Calling it a "joke" doesn't excuse the comment, as it highlights a serious lapse in judgment. The public expects competence and clarity from the National Weather Service, not attempts at humor that downplay responsibility. In a room where confidence in leadership is already low, joking about not knowing hurricane season exists only reinforces perceptions of incompetence. This isn’t about being funny-it’s about being accountable and understanding the mission.
cratermoon · 1d ago
"Why aren't you laughing? It's just a joke!"
What trolls say to excuse harmful or bigoted statements.
drivingmenuts · 1d ago
The entirety of their solution to any problems that arise will be to blame Biden. And if they get called on that, double down. No relief, no forward planning, just blame.
palmfacehn · 1d ago
About a decade ago, I went through a Charles Bukowski binge. I read all of his books and poems. After that I read some of his letters. I was shocked to learn that he had submitted poetry to The Atlantic. Bukowski was desperate to be published. He celebrated finally having his material in the magazine.
Apparently, in a previous life, The Atlantic had a somewhat serious literary element. I've only known it as a political publication. Views range from military interventionism to economic interventionism.
Looking over the recent submissions, I see a common editorial theme: "The current administration is bad, bad, bad - and the only thing worse than the man we hate is the impending doom caused by not having big enough government bureaus."
piva00 · 1d ago
Anything of substance to add to the actual topic of the article?
api · 1d ago
If they’d slashed government to the point that the deficit was shrinking, I’d be at least open to the argument that this kind of thing is the price.
The deficit is growing. They control all three branches of government. They’re not cutting spending just making us get less for our money.
It’s been a thing for a long time with the right. They don’t actually cut spending. They just make the result of spending shittier like the goal is to set money on fire.
While I do think Elon has gone crackers, I give him a small amount of credit for rapidly realizing that DOGE was baloney and there was never any intent to cut spending. There never is, regardless of party or rhetoric. Given Trump's behavior the most likely answer is that Trump wanted someone to blame the fallout for his grifting on, so he lined up some popularly-unpopular fall guys. Elon dove enthusiastically into this septic tank though, so I have no sympathy.
palmfacehn · 1d ago
Agreed.
Although I wouldn't attribute it to the right/left divide as much as the incentives baked into the structure of governance. There's very little benefit for a self-interested politician to make meaningful spending cuts. This leaves reallocations and spending increases on the table.
The Atlantic's editorial policy is somewhat illustrative of this uniparty phenomenon. The top editors have been foreign policy hawks advocating for increased military spending, while many of the lower tiered authors will appeal for increased social spending. There's something for everyone, as long as follows from the primacy of the state.
Another recent submission lamented the fall of Rome, offering predictable doom over token efforts at privatization. As mentioned previously, cuts are better understood as reallocations to other programs. Rome and Caeserism was celebrated. Decentralization was demonized. I found this a bit strange, because from the other corner of The Atlantic's mouth, I'm repeatedly warned about the dangerous rise of a new autocrat.
api · 22h ago
As the saying goes: "politicians always go to DC to drain the swamp, but when they get there they find out it's a jacuzzi not a swamp."
jrs235 · 23h ago
They grift and funnel more of the money to themselves and cronies. Apparently more transparently so that makes it and the corruption more okay.
What trolls say to excuse harmful or bigoted statements.
Apparently, in a previous life, The Atlantic had a somewhat serious literary element. I've only known it as a political publication. Views range from military interventionism to economic interventionism.
Looking over the recent submissions, I see a common editorial theme: "The current administration is bad, bad, bad - and the only thing worse than the man we hate is the impending doom caused by not having big enough government bureaus."
The deficit is growing. They control all three branches of government. They’re not cutting spending just making us get less for our money.
It’s been a thing for a long time with the right. They don’t actually cut spending. They just make the result of spending shittier like the goal is to set money on fire.
While I do think Elon has gone crackers, I give him a small amount of credit for rapidly realizing that DOGE was baloney and there was never any intent to cut spending. There never is, regardless of party or rhetoric. Given Trump's behavior the most likely answer is that Trump wanted someone to blame the fallout for his grifting on, so he lined up some popularly-unpopular fall guys. Elon dove enthusiastically into this septic tank though, so I have no sympathy.
Although I wouldn't attribute it to the right/left divide as much as the incentives baked into the structure of governance. There's very little benefit for a self-interested politician to make meaningful spending cuts. This leaves reallocations and spending increases on the table.
The Atlantic's editorial policy is somewhat illustrative of this uniparty phenomenon. The top editors have been foreign policy hawks advocating for increased military spending, while many of the lower tiered authors will appeal for increased social spending. There's something for everyone, as long as follows from the primacy of the state.
Another recent submission lamented the fall of Rome, offering predictable doom over token efforts at privatization. As mentioned previously, cuts are better understood as reallocations to other programs. Rome and Caeserism was celebrated. Decentralization was demonized. I found this a bit strange, because from the other corner of The Atlantic's mouth, I'm repeatedly warned about the dangerous rise of a new autocrat.