Launchpadding one's resume

Scott Hedrick wrote in part:

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?



Now you're talking! I'll pile on here with this question: Why do most
states subsidize party primary elections?

--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

"When I said 'some of my best ideas came while walking between classes
at Harvard' I did not mean to suggest I attended Harvard." -Brian Sack's
Memoirs, Corrected

Scott Hedrick wrote in part:

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.


Well, I've heard "Clinton was worse!" and "Kerry would have been worse!"
But HARDING WUZ WORSE!!```1! is a new one. Huh.


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.

The goals or the execution? Obviously it makes a difference in what you
mean. If you are pointing out the unintended consequences of a
still-metastasizing government, that's one thing. If you think the whole
idea was unworthy, well, you ally yourself with dixiecrats whining about
them uppity nigras. Dixiecrats who, by the way, have long since waddled
over to the Republican Party and have made it the malignant entity it is
today.

I'm sure you didn't mean to do that.

--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

"When I said 'some of my best ideas came while walking between classes
at Harvard' I did not mean to suggest I attended Harvard." -Brian Sack's
Memoirs, Corrected

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
...

"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.


I see it that way too. I think what happened in Iraq was that many
did want an American style govt. But that would lead to
the sort of federal/state relationship tha might lead to a
break up of Iraq. I think that will happen anyway.
There are powerful forces in the north and south
that want autonomy. And ironically the Sunnis don't
want that as it'll cut them out of the oil fields.

So I think Iraq will end up with strong semi autonomous
provinces under a weak central govt. Kinda like what
happened in South Africa. Where they just had to find
a way of allowing whites and blacks to run their own
populations. Iraq has three distinct populations with
a similar kind of historical animosity.

We'll have to be there for awhile I think.


Jonathan

s

Scott Hedrick wrote:

He was an officeholder during the Clinton administration, which is proof
that he was Clinton's man.

Goldin was one of the people Clinton inherited from Bush that he decided
to keep.
Another was Linda Tripp,and we all remember how well that decision worked.

pat

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
...
For example, Federal law does not allow aid to be used until a formal
request for help is made ...

Meaning no disrespect to the USA, that sounds like a dumb law. What if
there's a natural disaster so bad that no-one with the power to make such a
request (e.g. on behalf of a city) can be found alive?

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 18:08:53 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:



Scott Hedrick wrote:

He was an officeholder during the Clinton administration, which is proof
that he was Clinton's man.

Goldin was one of the people Clinton inherited from Bush that he decided
to keep.

Only because he couldn't find a woman to replace him.

Another was Linda Tripp,and we all remember how well that decision worked.

Pretty well, actually. At least there was one person in the
administration unwilling to cover up his crimes.

"Neil Gerace" wrote in message
...
"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
...
For example, Federal law does not allow aid to be used until a formal
request for help is made ...

Meaning no disrespect to the USA, that sounds like a dumb law.

"Perhaps" It really goes to the heart of the dualism the US has in terms of
Federal government vs. state government. In theory (and up to the
constraints of the 14th Amendment among others) the Feds have no say in how
a state handles internal affairs.

So, a state for example could refuse government aid if offered. And it can
decide not to ask for it.

What if
there's a natural disaster so bad that no-one with the power to make such
a
request (e.g. on behalf of a city) can be found alive?

Well, probably in that case the disaster is so bad there's no one left to
need such aid.

But seriously, let's hope we never find out.

(as an aside.. New Orleans was a fracking disaster in terms of disaster
management. It looks more and more like the parties involved took every
disaster plan (up to and including the NIMS (National Incident Management
System) and tore them up and ignore them. Really a sad day... and quite
honestly a dangerous day. I mean if we can't adequately respond to a
natural disaster we had several days to plan for, we're going to do even
worse for a man-made disaster of similar proportions. Fortunately the
cities most likely targetted have far better government than NO does. )

jonathan wrote:


I see it that way too. I think what happened in Iraq was that many
did want an American style govt. But that would lead to
the sort of federal/state relationship tha might lead to a
break up of Iraq. I think that will happen anyway.
There are powerful forces in the north and south
that want autonomy. And ironically the Sunnis don't
want that as it'll cut them out of the oil fields.


And thanks to Judicial Watch filing a FOIA request, we can see where
those oilfields are, from these maps that were used in the secret Energy
Task Force policy meeting that Cheney had with the oil executives many
months before 9/11: http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.c_.shtml

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
Goldin was one of the people Clinton inherited from Bush that he decided
to keep.

And *that*, to me, was a sign that, sometimes, politics don't run the show.
Goldin was a Democrat, appointed by a Republican, kept on by a President
that didn't appoint him.

Another was Linda Tripp,and we all remember how well that decision worked.

She Tripped him up pretty good- of course, he did make it easy.

"Neil Gerace" wrote in message
...
"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
...
For example, Federal law does not allow aid to be used until a formal
request for help is made ...

Meaning no disrespect to the USA, that sounds like a dumb law.

But one of many.

What if
there's a natural disaster so bad that no-one with the power to make such
a request (e.g. on behalf of a city) can be found alive?

Folks are screwed, of course, unless they did what they should have done
when times were good and *prepared themselves*. Before hurricane season
starts, even though I'm in an area unlikely to be hit (almost always getting
just the edge effects), I make certain I have plenty of batteries and
propane canisters, I fill the gas tanks, stock the canned goods, and clean
the loose debris in the yard. About a month before, whenever I empty a
2liter bottle of soda, I rinse it and fill it with water, so I have about 20
of them on hand, along with 3 bottles of bleach. In my shed, which is rather
stout, the tools are in order and accessible. I also have stocks of repair
materials, such as tarps and plastic sheets. I give the vehicles a quick
checkup.

Got plenty of duct tape. I make a point of preparing beforehand. Why should
I expect the government to take care of me if I don't make an effort to take
care of myself? I realize that not everyone can do what I do, but I guess it
depends on your priorties, as well.

Still, what passes for "emergency management" in this country is an
emergency in itself, because it certainly isn't managed well. It's also the
consequence of a democratic bureaucracy, where every jurisdiction wants to
be in charge.