So?

Post #278,866 by bepatient 3/19/07 9:36:11 PM Reply	So? You have an end result to critique. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #278,871 by drewk 3/19/07 10:42:33 PM Reply	No you don't The technique is to construct an argument with which no reasonable person can disagree. Or at least you can't disagree with the specific wording of the argument. For instance, "We think that winning in Iraq is better than losing." That example may be blunt, but it's hardly isolated. It's fairly easy to mislead people when you set out with the conscious intent to misuse language. === Kip Hawley is still an idiot. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #278,877 by bepatient 3/19/07 11:04:24 PM Reply	I thought we were talking about policy? These are released as official documents. Advice sought to create those documents should be off the record. I've already stated the unrealistic alternative. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #278,913 by drewk 3/20/07 9:00:59 AM Reply	The spin always comes out first, though We don't just get the final policy. What we get is trial balloon after trial balloon, leak after leak, making sure they have a sales pitch to go with the policy. When you've got a chain of reasonable-sounding arguments in support of a policy, and you've been trying out the individual steps piecemeal in the press for several weeks or months, by the time you release the policy it sounds pretty good. But when opponents point out the logic games and "creative" use of language, they're presented as kooks from the tinfoil-hat brigade. For example, people complained about the privacy implications of some of the provisions of the Patriot Act. Supporters insisted that these were wartime powers, and would only be used against "enemies". That's worked well. It sound exactly like what they're saying about the provision that allows the AG to replace the USAs without confirmation. I joke with my wife that if there's two ways to take something I say, and one of those ways will piss her off, then I meant the other way. With this administration, if there's two ways to take something they say, and one of the ways represents an abuse of power, I assume that's the real intent. So yes, it does matter who presents an idea. === Kip Hawley is still an idiot. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #278,914 by bepatient 3/20/07 9:10:38 AM Reply	And this necessitates making advice public how, exactly? You're talking about the selling of the policy, not the process by which it is developed. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #278,929 by drewk 3/20/07 11:22:38 AM Reply	The selling, and the reaction to it, is how it's developed === Kip Hawley is still an idiot. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #278,932 by bepatient 3/20/07 11:59:09 AM Reply	I thought it was developed by secret meetings and special interests and that we couldn't let them have these meetings "off the record". Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #278,933 by drewk 3/20/07 12:30:04 PM Reply	Since we're clearly talking past each other It's not about the specific methods in use this time. The problem with this administration is that they routinely abuse their legal authority, exploiting every situation for which there is no controlling legal authority.[1] Their bad intent and bad faith is so manifest that no single rule change is sufficient to reign them in, nor is there any rule change that can't be opposed as hindering those of honest intent. The rule of law depends on the proposition that there is a general respect for the law, especially among those charged with upholding it. We've all heard the saying that no man can go through the day without breaking some law or another. Some view this as evidence that those writing the laws want to make sure there is always some lever to exert control. I think it's the inevitable outcome of trying to deal with bad behavior that wasn't specifically prohibited. I don't want to reach that point with high public officials. I don't want there to be such a maze of regulation that no work can get done for fear of violating some technicality. But the only way to avoid that is to assert that you can recognize abuse of power even when there is no law specifically addressing the act. [1] It looks like they learned something from the previous administration after all. === Kip Hawley is still an idiot. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #278,935 by bepatient 3/20/07 1:07:27 PM Reply	I don't think its that clear ;-) I understand your point. Problem is there is no way to do it. Start down that path and you end up with C-Span - President's bedroom and C-Span - Senate Floor Head. (and I ain't watchin) Best compromise is limit the power of exec orders more so that policy cannot be instituted without proper review. If Bush wants to meet with Son of Sam and Jeff Dalmer before drafting laws on murder...he should be allowed...and the public should be left to speculate what they talked about. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #278,937 by drewk 3/20/07 1:34:57 PM Reply	Which limits impact, but doesn't solve the problem In the [link\|http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm\|Uniform Code of Military Justice] is something called the [link\|http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj2.htm#934.%20ART.%20134.%20GENERAL%20ARTICLE\|General Article], which states: Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court. (My emphasis.) In other words, if you do something that isn't specifically prohibited by any other article of the UCMJ you can still be held liable for it. Why should some 18-year-old Army private be held to this standard, but the Commander in Chief can do anything that isn't explicitly prohibited? === Kip Hawley is still an idiot. