Launchpadding one's resume

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

"Neil Gerace" wrote in message
...
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 09:44:10 +0800, in a place far, far away, "Neil
Gerace" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...

There's something wrong with party discipline?

Yes, there is.

In countries where party discipline is much tighter than it is in the
USA,
it stifles debate and bars parliamentarians from acting according to
their
own consciences and according to the best interests of their
constituents.

Even granting your premise, that assumes that there are no differences
between parliamentary systems, and that of the US.

No, it assumes they are similar, which is true.


There's some substantial differences.

Nevertheless, they are still similar.

Why do you think it
is the US favors parliamentary systems when it helps
rebuild a country? Think about that for a minute.

I only used the word 'parliamentarians' in a vain search for a word that
includes only politicians in office, and not other politicians. Probably a
bad word. I wanted a word that was more specific than 'politician' (most of
whom are not in office) and less specific than Congressman.

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 19:01:52 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


Whether in earmarks/pork, up ten times, to letting big business write
their own legislation. Whether in new heights in gerrymandering
or lobbying or deficits.

Do you really believe that Democrats would have been any better on
these issues had they remained in power?


If they held all three branches, I bet they'd be as bad. But you
have to admit, the repubs have elevated the term 'towing the line'
to new heights.

I've never seen that term (at least as spelled, except by
illiterates). The dems could never control their party like that.

There's something wrong with party discipline?

Really? Do you remember why they were unelected twelve years ago?


Yep, they held all three branches and mucked it up with a hard turn
to left.

And curruption. Remember the Congressional Post Office?

I don't like the hard right either. Do you remember Pres
Clinton's approval rating during his last four years?

What in the world does an approval rating have to do with whether or
not someone is corrupt? Particularly when the press is in the tank
for him?

I remember the Clinton years rather fondly, as the
stock market went from 5000 to 12000 in his
last term.

Yes, that was the bubble that his policies created, and which this
administration had to clean up.

As soon as Bush came into office it
dropped like a rock back to 8000, you do
the math.

You have a poor memory. The bubble popped in 2000, before Bush was
elected.

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 04:06:22 GMT, in a place far, far away,
h (Rand Simberg) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

If they held all three branches, I bet they'd be as bad. But you
have to admit, the repubs have elevated the term 'towing the line'
to new heights.

I've never seen that term (at least as spelled, except by
illiterates). The dems could never control their party like that.

Sorry, that last sentence was yours. They certainly seemed to control
it during the Clinton impeachment trial.

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 09:44:10 +0800, in a place far, far away, "Neil
Gerace" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...

There's something wrong with party discipline?

Yes, there is.

In countries where party discipline is much tighter than it is in the USA,
it stifles debate and bars parliamentarians from acting according to their
own consciences and according to the best interests of their constituents.

Even granting your premise, that assumes that there are no differences
between parliamentary systems, and that of the US.

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 10:19:38 +0800, in a place far, far away, "Neil
Gerace" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

There's something wrong with party discipline?

Yes, there is.

In countries where party discipline is much tighter than it is in the USA,
it stifles debate and bars parliamentarians from acting according to their
own consciences and according to the best interests of their constituents.

Even granting your premise, that assumes that there are no differences
between parliamentary systems, and that of the US.

No, it assumes they are similar, which is true.

Similar in some ways, different in others, and differences that may
render your statement invalid...

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 21:55:08 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

And curruption. Remember the Congressional Post Office?


Another teapot in a tempest, which would describe pretty
much every Clinton scandal.

Yes, like when he grabbed FBI files, or when he sold military secrets
to the Chinese for campaign donations. A tempest in a teapot.

rest of lunacy snipped

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
...

"jonathan" wrote in message
...
The Bush administration does this with almost every govt agency.

Which makes it no different than any other administration. Why do you
make
a
special point to identify the Bush administration?


Goldin was a Clinton hack?

He was an officeholder during the Clinton administration, which is proof
that he was Clinton's man. Cisnero and Rubin were Clinton appointees, and
look what they did.

The repubs have taken what both
parties have been doing for ages, and run with it to new levels
of abuse. An order of magnitude more.

In your imagination, perhaps. Today's pols are amateurs compare to the likes
that operated during the Jackson administration. An Teapot Dome is in a
class by itself. History isn't your strong point.

The last two years for Bush is going to be one scandal after
another with nothing getting done.

"I did not have sex with that woman."

I can't think of a single
piece of legislation coming from the repubs to be proud
of.

The cumulative effect of their legislation is certainly a great legacy. A
booming economy, for one thing, better than it's been in a long time.
There's no evidence to support your claim that the Bush administration is
any worse than any other administration, and some that it's better than
most. The only real difference is that there is more current knowledge of
problems than there was in Jackson's time. Increased reporting does not mean
an increase in wrongdoing, just an increase in getting caught. The biggest
scandal in history was Johnson's "Great Society", but I guess you don't
count that, in spite of the mountain of evidence of what it's done to this
country.

"Neil Gerace" wrote in message
...
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...

There's something wrong with party discipline?

Yes, there is.

In countries where party discipline is much tighter than it is in the USA,
it stifles debate and bars parliamentarians from acting according to their
own consciences and according to the best interests of their constituents.

