#government departments

[queenofcandynsoda]

Sol Fertilis: Ministries and their Departments Part 5

Ministry of Food Regulation

Department of Food Labels & Advertisement 

Department of Cuisine

Department of Food Safety & Inspection

Department of Food Import Regulation

Department of Food Exports & Trade

Ministry of Fashion

Department of Textile Production

Department of Headgear and Accessories

Department of Clothing Designs

Department of Footwear

Department of Dress Code and Uniforms

Ministry of Mental Health

Department of Treatment & Care

Department of Re-Conditioning

Department of Basic & Applied Psychology 

Department of Advocacy

Department of Mental Wellbeing Research

Ministry of Marriage & Family

Department of Family Law

Department of Elder Care

Department of Matchmaking

Department of Parenting & Family Management

Department of Divorce & Annulment 

Ministry of Communication

Department of Telecommunication

Department of Marketing

Department of International Communication

Department of Crisis Management

Department of Press

Ministry of Chemicals

Department of Chemical Safety and Regulation

Department of Chemical Research and Development

Department of Chemical Trade and Commerce

Department of Chemical Education and Training

Department of Chemical Manufacturing 

Ministry of Droughters

Department of Savage Zoos

Department of The Fields

Department of Menageries

Department of Barbarian Fights

Department of Pup Removal

Ministry of Sales & Retail

Department of E-commerce 

Department of Customer Affairs & Services

Department of Pricing Control

Department of Supply & Demand

Department of International Retail

Ministry of Materials

Department of Material Sustainability

Department of Forging & Casting

Department of Mining

Department of Quarrying

Department of Materials Characterization & Testing

Minister of Construction

Department of Architecture

Department of Building Codes

Department of Building Disaster Management

Department of Infrastructure Development

Department of Project Financing

[manasastuff-blog]

"National Civil Services Day" #servicesday #trending #viral On National Civil Services Day, we celebrate the hard work and dedication of civil servants who play a crucial role in shaping our nation. This day is observed to honor the contributions of those who serve in various government departments and agencies, working tirelessly to ensure the smooth functioning of our country. From maintaining law and order to implementing policies that impact the lives of millions, civil servants are the backbone of our administrative system. Join us as we delve into the importance of National Civil Services Day and pay homage to those who selflessly serve our nation.

Call :77997 99221

Website : www.manasadefenceacademy.com

#nationalcivilservicesday #civilservants #publicservice #administrativesystem #government #nationbuilding #dedication #honorableservice #importance #hardwork #celebration #recognition #lawandorder #policymaking #publicservants #nationdevelopment #bureaucracy #civilservice #governmentofficials

[onlytiktoks]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-strikes-down-biden-overtime-pay-rule-2024-11-15/

[zozotheme]

Looking for a highly-featured Government Website?

Here is the best option for you! As Zozothemes Released #eGovenz - City Government WordPress Theme

Read More ► https://1.envato.market/dzery

eGovenz is a completely designed and developed WordPress theme for modern municipalities & city governments.

It is flexible enough to support municipality websites, small-town websites, local government websites, town or city portal websites, government departments, or any government agencies.

We provide high-quality SEO-friendly website themes and templates with 100% responsive design.

Explore it ► https://zozothemes.com/

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Expert agencies and elected legislatures

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/11/21/policy-based-evidence/#decisions-decisions

Since Trump hijacked the Supreme Court, his backers have achieved many of their policy priorities: legalizing bribery, formalizing forced birth, and – with the Loper Bright case, neutering the expert agencies that regulate business:

https://jacobin.com/2024/07/scotus-decisions-chevron-immunity-loper

What the Supreme Court began, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are now poised to finish, through the "Department of Government Efficiency," a fake agency whose acronym ("DOGE") continues Musk's long-running cryptocurrency memecoin pump-and-dump. The new department is absurd – imagine a department devoted to "efficiency" with two co-equal leaders who are both famously incapable of getting along with anyone – but that doesn't make it any less dangerous.

Expert agencies are often all that stands between us and extreme misadventure, even death. The modern world is full of modern questions, the kinds of questions that require a high degree of expert knowledge to answer, but also the kinds of questions whose answers you'd better get right.

