A little serious...

[sirgallahad2]

I suppose....


ah forget it. It's all over.

[pfrsue]

Thanks guys. Like I said, there's nothing wrong with spirited debate--but there's friendly debating and there's angry debating. I think you'll both agree that it was getting mighty close to the line, and I really appreciate how willing you both were to step back and take a deep breath. You're both very cool. In fact, I'm going to take a few dozen of the Kudos we have stockpiled (blinkfan gives us lots!) and bestow them upon each of you.

Please feel free to continue your discussion if you'd like. Just remember that one of the nicest things about the MRFH forum is the spirit of friendship and respect we all have for each other. No one here should ever be made to feel hurt or uncomfortable because someone else doesn't agree with them.

Thanks again!

Sue

[Hucklebubba]

sirgallahad2 said:

I'm on effexor thank you

Hey, if you gotta be on an SNRI, at least it's one that can be utilized in chauvinistic, offensive wordplay: "Effexor enough to get 'er in bed with me! Zing!"

I, too, have a modicum of anti-d experience. My poison of choice was Zoloft; a shining example of a cure that's worse than the disease. It works fantastically, in the sense that it makes you appreciate how good you had it back when you were depressed.

pfrsue said:

I'm poor. Seriously poor. Are you telling me that I don't work and that I have no hope of improving my circumstances? That's not very nice.

Work? Sure. Improve your circumstances? Debatable; at least according to at least one almost-laughably neurotic college professor.

Mr. McIntyre, my History prof from a couple years back, surprised and delighted everyone when, on literally the first day of classes, he went completely Matt Foley on us (albeit in a straight-faced, skinny kind of way).

In a nutshell, he told us that it was a fool's dream to think that we'd ever be in a socioeconomic strata higher than the one we occupied at that moment, and that, if anything, we would be the first generation in some time to actually fare worse than our parents.

On day two, he lined out the Trumping Order of Who's to Blame for Everything. If memory serves, it went Republicans-->Americans-->White People. In other words, if you can't blame Republicans specifically, blame America as a nation, and if that isn't applicable either, blame white people in general.

Now before you start asking what any of this has to do with teaching history, consider the following, which I will lay out for you in Choose Your Own Adventure format!


If you suspect that Mr. McIntyre's personal pick-bones often took precedence over the teaching of his chosen subject:

Keep in mind that a goodly portion of college professors are simply potential activist judges who merely lacked the initiative to attend law school.


If you think that Mr. McIntyre should be required to limit himself to rantings with a relevant historical tie-in:

If I understood him correctly, the sole culprit for the diminishing quality of life in America is the demise of the labor unions, which has its genesis at some point in the past, ergo, it's historical.

The blame hierarchy is also of historical significance, due to its chronological element: Republicans are to blame for all recently-occuring problems; Americans are to blame for all problems originating in the last century or so; White people are to blame for all problems across the entire scope of history.


On a separate note to Sue: I don't want to get in trouble with the other mods by insinuating a lack of weight-pulling on their part, but I would start bucking for a raise if I were you.

[pfrsue]

hucklebubba said:

On a separate note to Sue: I don't want to get in trouble with the other mods by insinuating a lack of weight-pulling on their part, but I would start bucking for a raise if I were you.

Oh, I did get a raise. Someone put blocks under my chair legs when I was napping concentrating. It's all wobbly now! I'm scared!

Can someone please help me down from here?

[sirgallahad2]

I was able to calm down and drop it because of the anti depressants. That and out of respect for the other forum folk. I could have DEFINITELY kept going on that particular tangent. However, with age comes self control.

[Al]

hucklebubba said:

On day two, he lined out the Trumping Order of Who's to Blame for Everything. If memory serves, it went Republicans-->Americans-->White People. In other words, if you can't blame Republicans specifically, blame America as a nation, and if that isn't applicable either, blame white people in general.

Now before you start asking what any of this has to do with teaching history, consider the following, which I will lay out for you in Choose Your Own Adventure format!


If you suspect that Mr. McIntyre's personal pick-bones often took precedence over the teaching of his chosen subject:

Keep in mind that a goodly portion of college professors are simply potential activist judges who merely lacked the initiative to attend law school.


If you think that Mr. McIntyre should be required to limit himself to rantings with a relevant historical tie-in:

If I understood him correctly, the sole culprit for the diminishing quality of life in America is the demise of the labor unions, which has its genesis at some point in the past, ergo, it's historical.

The blame hierarchy is also of historical significance, due to its chronological element: Republicans are to blame for all recently-occuring problems; Americans are to blame for all problems originating in the last century or so; White people are to blame for all problems across the entire scope of history.

Gee, what a unique and utterly original position for a college professor

[DocD83]

Yup, sad but true, but they can ALSO, with just a few bills, take all of that power BACK. Just like how they repealed Prohibition, they can dissolve all of those entities and take that power back.