The the lack of discipline shown by the current Democratic Party is
preventing them from being taken seriously. Like it or not, you have a
pretty good idea of what the Republican stand on most issues (although it is
by no means uniform- can we say McCain?). However, looking at the Democrats
as a whole, the only clear thing they stand for is "Bush is bad". The
extremists within the party have taken over, and they are at war with each
other, so Joe Lunchbox, Proud Democrat hasn't a clue what the party really
stands for. Until the Democrats manage to break up the extremists- starting
by throwing out Howard Dean (losing the Presidency seems to have badly
affected his mental health, because he didn't seem this nuts while running
for office)- and restore order, they will continue to lose their way, even
if they manage to win offices.

What is the Constitutional basis for providing additional office help and
pay to party leaders and whips in Congress? Why are the taxpayers providing
support to private political clubs?

"jonathan" wrote in message
...
There's some substantial differences. Why do you think it
is the US favors parliamentary systems when it helps
rebuild a country? Think about that for a minute.

It's so they don't become competitors in foreign affairs.

That's why I have such a hard time accepting what was done in Iraq- except
that it makes sense if you don't want the Iraqis to get out of line in the
future. By intentionally going for a multiparty system, instead of a no
party system, it guarantees that much more effort will be spent fighting
than getting business done.

Much as I dislike the two party system that developed in the United States,
I thank the mercy of Jehova that we *don't* have a parliamentary system. The
inherent, unavoidable waste in democratic systems is far worse using a
parliamentary model.

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Scott Hedrick wrote:

"jonathan" wrote in message
.. .

The Bush administration does this with almost every govt agency.


Which makes it no different than any other administration. Why do you make
a special point to identify the Bush administration?

Because this one has a real knack for putting incompetents in positions of
power, as the FEMA director and New Orleans fiasco showed.

The evidence doesn't support that. In fact, it shows that the problem is
with FEMA itself, and that nobody would have been able to do better. For
example, there was a Navy hospital ship offshore that went unused for some
time, because the captain did not have proper written authorization.
Clearly, the problem was the bureaucracy. Had the captain chosen to do the
right thing, in spite of the rules, she would no longer be captain.
Bureaucracy punished those who do the right thing instead of following the
rules. Anyone who's ever really dealt with FEMA knows that it's primarily a
disaster *loan* management organization, and doesn't have all that much to
do with actually helping during a disaster.

For example, Federal law does not allow aid to be used until a formal
request for help is made, and the governor of Lousyanna unnecessarily
delayed asking for that help; there is some reason to believe that the
governor (being a Democrat) did not want to ask for help from a Republican
president, and thus give him leverage. I'd like to think that this is an
unfounded rumor, but the fact is the governor *did* delay asking for help.

If I'd had my say, there would already be in place rules that allowed school
buses to be confiscated and used for evacuations, and trucks and C-130s
loaded with aid would already be loaded and pre-stationed a few days before
the hurricane hit (because, in the month before hurricane season, I'd make
certain supplies were stocked at depots around the country). I'd drop the
first loads at the most accessable airport closest to the area hit, and let
the local government do what it needs, as the follow up loads come in to
shore up the local infrastructure to better coordinate help. It's easy *now*
to look back and point blame, but at the time information was not getting to
those who needed it, and what information was getting out was wrong. It
didn't help when the police abandoned their posts- understandable, but
inexcusable.

New Orleans was a challenge because people didn't take the warnings
seriously, and a lot of people simply refused to leave. It's also hard to
have sympathy for folks who choose to live in harm's way. The levees were
far more a local responsibility than a Federal one- if the Feds didn't fund
them according to the levels some folks in hindsight say should have been
done, what was stopping, say, the city of New Orleans from imposing their
own tax on their own people and putting the money toward the levees? State
and local authorities screwed up *at least* as much as the Feds, but that
doesn't promote the agenda of certain people in the same way that "blame
Bush" does. Yes, the Feds contributed to the problem, but it was hardly
Bush's fault; after all, *Clinton* neglected them too, but you don't hear
folks blaming him. The real blame lies with the bureaucracy of all levels
and the complacency of the locals. Even if the head of FEMA had absolute
authority and total omniscience, he would still be blamed because no matter
what he did, he would do things differently than someone wanted.

Yes, he screwed up, which makes him no different than the governor of
Lousyanna, the mayor of New Orleans, and everyone else involved. But telling
the truth about that doesn't generate ratings.

I'd like the Feds to tell New Orleans: "Here's a check for $500 million
dollars, and permits to build the levees any way *you* want. We give
complete and total authority for the levees to the city of New Orleans and
the parish in which it resides, including the authority to raise additional
funds locally, if needed, for construction *and* maintenance. It's your
responsibility now. Don't blame us when it breaks in the future." Then sit
back and let the fun begin, as the locals fight and squabble (which is
exactly what the existing levee authorities are doing right now) and ****
away the money, then come back for more, and then blame the President
(unless a Democrat is in charge, in which case "the government" will get the
blame so as to avoid nailing a Democrat) when levees of their own design and
funding fail.

The Feds should offer generous funds for relocation, and minimal funds to
individuals for rebuilding.