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #278,942 by bepatient 3/20/07 1:49:30 PM Reply	So everyone should be held to UCMJ standards? And EVERY administration, not just this one, will have significant opposition. Doing something like this (same as publishing everything) would render government completely ineffective. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #278,944 by drewk 3/20/07 2:47:26 PM Reply	So you agree We can't hold the Commander in Chief to the same standards we hold an 18-year-old Army private? Okay then, let's not use Article 134. Let's try [link\|http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj2.htm#933.%20ART.%20133.%20CONDUCT%20UNBECOMING%20AN%20OFFICER%20AND%20A%20GENTLEMAN\|Article 133]: Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. That one only applies to officers. Can we hold the CiC to that standard? === Kip Hawley is still an idiot. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #278,945 by boxley 3/20/07 2:48:27 PM Reply	nope, the military is subordinate to the people not the other way round. Keeps us from junta rule. Too bad pussy communists was repealed. thanx, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #278,946 by drewk 3/20/07 3:01:00 PM Reply	True, but ... I'm not suggesting that the civilian leadership should be accountable to the military. I'm saying that the civilian leadership should be as accountable to the electorate as the military is to the civilian leadership. In other words, if a service member can be prosecuted and punished for activities that aren't expressly forbidden, but which are counter to the proper functioning of the military, then it seems reasonable that an elected official should be similarly liable to civilian punishment for activities that aren't yadda yadda yadda. === Kip Hawley is still an idiot. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #278,947 by bepatient 3/20/07 3:51:15 PM Reply	Devil's in the details. Who decides what "conduct unbecoming" is where the CIC is concerned? Let's take a real leadership example. To save Medicare it is highly likely that benefits will be cut for a majority of our citizens...and it will be hugely unpopular..but a true leader will have to lead and do it anyway. Should this person, who did the right thing, then be prosecuted by the popular masses for doing what needed to be done simply because it was unpopular? What you propose will make that scenario a distinct possibility. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #278,958 by drewk 3/20/07 5:35:26 PM Reply	Did I say prosecuted by the 'popular masses'? Well, I guess you could kind of read it that way. But no, what I mean is it seems reasonable to be able to hold officials accountable for activities that aren't explicitly prohibited. I wasn't focused on who would do the prosecution. The devil is always in the details. But your repeated implication that there is nothing "wrong" with what this or that administration official did, just because it didn't violate the letter of any laws, doesn't fly. "Legally allowed" shouldn't be equated with "acceptable". === Kip Hawley is still an idiot. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #279,002 by Ashton 3/21/07 6:43:42 AM Reply	Believe this conundrum is ~ same class as the little contretemps (EZBoard?) 'twixt us'ns and one 'daleross' (a M$ minion of some sort) - which ensued, following his assertion that - If it's legal it's ethical! (Well, you can see where That can lead. And did.) The historic remedy for 'bad character' / slime in high places has been Recall (when was the last time we heard of a recall election, except CA's governor of recent note?) and voting-out at next election. But that was when most people Were 'citizens' at least, sort-of. And if the National level of outrage is successfully opiated by some mix of ignorance, insouciance and just plain ennui: then there IS no remedy for the likes of the Neocons, nor for the discovery nay, finally: Proof that one has elected a simpleton and a nut-case zealot, to boot. (And opened the floodgates to much more capable, nastier operatives - if they just express Love-for-Shrub.) Ergo - no 'law' can make the disinterested / the willfully ignorant safe from the looneys. Nor IMO is that trend other than down. More info surfaces daily (as the books, footnootes get written) re the illegal chicanery just last Nov - some say, quite more extensive than in 00/04. ("Landslide Denied" comes to mind): [link\|http://adreampuppet.blogspot.com/2006/11/landslide-denied.html\|http://adreampuppet....slide-denied.html] [link\|http://themonitor.wordpress.com/2006/11/\|http://themonitor.wordpress.com/2006/11/] (article dated 3/19, down page) - and surely a passel on Googling. When the skullduggery is so pervasive as to be routine; when the number of individual infractions --> crimes quickly exceeds a normal person's memory capacity - I think that denial gives way to, simply: acceptance of the inevitability of further unravelling. We have succeeded in rendering 'dialogue' impossible, even amidst the minority who ~ pay attention. Hey.. Kunstler may be acerbic - but he's decidedly Got Our Number; we could not be less-prepared for the twin concepts of 'adequacy' / 'conservation of resources' - precisely at the stage where [remember the word, 'thrift'?? .. way back] the profligate are apt to freeze - in all senses. Luck to all us new Banana Republic-ans. (Expecting competence next to magically appear, truly would be a sign of neural disconnect.. nope, 'luck' is about all that's left in that sack)
Post #278,948 by CRConrad 3/20/07 3:57:56 PM Reply	Perhaps not EVERYBODY - but someone who makes such a... ...such a point of emphasising his role as "Commander in Chief", which when all is said and done IS a MILITARY role...? Yeah, well, I'd say it doesn't on the face of it look all that unreasonable. You wanna strut around in flyboy overalls, you get judged like one. Actually, that seems eminently reasonable, doesn't it? [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link\|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603\|Jehovah]

Welcome to IWETHEY!