View Full Version : This just in: the Constitution is optional
GratefulCitizen
07-06-2009, 20:46
US-Russian Arms Negotiators "Under the Gun," Might Temporarily Bypass Senate Ratification for Treaty
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/07/us-russian-arms-negotiators-under-the-gun-might-temporarily-bypass-senate-ratification-for-treaty.html
If the Senate's Constitutional authority to ratify treaties can be "temporarily" bypassed, does that mean that the president's authority as CinC can be "temporarily" bypassed as well? :munchin
This does not bode well considering some of the treaties coming from the united nations.
hat tip: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/constitution_apparently_declar.html
Team Sergeant
07-06-2009, 21:01
I'm still trying to find where "CZARS" fit in the Constitution of the United States of America. As a taxpayer I want to know why my tax dollars are going to pay the salaries of "czars" and fund czar's "staff".
I'm thinking of a lawsuit:
Team Sergeant vs. The United States Government
Someone needs to slow this train-wreck before blood is spilled.
Team Sergeant
Blitzzz (RIP)
07-06-2009, 21:10
The SOBOTUS has 36 Czars and counting. None are responsible to anyone but to the Obama. They're at the Proverbial "top on the Pyrimid" and answerable to a no nothing. Grief Charle Brown!!!
GratefulCitizen
07-06-2009, 21:11
I'm still trying to find where "CZARS" fit in the Constitution of the United States of America. As a taxpayer I want to know why my tax dollars are going to pay the salaries of "czars" and fund czar's "staff".
I'm thinking of a lawsuit:
Team Sergeant vs. The United States Government
Someone needs to slow this train-wreck before blood is spilled.
Team Sergeant
Glanced at the post before reading it.
"Team Sergeant vs. The United States Government" was prominent, so it was read first, and the idea of a lawsuit didn't immedieately occur.
The first thought that went through my head: my money would be on TS in that fight.
Surf n Turf
07-06-2009, 21:58
Someone needs to slow this train-wreck before blood is spilled.
Team Sergeant
Team Sergeant,
To few, to little, To late
SnT
I'm still trying to find where "CZARS" fit in the Constitution of the United States of America.
The Constitution of the US of A - Article 2 - Section 2
...and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Constitution.html
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I'm thinking of a lawsuit:
Team Sergeant vs. The United States Government
Someone needs to slow this train-wreck before blood is spilled.
Team Sergeant
I can write the initial complaint. I didn't spend 2 years working in a large law firm for nothing! :lifter
greenberetTFS
07-07-2009, 10:56
I'm still trying to find where "CZARS" fit in the Constitution of the United States of America. As a taxpayer I want to know why my tax dollars are going to pay the salaries of "czars" and fund czar's "staff".
I'm thinking of a lawsuit:
Team Sergeant vs. The United States Government
Someone needs to slow this train-wreck before blood is spilled.
Team Sergeant
TS,
I don't know how serious you are about this,but we do have a lot of lawyers on this forum who should give you some sound legal advise on it.................;)
Big Teddy :munchin
Team Sergeant,
To few, to little, To late
SnT
It seems to me that most trends in just about anything must go to extremes before balance is restored. Not just in markets, but in most areas of life.
We really haven't seen a crisis yet. The upcoming fiscal disaster in California gets worse by the day - and California is a big part of the U.S. economy. So when they come unraveled, lots of things may start following their lead. We'll then have a dangerous crisis to deal with...and if the administration is already willing to ignore the Constitution, their response is easy to guess.
Please forgive me for saying this - I mean no offense. And yet, I wonder if we should not read Solzhenitsyn to better see what faces us. :(
I was watching Fox and Friends this morning and they were discussing the CZARS of which the number is like 38 and growing by the day. We even have a CZAR for the Great Lakes now.
Aside from that, what caught my attention was this.... apparently many of the CZAR positions parallel departments and heads of departments which already exist in the Federal Bureaucracy.....but the major difference is that the CZARS answer to 'O' and are not under the eye of the Oversight Committees.