Is that really what you want? To have this group of 535 (mostly) lawyers who don't read even what's on their desks now attempting to formulate national policy in highly technical fields as diverse as communications standards, environmental protection, economics, agriculture, food safety, etc., as well as deciding what shows on PBS get federal funding? I'm no fan of most of these agencies ("Three-Letter Nazis"), but there was a very good reason for making them in the first place, and if you want to undo them you need a very good fall back plan in place.

if the laws come with dates to have certain things accomplished, they can prevent Executive dilly-dally.

It seems to me that the most troubling laws in terms of personal freedom are not easily given deadlines. Let's take prohibition as an example--what would you have put in there to compel enforcement if the president decies to make it a low priority to enforce?

The problem here is that the lawmakers kept what were SUPPOSED to be "temporary" laws on the books permanently and did not give them an automatic date of repeal.

That's part of it, but I think a bigger part is simply the complexity of the laws these days. There should be no reason any single thing out of congress should be more than 10 pages or so. Even the budget, which is routinely several inches thick. Congress doesn't have time to micromanage lke that, but they do anyway because it's so much easier to hide pork in large bills, and bringing home the bacon is--honestly--what congressional delegations are sent to Washington to do.

Just because alot of power rests with one person does not make that one person the most powerful. The reason is that that one person was GIVEN more and more power over the years by 535 people

Ok, let's assume Congress takes back all those powers. It's still 1 to 1/535.

But obviously I didn't explain this very well. Let me try again:

Let's say I really think my rights are being unduly trod upon by, say, the current drug laws. Let's also say I've decided to get myself into office to fix it. Let's also say I'm sufficiently powerful that I can have my pick of a senate seat, the presidency, or supreme court justice.

The supreme court is out, because I'd have to wait for a case to wind its way up from the lower courts, and even then it's likely to be thrown out on a technicality.

If I go for the senate, I have to convince, at a minimum, 50 senators, 218 representatives, and 1 president, AND I'd have to navigate the procedural crap, just to get it passed. God knows how dear old prez would screw it up afterwards.

If I go for the presidency, I don't have to convince anyone. I don't have to muck about with procedures and formalities. I don't even have to publicize it--I just sit down the Attorney General, who I appointed, and tell him in no uncertain terms that convictions for anything but the very largest drug busts aren't worth the cost of litigation. I tell him to cancel all raids against medicinal cannibis centers on the grounds that it is a states' issue (lack of interstate trade and all that). I issue pardons for anyone who is in jail for possetion of what I consider to be trivial quantities. I issue an executive order forcing the Justice Department, FBI, and DEA to get my input for all further drug enforcement operations. And so on.

And if that's not a popular move? Too bad! The courts probably won't get into the game for years, and even then, it's my right as the chief executive to set enforcement priorities. The congress can't get their act together to save their lives, and if they did, my opponents would have to rally 67 senators and 290 representatives to force legislation through over my veto. And assuming they did, I can claim, as I did just now, my right under the Constitution to set enforcemet priorities. Which would kick the whole fiasco over to the courts again, where it will languish long enough for everyone to forget about it. Afterwards, if Congress doesn't give up, we strike a compromise or I stonewall until the next round of elections. After a while age becomes precedent, and it just gets harder and harder to change--government thrives on stability, and as long as we don't collapse into fire and brimstone most policymakers would rather not cause radical changes even to cancel out other radical changes.

And if the people don't like it? They can vote me out, of course. Would the next guy keep his campaign promise to undo my changes? The answer to that depends on your level of cynicysm, because there's no way to force him to.

All I heard over there was how we are "Defending Democracy" and "Leading the Iraqi people to a better life". The Iraqi Army hates the Iraqi Police for one thing.

Not to make light of your time in Iraq, but it seems like those things don't go together. It was one of our goals to improve the Iraqi's lot regardless of whether they seem to be taking advantage of it or not. That doesn't make liars of those who state the goals.

[bladestarr]

Is that really what you want? To have this group of 535 (mostly) lawyers who don't read even what's on their desks now attempting to formulate national policy in highly technical fields as diverse as communications standards, environmental protection, economics, agriculture, food safety, etc., as well as deciding what shows on PBS get federal funding? I'm no fan of most of these agencies ("Three-Letter Nazis"), but there was a very good reason for making them in the first place, and if you want to undo them you need a very good fall back plan in place.

What I honestly want is to have one of two things happen:

1) For Congress to severely reduce the size of the Federal Government to a size that it can manage on its own without the help of outside agencies. It sounds strange considering what I said earlier, but the "small" amount of time that Congress spends meeting is not abnormal. Since the beginning of the Republic, the Congress has always met for only a few months out of the year. BUT, they also were looking at many fewer bills that were much smaller in scope AND they also had "day jobs" that they had to get back to. Being in Congress was NEVER supposed to be a full time job, it was meant to be a "call to serve" your country in ADDITION to your chosen career field. "Politician" as a career was never meant to exist in America, but we all see how that changed with time. The only other option would be to....