You're not stupid, nor are you foolish. You could go and learn everything you need to know to evaluate the firmware on your antilock brakes and decide whether to trust them. You could figure out how to assess the Common Core curriculum for pedagogical soundness. You could learn the material science needed to evaluate the soundness of the joists that hold the roof up over your head. You could acquire the biology and chemistry chops to decide whether you want to trust produce that's been treated with Monsanto's Roundup pesticides. You could do the same for cell biology, virology, and epidemiology and decide whether to wear a mask and/or get an MRNA vaccine and/or buy a HEPA filter.

You could do any of these. You might even be able to do two or three of them. But you can't do all of them, and that list is just a small slice of all the highly technical questions that stand between you and misery or an early grave. Practically speaking, you aren't going to develop your own robust meatpacking hygiene standards, nor your own water treatment program, nor your own Boeing 737 MAX inspection protocol.

Markets don't solve this either. If they did, we wouldn't have to worry about chunks of Boeing jets falling on our heads. The reason we have agencies like the FDA (and enabling legislation like the Pure Food and Drug Act) is that markets failed to keep people from being murdered by profit-seeking snake-oil salesmen and radium suppository peddlers.

These vital questions need to be answered by experts, but that's easier said than done. After all, experts disagree about this stuff. Shortcuts for evaluating these disagreements ("distrust any expert whose employer has a stake in a technical question") are crude and often lead you astray. If you dismiss any expert employed by a firm that wants to bring a new product to market, you will lose out on the expertise of people who are so legitimately excited about the potential improvements of an idea that they quit their jobs and go to work for whomever has the best chance of realizing a product based on it. Sure, that doctor who works for a company with a new cancer cure might just be shilling for a big bonus – but maybe they joined the company because they have an informed, truthful belief that the new drug might really cure cancer.

What's more, the scientific method itself speaks against the idea of there being one, permanent answer to any big question. The method is designed as a process of continual refinement, where new evidence is continuously brought forward and evaluated, and where cherished ideas that are invalidated by new evidence are discarded and replaced with new ideas.

So how are we to survive and thrive in a world of questions we ourselves can't answer, that experts disagree about, and whose answers are only ever provisional?

The scientific method has an answer for this, too: refereed, adversarial peer review. The editors of major journals act as umpires in disputes among experts, exercising their editorial discernment to decide which questions are sufficiently in flux as to warrant taking up, then asking parties who disagree with a novel idea to do their damndest to punch holes in it. This process is by no means perfect, but, like democracy, it's the worst form of knowledge creation except for all others which have been tried.

Expert regulators bring this method to governance. They seek comment on technical matters of public concern, propose regulations based on them, invite all parties to comment on these regulations, weigh the evidence, and then pass a rule. This doesn't always get it right, but when it does work, your medicine doesn't poison you, the bridge doesn't collapse as you drive over it, and your airplane doesn't fall out of the sky.

Expert regulators work with legislators to provide an empirical basis for turning political choices into empirically grounded policies. Think of all the times you've heard about how the gerontocracy that dominates the House and the Senate is incapable of making good internet policy because "they're out of touch and don't understand technology." Even if this is true (and sometimes it is, as when Sen Ted Stevens ranted about the internet being "a series of tubes," not "a dump truck"), that doesn't mean that Congress can't make good internet policy.

After all, most Americans can safely drink their tap water, a novelty in human civilization, whose history amounts to short periods of thriving shattered at regular intervals by water-borne plagues. The fact that most of us can safely drink our water, but people who live in Flint (or remote indigenous reservations, or Louisiana's Cancer Alley) can't tells you that these neighbors of ours are being deliberately poisoned, as we know precisely how not to poison them.

How did we (most of us) get to the point where we can drink the water without shitting our guts out? It wasn't because we elected a bunch of water scientists! I don't know the precise number of microbiologists and water experts who've been elected to either house, but it's very small, and their contribution to good sanitation policy is negligible.

