"William Black" wrote:
>
> "Kurt Ullman" wrote:
>>
>> "William Black" wrote:
>>>
>>> That's not the sort of decision bureaucrats make.
>>
>> Of course it is. The see a possibility to be blamed for something
>> happening and take steps to see that it doesn't (or at least they
>> can't be blamed). This is exactly the kind of overkill, non-thinking
>> idiocy that comes out of bureaucracies.
>
> Nope.
>
> The staff don't decide stuff like this. It remains a political
> decision.
Yep. Having dealt extensively with government regulators, that's exactly
the sort of decision that would have been left to the bureaucrats. Their
political masters can't keep an eye on everything.
>>> Bureaucrats don't decide policy in these matters.
>>>
>> The policy is don't get attacked, the means of implementing that
>> policy is often (if not usually) left in the hands of the people
>> running the show. Again it is a blame thing. The policy dudes only
>> give very broad mandates so that they can shift the blame for
>> anything going wrong on to the bureaucracy. The policy dudes have
>> even more to lose than the bureaucrats (who are often civil service
>> and hard to can), so they are even more afraid to make a decision.
>
> Utter rubbish.
>
> No paid official would dare change the policy of a country withour
> political aproval.
Bureaucrats regularly change details. In some cases, they are
disgruntled former employees of companies they now regulate, and want to
get even. In other cases, they feel they are somehow protecting an
industry they are regulating.
> If they do nothing they're on a guaranteed pension in a few years, if
> they do something original they stand the chance of being sacked if it
> all goes horribly wrong.
>
>>> That's a political decision, almost certainly in retaliation for
>>> some idiocy the people on the other side of the border have
>>> committed...
>>
>> Not likely. If policy you would see at more than just the one
>> area. Haven't seen anything similar on the other great lakes that I
>> can see.
>
> Exactly, it's not about the Great Lakes, it's about something else.
>
> Someone somewhere is making a point.
It's about trying to tighten security on the northern border, and keep
the population frightened about being attacked. Nothing more, nothing
less. It's all part of the desire to keep the population scared, so the
current party in power has a better chance of remaining in power. |