2) FORCE Congress to live in Washington 365 days a year, with short periodic trips to their home areas to meet with their constituents. If they weren't spending more than half the year on golf courses or raising even more money for their next campaign, if they were forced to actually DO THEIR JOB, then we might be able to see some positive change in this country. But the odds that any members of Congress (except maybe Ron Paul ) would vote to make themselves actually work are slim to none.

So I think the only solution to this problem is to completely replace the existing Congress with a new one, in a legal way, over the proper course of 6 years - 3 election cycles. And replace them with people that either

A) See the job as a part time "service" to their country... or

b) See the job as a full time job that they should be dedicated to completing to the best of their abilities, instead of looking out for themselves alone.

This is a radical idea, to replace Congress, but it is legal and it is possible. The TOUGH part is getting the rest of the voting population to actually give a damn!

Once people actually CARE about this and KNOW just how much Congress affects their lives everyday, then maybe they will do something to change things.

It seems to me that the most troubling laws in terms of personal freedom are not easily given deadlines. Let's take prohibition as an example--what would you have put in there to compel enforcement if the president decides to make it a low priority to enforce?

As a civil libertarian, I am opposed to the whole concept of prohibition of any type of drug, so this would be a non-issue for me. In my humble opinion, if someone else wants to mess up their life with the use of ANY drug, that's their business. If they choose to mess up OTHER people's lives with their use of drugs, then it's the government's business. That's why we have DUI laws. The government should be there to protect people from each other, NOT from themselves.

That's part of it, but I think a bigger part is simply the complexity of the laws these days. There should be no reason any single thing out of congress should be more than 10 pages or so. Even the budget, which is routinely several inches thick. Congress doesn't have time to micromanage like that, but they do anyway because it's so much easier to hide pork in large bills, and bringing home the bacon is--honestly--what congressional delegations are sent to Washington to do.

I agree fully, the bills are way too large, they are too complicated and they are too many. That's why I also support Downsize DC's “Read the Bills Act” to MAKE congress actually read any bill that they vote on, either for or against.


As far as your longer section about the three branches go, you do have a few points there, the President does have very strong power in deciding the execution of the laws. However, those powers of execution still have to obey the laws that are passed. As I said before, if Congress passes simple, clear, and concise laws that set deadlines for certain parts of it, then:

1) The courts will have little room to "interpret" and
2) The executive branch will have to obey the laws and execute them as stated.

The reason why the executive branch, including the President, is so powerful is because the laws are somehow complex AND vague at the same time! Don't ask me how they do it, but they draft laws that it would take a room full of lawyers to understand, and that give WAY too much room for the judicial branch to interpret and the executive branch to choose why, when, where, and how to execute. This can, and should, stop at the lawmaking process.

Our congressmen/women should be making laws that make sense, laws that can't be fiddled around with. The fact that they aren't shows a failure of the current incarnation of Congress. This institution is still filled with "good old boys" who have known each other for years and see no need to change the way they are doing things.

My solution? Vote them out. All of them.

And it will only take a half decade to do it too.

[Lissa]

My computer ate my response.

Short version: consider working for an agency/department. They actually might listen to you. I worked for the Department of Agriculture for a few years, and the Department of Defense for several more (guess where I had the bigger budget?). But I know my research got noticed by a few higher-ups in the USDA (not Congress, but my research wasn't on a level I would expect Congress to care), and my one prof testified to Congress several times about military jet fuels. (Trying to get rid of that nasty JP-8, sirgallahad! ) And don't tell me that government scientists are overpaid. Duckie and I have the same degree. I went government, he went private, and I think I made about 2/3 of what he made when he started. Of course, I only had to work 40 hours a week, too

Anyway, as crazy as it sounds, Congress does sometimes actually listen to experts.

[DocD83]

However, those powers of execution still have to obey the laws that are passed. As I said before, if Congress passes simple, clear, and concise laws that set deadlines for certain parts of it

You never answered my question about this: How do you set a deadline for some of this stuff? You can set a deadline to have, for instance, high grade ethanol available at 1/3 of all gas stations by 2015. That'd work pretty well (asuming it's technologically possible, gets financial backing, etc.). But other things I just don't see how you can write a law with a deadline. I seriously want you to answer my prohibition question. If it helps, think of it the other way around--if you were the president at the time, and you decided to not stress enforcement of prohibition, what wording would you be glad Congress didn't think to put in there?

Trying to get rid of that nasty JP-8

Switch to JP-5?

[Lissa]

Switch to JP-5?