That said, considering the the past 6 months of insanity, one could speculate that O & Co. are creating these parallel departments as a means of usurping the power of the Congress, the Senate and the various departments they oversee.
Just a thought ;)
FWIW, political scientists have been discussing the 'fourth branch' of the federal government (the bureaucracy) for decades. Even those subject to the piercing gaze of congressional committees can wield great power through their use of administrative discretion.
Political opponents of the current president face at least two dilemmas when criticizing his growing reliance on "czars". First, without offering viable alternatives, the criticism will ring partisan to too many ears.
Second, without confronting the fact that Republican presidents have also set up mechanisms to bypass existing departments, critics may find themselves countered by brutal counter arguments from our recent past. Most notably, Vice President Cheney's intervention in the analysis of evidence of Iraq's WMD programs, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's numerous interventions in the promotions of general officers as well as the planning of COBRA II.
While one could argue that there's a distinction between vice president or a secretary of defense operating within a unique interpretation of his authority and a czar, will a broader audience agree that there's actually a difference?
MOO, to avoid these two pitfalls, I think criticism of the president's reliance on czars should focus on effectiveness and cost. This is to say, the question "Does this work?" will get more political traction than the question "Is this appropriate?"
Aside from that, what caught my attention was this.... apparently many of the CZAR positions parallel departments and heads of departments which already exist in the Federal Bureaucracy.....but the major difference is that the CZARS answer to 'O' and are not under the eye of the Oversight Committees.
Which is why the Lawsuit is such a brilliant idea!!! And when TS wins, and of course he will win, (all the judge will need to see is TS on one side and the Gov't on the other, shaking in their boots from the mere sight of the Team Sergeant, and rap the gavel in His favor, case closed, game over, zip it up,) The CZARS will now be under His watchful piercing glare!
Great plan, please let me know if I may assist!
Holly:)
TommyGun
07-09-2009, 15:04
a .50 cal round is cheaper....
Benjamin Franklin stated there should be a revolution every one hundred years....
TG
The Constitution is really a very, very flexible document as Richard pointed out. The social contract that it makes strongly assures the rights of a citizen, but because our society is based off majority representation with minority protection much of it is left to interpretation. Personally, I believe that when the POTUS has a czar of the Great Lakes, quietly exerting influence on things that should probably be left largely to the states....that's too much power.
One of the important parts of this is the balance of powers. With the way Congress is right now, I doubt we will see much outcry from that area over the way the "czar" thing is being interpreted.
So actually, the courts might be the way to go. At this point they look like the only recourse to a problem like this. In fact, wasn't this kind of the reason the Supreme Court was created?
And in regards to how these czars are being used...having that many is fairly ominous. In fact, that begins to sound like a leader surrounding himself with strongmen that have loyalty to no one but the aforementioned leader. I won't draw the parallels, but even if I thought BHO was an angel with the best of intentions...that sounds bad.
The Constitution is really a very, very flexible document as Richard pointed out. The social contract that it makes strongly assures the rights of a citizen, but because our society is based off majority representation with minority protection much of it is left to interpretation. Personally, I believe that when the POTUS has a czar of the Great Lakes, quietly exerting influence on things that should probably be left largely to the states....that's too much power.
One of the important parts of this is the balance of powers. With the way Congress is right now, I doubt we will see much outcry from that area over the way the "czar" thing is being interpreted.
So actually, the courts might be the way to go. At this point they look like the only recourse to a problem like this. In fact, wasn't this kind of the reason the Supreme Court was created?
And in regards to how these czars are being used...having that many is fairly ominous. In fact, that begins to sound like a leader surrounding himself with strongmen that have loyalty to no one but the aforementioned leader. I won't draw the parallels, but even if I thought BHO was an angel with the best of intentions...that sounds bad.
My personal feeling is that some have made the Constitution a flexible document on a case by case basis through the use of legal mumbo jumbo by Lawyers.......just as when BHO said something to the extent of the Constitution stated what the Government limitations where, but it did state what the Government 'could' do for people.