We got there by delegating these decisions to expert agencies. Congress formulates a political policy ("make the water safe") and the expert agency turns that policy into a technical program of regulation and enforcement, and your children live to drink another glass of water tomorrow.

Musk and Ramaswamy have set out to destroy this process. In their Wall Street Journal editorial, they explain that expert regulation is "undemocratic" because experts aren't elected:

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/musk-and-ramaswamy-the-doge-plan-to-reform-government-supreme-court-guidance-end-executive-power-grab-fa51c020

They've vowed to remove "thousands" of regulations, and to fire swathes of federal employees who are in charge of enforcing whatever remains:

https://www.theverge.com/2024/11/20/24301975/elon-musk-vivek-ramaswamy-doge-plan

And all this is meant to take place on an accelerated timeline, between now and July 4, 2026 – a timeline that precludes any meaningful assessment of the likely consequences of abolishing the regulations they'll get rid of.

"Chesterton's Fence" – a thought experiment from the novelist GK Chesterton – is instructive here:

There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.

A regulation that works might well produce no visible sign that it's working. If your water purification system works, everything is fine. It's only when you get rid of the sanitation system that you discover why it was there in the first place, a realization that might well arrive as you expire in a slick of watery stool with a rectum so prolapsed the survivors can use it as a handle when they drag your corpse to the mass burial pits.

When Musk and Ramaswamy decry the influence of "unelected bureaucrats" on your life as "undemocratic," they sound reasonable. If unelected bureaucrats were permitted to set policy without democratic instruction or oversight, that would be autocracy.

Indeed, it would resemble life on the Tesla factory floor: that most autocratic of institutions, where you are at the mercy of the unelected and unqualified CEO of Tesla, who holds the purely ceremonial title of "Chief Engineer" and who paid the company's true founders to falsely describe him as its founder.

But that's not how it works! At its best, expert regulations turns political choices in to policy that reflects the will of democratically accountable, elected representatives. Sometimes this fails, and when it does, the answer is to fix the system – not abolish it.

I have a favorite example of this politics/empiricism fusion. It comes from the UK, where, in 2008, the eminent psychopharmacologist David Nutt was appointed as the "drug czar" to the government. Parliament had determined to overhaul its system of drug classification, and they wanted expert advice:

https://locusmag.com/2021/05/cory-doctorow-qualia/

To provide this advice, Nutt convened a panel of drug experts from different disciplines and asked them to rate each drug in question on how dangerous it was for its user; for its user's family; and for broader society. These rankings were averaged, and then a statistical model was used to determine which drugs were always very dangerous, no matter which group's safety you prioritized, and which drugs were never very dangerous, no matter which group you prioritized.

Empirically, the "always dangerous" drugs should be in the most restricted category. The "never very dangerous" drugs should be at the other end of the scale. Parliament had asked how to rank drugs by their danger, and for these categories, there were clear, factual answers to Parliament's question.

But there were many drugs that didn't always belong in either category: drugs whose danger score changed dramatically based on whether you were more concerned about individual harms, familial harms, or societal harms. This prioritization has no empirical basis: it's a purely political question.

So Nutt and his panel said to Parliament, "Tell us which of these priorities matter the most to you, and we will tell you where these changeable drugs belong in your schedule of restricted substances." In other words, politicians make political determinations, and then experts turn those choices into empirically supported policies.

This is how policy by "unelected bureaucrats" can still be "democratic."

But the Nutt story doesn't end there. Nutt butted heads with politicians, who kept insisting that he retract factual, evidence-supported statements (like "alcohol is more harmful than cannabis"). Nutt refused to do so. It wasn't that he was telling politicians which decisions to make, but he took it as his duty to point out when those decisions did not reflect the policies they were said to be in support of. Eventually, Nutt was fired for his commitment to empirical truth. The UK press dubbed this "The Nutt Sack Affair" and you can read all about it in Nutt's superb book Drugs Without the Hot Air, an indispensable primer on the drug war and its many harms:

https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/drugs-without-the-hot-air-9780857844989/

Congress can't make these decisions. We don't elect enough water experts, virologists, geologists, oncology researchers, structural engineers, aerospace safety experts, pedagogists, gerontoloists, physicists and other experts for Congress to turn its political choices into policy. Mostly, we elect lawyers. Lawyers can do many things, but if you ask a lawyer to tell you how to make your drinking water safe, you will likely die a horrible death.

