这次美国总统大选可谓是波澜不断，而最近发生的这件事情可以说是本次大选的高潮了。这件事的讨论度实在太高了，今天我想再聊聊，因为还有更多有趣的细节值得挖掘。
首先，我们可以基本排除这次事件是针对川普的刺字行动。枪手一开始的目标就是要了川普的性命。而川普能够倖存下来纯属侥幸。如果他当时没有侧身转头去看PPT，那枪手的子弹可能就命中了他的后脑勺了。此外，枪手射击的位置距离川普的讲台不到200米，按照常理，这个范围应该是受到严格安保控制的区域。然而，负责前总统保卫任务的联邦特勤局却没有控制住这个区域，事后给出的解释是这一区域属于地方警局的管辖范围。
在影视剧中，我们往往看到联邦探员，比如FBI探员，以威风凛凛的形象出现，似乎不把地方州警放在眼里。但现实中联邦特勤局的反应却令人疑惑。更不可思议的是，枪手大摇大摆地拿着步枪爬上屋顶，这一举动竟然没有引起联邦特勤局的注意，反而被参加集会的群众发现并报告了当地警方。当地警方也表现得相当迟钝，虽然接到群众报告，但并没有及时采取行动。一名警察上屋顶查看情况，结果被枪手用枪威胁，只好又退回去了。枪手随后向川普开枪。当地警察部门给出的理由是，该警员当时双手抓着梯子，无法反击。当然，我们也不能否认这位警员的出现一定程度上打乱了枪手的计划，迫使他在仓促中开枪，这也许是川普得以倖存的原因之一。
尽管川普倖存下来并只受了轻伤，但整个事件暴露出安保方面的严重问题。人们不禁质疑起担任联邦特警局局长的人选。她是一名女性，由拜登政府任命，之前在希可乐公司的安保部门工作。她上任后做出的重大改革之一就是从政治正确的角度出发，认为特工队伍中男性比例太高，因此大力招募女特工。这就是我们看到在现场安保特工中女性比例非常高的原因。这让我想到了国内曾经有一段时间的用人标准——又红又专。虽然是既要又要的句式，但“红”是放在第一位的，“专业能力”排在后面。显然，拜登政府也是以政治正确作为优先考核标准，而专业能力则排在次要位置。读过米塞斯的书之后，我对政府部门的用人标准就不觉得奇怪了。政府缺少经济核算的考核，只能用一些主观的标准来衡量工作质量。在标榜多样性、包容性和政治正确的民主党政府中，性别比例自然就成了最重要的考核方向。归根结底，还是政府缺少市场经济的压力。
这次事件也让人们看到，号称民主灯塔的美国官僚机构已经显得相当老旧了。即便排除阴谋论的影响，这事件也足以引起人们对美国政府部门运作能力的质疑。
The latest assassination is the first high point in what has been a tumultuous US presidential election. There's been too much discussion about this, and I want to talk about it again today, because there are more interesting details to dig out.
First, we can basically rule out that this incident was a sting operation against Trump. The shooter's initial goal was to take Trump's life. Trump's survival was a fluke. If he hadn't turned his head sideways to look at the powerpoint presentation, the shooter's bullet might have hit him in the back of the head. In addition, the shooter shot within 200 meters of Trump's podium, which would normally be a tightly controlled security area. However, the federal Secret Service, which was in charge of guarding the former president, did not secure the area, later explaining that it was under the jurisdiction of the local police.
In movies and TV shows, we often see federal agents, such as the FBI, appearing in a commanding image, seemingly ignoring the local state troopers. But in reality, the response of the Federal Secret Service has been confusing. Even more incredibly, the gunman's swaggering climb to the roof with a rifle did not attract the attention of the federal Secret Service, but was spotted by the crowd at the rally and reported to the local police. The local police were also slow to act, despite receiving reports from the public. A police officer went up to the roof to check on the situation, was threatened with a gun by the gunman, and had to go back. The gunman then shot Trump. The reason given by the local police department is that the officer was holding the ladder with both hands and was unable to fight back. Of course, we cannot deny that the police officer's presence somewhat disrupted the gunman's plans, forcing him to fire in haste, which may be one of the reasons Trump survived.
Although Trump survived with only minor injuries, the entire incident exposed serious problems with security. Questions are being asked about the choice to head the Federal Special Police Service. She is a woman who was appointed by the Biden administration and previously worked in the security department at Chiccolo. One of the big changes she made after taking office was to recruit women agents because she believed, from a politically correct point of view, that there were too many men in the secret service. That's why we see a very high percentage of women among security agents in the field. This makes me think of the domestic employment standards for a period of time - red and professional. Although the sentence pattern is both necessary and desirable, "red" is the first, and "professional ability" is the second. Clearly, the Biden administration also prioritized political correctness and professional competence as a secondary criterion. After reading Mises's book, I am not surprised by the standards of government employment. The government lacks economic accounting and can only use some subjective criteria to measure the quality of work. In a Democratic administration that prides itself on diversity, inclusion, and political correctness, the gender ratio is naturally the most important test. Ultimately, the government lacks the pressure of a market economy.
The incident also showed how old the American bureaucracy, which is supposed to be a beacon of democracy, has become. Even excluding conspiracy theories, the incident is enough to raise questions about the functioning of the US government.
