID employees behaved.

The plaintiffs claimed that losing their jobs would cause "irreparable damage." But unemployment is repairable. You can get another job.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
329d
The plaintiffs themselves admitted when confronted, that many of their claims weren't true, including the notion that the funding freeze had prevented
USAID employees from paying their bills.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
329d
The rhetoric employed by the media, USAID's activist labor union, and the taxpayer-funded NGO industrial complex was grossly irresponsible and constituted emotional blackmail.

At various moments, the judge scolds the plaintiffs for being misleading:

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi…
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
329d
The claims of "emotional harm" were too "'hypothetical' to "support a finding of irreparable harm."
"Upon scrutiny" the alleged injuries "are not irreparable."
USAID had not deprived anyone of necessary security.
And USAID had an orderly plan to return people home.

The statement discusses the potential elimination of USAID and the implications of a court ruling on job cuts, engaging with public issues related to government efficiency and employment.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly harm but discusses potential job losses, which could indirectly affect individuals.
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects privacy but could be seen as dismissive of the concerns of those losing jobs. [-1]
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement does not engage in personal attacks but lacks empathy towards those affected by job cuts. [-1]