That's the point. The idea that we should just trust the market to figure this out, or that all regulation should be expressly written into law, is just a way of saying, "you will likely die a horrible death."

Trump – and his hatchet men Musk and Ramaswamy – are not setting out to create evidence-based policy. They are pursuing policy-based evidence, firing everyone capable of telling them how to turn the values espouse (prosperity and safety for all Americans) into policy.

They dress this up in the language of democracy, but the destruction of the expert agencies that turn the political will of our representatives into our daily lives is anything but democratic. It's a prelude to transforming the nation into a land of epistemological chaos, where you never know what's coming out of your faucet.

[utilitycaster]

source

[stormfazer]

The Department of Government Efficiency [D.O.G.E.] is officially a reality. Elon Musk is now the head of a federal agency. Vivek Ramaswamy is now one of the most powerful men on earth. Damn it feels good to be MAGA.

[dogeresourcex]

[beardedmrbean]

Department logo just dropped

[baby-girl-aaron-dessner]

[awetistic-things]

this isn’t what i meant when i said wanted more autistic people in the white house

[queenofcandynsoda]

Sol Fertilis: Ministries and their Departments Part 4

Ministry of Leisure

Department of Extracurricular Activities

Department of Outdoor Leisure

Department of Volunteerism

Department of Gaming

Department of Libraries & Museums

Ministry of Monitoring 

Department of Surveillance

Department of Preservation 

Department of Compliance Monitoring

Department of Traffic

Department of Media Monitoring

Ministry of Pharmaceutical

Department of Suppressants

Department of Drug Regulation & Safety

Department of Drug Abuse & Addiction Prevention and Recovery

Department of Drug Distribution

Department of Manufacturing & Production

Ministry of Counter-Intelligence

Department of Counterterrorism 

Department of Espionage

Department of  Investigative Intelligence 

Department of Intelligence Assessment

Department of Cyber Intelligence

Ministry of Postal

Department of Postal Screening & Regulations

Department of Postal Operations

Department of Postal Finance Transfers

Department of International Mail & Logistics

Department of Digital Services

Ministry of Security

Department of Policing

Department of Border & Coast Guard

Department of Aviation Security

Department of Critical Infrastructure Protection

Department of National Security

Ministry of Waste Removal

Department of Hazardous Waste Management 

Department of Composting

Department of Waste Reduction

Department of Sewage

Department of Landfill Management

Ministry of Machinery

Department of Mechanical Innovation

Department of Automation

Department of Industry Partnerships

Department of Industrial Safety

Department of Production Standards & Certification

Ministry of Forestry

Department of Logging

Department of Wildfire Control

Department of Silviculture

Department of Forestation

Department of Sustainable Forest Management (SFM)

Ministry of Water

Department of Irritation & Drainage

Department of Water Sanitation 

Department of Water Conversion

Department of Water Infrastructure 

Department of Coastal Management

[bumblebeebats]

How come almost every rechargeable device in the world has a lithium battery which will one day, at the end of its life, swell up into a ticking time-bomb full of fire and toxic gas, and yet whenever this happens and I phone up my local council waste management department/recycling center/fire safety advice hotline like "Hi, i have a bomb, who do i give it to" they're all like

[thefreethoughtprojectcom]

The only thing Trump should do with the DHS is abolish it.

Read More: https://thefreethoughtproject.com/government-corruption/it-is-time-to-abolish-the-department-of-homeland-security

#TheFreeThoughtProject

[penginlord]

Concept: the Mystery Flesh Pit existing in the SCP universe, yet it doesn't fall under SCP jurisdiction because it was originally sold to the National Parks Service, and despite the Mystery Flesh Pit since being shut down due to the incidents, the National Parks Service refuses to hand over jurisdiction to SCP because it's their mess to deal with and contain.

They allow SCP scientists to visit and share information, of course.