Affirmative action

* That woman with the daughter

We recently had Jodi Farhat flooding the Missouri basin, Regina Dugan‘s conflicts of interest, countless other “affirmative action” appointees which I call Parachutees and now there’s Lori Garver, unqualified and imposed on NASA by the Obama administration.

The most galling thing with all of these is that they are parachuted straight into management roles, not once learning the trade from the bottom up and their qualifications are of the NVQ type or only tangential to their jobs.  Everyone knows girls are much more dedicated at swotting than guys.

There is something so basically incompetent about this lot – even Brooks – and sure enough, disasters follow which they sheet home to someone else. The latest is Theresa May.

Update 14:04 [sure enough, eh?]:

Theresa May refuses to resign over border checks scandal

Theresa May today refused to resign as she blamed the head of the UK border force for relaxing controls on people entering Britain.

Below are photos of parachutees, all except for the woman with the daughter*.  All have wrecked something by virtue of their role and all have a sameness to them.

Many even physically resemble each other, with that lank fair hair hanging either side of the well fed face, hardly given a cursory glance, all hellbent on getting to work that day to see what can be stuffed up and what anger they can induce in underlings they’ve been appointed over.

Oh, I forgot one:

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/09/jamie-gorelick-mistress-of-disaster.html#c1219193657279529857

They’re like bloody clones, are they not?  Do you think they are actually cloned from the same base stock?  It’s that look on the face, the total sexlessness, the huge amounts of time and energy spent shoring up their positions instead of doing their jobs, witchhunting detractors and generally being obnoxious – why on earth are they in these positions?

There’s no point sending them back to the kitchen because they’d be utterly incompetent at that too.  That is the point – as women, they might have had something going for them if they’d stuck to things they could do well but no, they had to be “high-fliers”, did they not and the Peter Principle sticks out a mile.  They can’t do their jobs, they can’t be women any more, they’re never at home to be proper mothers – they are total wastes of space on this earth.

The story of Lori Garver is the story of all these women:

There are individuals who match the roles and responsibilities of their appointed positions – and then there are people with agendas who match the political machinations of the party in control at that time these people are appointed to their posts without having real qualifications. Such is the case with Lori Garver who has been assigned the number two position at NASA – purely because of politics. During the transitional period and even now, there has been the attempt to compare her with Michael Griffin, (love him or hate him) – the simple fact is, in space-acumen and education – there is no comparison.

I love women in general and there is a proportion of them who are quite cluey people, just as with men.  You’ll never find them in key positions in society because they lack the rat-cunning or the being-in-the-right-place-at-the-right-time-for-promoting-or-baronessing.  They fail to be Common Purpose yes-we’re-all-individuals-who-think-for-ourselves people.

They should actually be in those roles but never will.

On Saturday, I was speaking with the Asst Manager about some very strange decisions coming down from above and it is the new male area manager.  Now he is noway qualified for this type of work – he’s a parachuted “manager” from another business and doesn’t know how his decisions affect the shop floor.  I said to the AM that there are jobs which women should dominate, as they’re the competent ones – they know fabric, colour, value etc. and then there are jobs men are more competent in.

She agreed but then had to officially not accept it, such is PCism today.  Why are we all walking about officially believing falsehoods, especially when we can see the Empress has no clothes?

Let’s wind up with the Big Mama of them all:

Why should I care?  I shouldn’t if it weren’t for the fact that they are in roles which directly affect other human beings, including me and therefore, I have a vested interest in them not being in those roles.  Will we ever get back to a situation where proper people, qualified, experienced at ground level and generally competent are once again appointed to key positions?

4 comments for “Affirmative action

  1. MadPiper
    November 8, 2011 at 15:14

    James, please learn to use Photoshop. Even sillouettes would be an improvement. I can’t take any more of these creatures…..

  2. November 8, 2011 at 16:26

    Agreed that that lot are easy to detest. The difficulty comes when their brains are equally scrambled and in the case of the first and last one, actually evil but they look like this:

    http://www.lefigaro.fr/societes-francaises/2008/04/19/04010-20080419ARTFIG00507-veronique-morali-apres-fimalac-et-chanel-lance-le-site-terrafemina-.php

    http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/U1myz0LWRI0/Caroline+Flint+Appears+Breakfast+Television

    http://m24digital.com/en/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/cristina-kirchner.jpg

    I call this the Knox syndrome – something in her beauty just stops us thinking she could be a nasty piece of work.

  3. JD
    November 8, 2011 at 23:29

    “I call this the Knox syndrome – something in her beauty just stops us thinking she could be a nasty piece of work.”

    always look at the eyes and always the eyes are dead, no inner light;
    that’s your best guide
    look at May or Harman for example

  4. Lord T
    November 9, 2011 at 21:20

    I think that it is strange the number of ugly women in politics. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but there are limits. I am therefore forced to conclude that if you are ugly, evil, have shit for brains and have no personality all it only leaves a career in politics.

Comments are closed.