Not effective for the aircraft we were working on. We were looking for something that would ideally be appropriate for supersonic aircraft (none of the current military fuels qualified for the kinds of craft they were talking), and also be appropriate for a fuel that could be used in any other equipment, so you could use a universal fuel. Of course, diesel fuel or diesel compatible generally had the exact characteristics that would make a supersonic fuel break down, so I'm not so sure how that was working out. Last time I looked in on the project (published stuff at ACS), coal based fuels were popular.

[bladestarr]

docd83 said:

You never answered my question about this: How do you set a deadline for some of this stuff?... I seriously want you to answer my prohibition question. If it helps, think of it the other way around--if you were the president at the time, and you decided to not stress enforcement of prohibition, what wording would you be glad Congress didn't think to put in there?

Alright, I will try this out. Here is the (repealed) 18th Amendment to the Constitution, the Prohibition Amendment:

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

We are going to act as if this law was never repealed and is still in effect today. Now keep in mind I am NOT a lawmaker, I have no experience in law whatsoever, so I'm winging it here.

If you want me to play as the "President who is against Prohibition after Congress has already passed it", my job would be a (space ;D) lot harder if within the law it stated that....

"by January 20th of 2008, all restaurants, clubs, and other places of recreational social gathering must have a daily screening at a random time of the day so that peace officers may inspect the location for any alcoholic materials. Said searches do not require a warrant, and must be logged at the local law enforcement office with the name of the officer, time of the screening, and location of each search to be presented to higher authorities upon demand. Such a log must be maintained daily and preserved for a period of 2 years from the date of the screening, after which time said log may be destroyed. This amendment will be automatically repealed on the 20th of January, 2012, unless repealed earlier by a subsequent act of Congress. "

Call this a part of the "28th Amendment".

I would find such a law as the one I wrote above to be in FLAGRANT violations of so many civil liberties that I hope to God that nothing like that will ever be passed. All of that being said, I don't think it is hard to add a few lines like this to any law to help ensure that the laws are followed in a somewhat decent manner.

If I was the Prohibition-hating President and this law was on the books, I couldn't do anything but obey it and ensure that these actions were performed. If they were not, and these logs were not available, then I "should" be impeached by not doing my job of executing the laws passed by Congress.

Of course, there will always be people that try to get around these laws, like how organized crime flourished during the real Prohibition, but anyone that violates a law passed by Congress is a criminal, and should be prosecuted as is appropriate by applicable laws.

[sirgallahad2]

Thanks for the kind words Lissa. JP-8 has been used in Army ground vehicles for a little while now. They work just fine in the track vehicles because all the tracks have jet engines anyway. The trucks that would normally use diesel fuel burn out a LOT faster. The low flash point/higher burning temperature of JP-8 combined with the stock water pump and engine cooling system in the road trucks are just KILLING the engines.

By the way Lissa, I have always wanted to ask you this. Did you personally come up with the equations for the FSII, CI, and SDA amounts into JP-8?

[TheLuckyOne]

hucklebubba said:

On a separate note to Sue: I don't want to get in trouble with the other mods by insinuating a lack of weight-pulling on their part, but I would start bucking for a raise if I were you.

Sue declined a raise in favor of the power to fire people. You really thought PoolMan "retired"?

-D

[DocD83]

all restaurants, clubs, and other places of recreational social gathering must have a daily screening at a random time of the day so that peace officers may inspect the location for any alcoholic materials.

*choke* You want to screen every place of social gatering daily? Civil liberties nothin', who's paying for that?

I would find such a law as the one I wrote above to be in FLAGRANT violations of so many civil liberties that I hope to God that nothing like that will ever be passed. All of that being said, I don't think it is hard to add a few lines like this to any law to help ensure that the laws are followed in a somewhat decent manner.

So let me get this straight: the only way you can think of to write a law to compel enforcement as you intend is to add lines you find reprehensible, and which violate the fourth amendment?

If I was the Prohibition-hating President and this law was on the books, I couldn't do anything but obey it and ensure that these actions were performed. If they were not, and these logs were not available, then I "should" be impeached by not doing my job of executing the laws passed by Congress.

Simple: declare it the state's responsibility to enforce this one. You didn't say it had to be the feds.

I couldn't do anything but obey it and ensure that these actions were performed. If they were not, and these logs were not available, then I "should" be impeached by not doing my job of executing the laws passed by Congress.

That's a pretty bold statement. What happens if the mandatory enforement date is too soon to get it done, even if you (as president) had the best intentions of doing it? In this example, it would require one of the largest increases in the size of the federal governmet this country has ever seen, and you want it done in just over 4 months? And what if congress, as they so often do, fail to fund their laws? It's bad enough as is, but combined with a mandatory executon date, that violates the checks and balances system--congress could then effectively boot out a president for any reason where previously he had to commit misconduct of office or some crime. They could pass a law saying he has to establish a moon colony by next Tuesday or something, and when he inevitably fails, he gets booted out.