My opinion on the manipulation of the Constitution by those whom think it is a flexible document is this non Constitutional example:
Western Auto sold riding lawn mowers, the lawn mowers came with a manual, in the manual it warned that accidental injury or death could occur if the if more than two parties were in the drivers seat while the mower was in operation. The manual warned not to ride on the mower deck while in operation. But the manual did not warn of the dangers associated with allowing a child to ride on the hood of the mower......so mower owner could presume that it was safe to ride in a box on the hood of a riding mower.
That was the legal premise of a lawsuit after a child in a box, while riding a top the hood of mower fell off and had their feet cut off. And Western Auto paid the Plaintiff.
Or how about your 16 and tell your parents you are going to stop at Quick Trip on the way to Joe's house. You are told no, you cannot stop at Quick Trip. So you drive to 7-11 instead. Why? Because your parents didn't specify you had to go directly to Joe's and that you could not stop at 7-11.
The Manual nor the Constitution is or was a flawed document, the flaw is in those that attempt to subvert and manipulate them.
As for the CZAR's.....Add in the O's National Defense Force with his CZAR's/CAPO's and you could have an intersting mix.
A few thoughts on the 'business' of government:
The POTUS - Like any corporate CEO - has the authority to reorganize within limits established by the Board of Directors, the operating charter of the company, and existing law (Congress, US Constitution, and US Code in this instance).
The Board and stockholders (Congress and citizenry) have an obligation to either support or - when necessary - challenge the necessity, operational and cost effectiveness of such actions by the CEO and bring action to either change or stop it.
Generally speaking, a bloated, top-heavy corporate structure is historically more costly and less effective - and business school courses and books (such as Good to Great) offer case after case examples of this well known maxim.
The term 'Czar' for an executive position answerable to the CEO* within our federal government's burgeoning bureaucratic structure was coined in 1988 for the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy by then Senator Joe Biden who was a zealous champion of the War on Drugs and its laws.**
FWIW - I never liked the term Czar for all the historical connotations associated with the word and its antithesis of what the US Constitution stands for among the world's governmental charters.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
*List is here - http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/
** http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_last_drug_czar
Praetorian
07-10-2009, 15:42
The Constitution of the US of A - Article 2 - Section 2
...and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
The problem with this with regard to the "czars" is the first sentence. The "czars" are not being appointed with the "advice and consent of the senate." They are merely being appointed by the President as "Special Advisers" in an extra-constitutional manner. And thats why even members of his own party in the Senate (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19339.html) are raising concerns about the "Czars".
The real problem is, is that Barrack Obama is the least experienced person to hold the job of POTUS in the modern age. He is the first person elected directly from the Senate since JFK, and although JFK lacked executive experience as a Governor, he had some fairly significant and exceptional executive experience leading men in battle in WW2. Obama does not have that Gubernatorial executive experience that most Presidential candidates have, or military experience, or even executive experience in the private sector. If anything, the governmental position he is most qualified for, given his years teaching Constitutional law is in the Federal Judiciary, although I think his CV is a little light even for that at the highest levels.
So he brings few skills and little experience in the areas a Chief Executive would normally have at least an ancillary familiarity with. But he is a pretty smart guy. Smart enough to know he doesn't know what he's doing on certain issues so he's surrounding himself with other smart people who do have experience with the subjects where he's lacking. The big danger in this is that when one turns over the reins to somebody else to "advise" them on issues they have little experience with, they put a great deal of power in those people. It can be difficult to know if the advice they are getting is correct and prudent, since the receiver has no frame of context to challenge it. This over-reliance on others who are not screened or accountable to the American people is not a desirable attribute of a presidential administration.
The term 'Czar' for an executive position answerable to the CEO* within our federal government's burgeoning bureaucratic structure was coined in 1988 for the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy by then Senator Joe Biden who was a zealous champion of the War on Drugs and its laws.
Perhaps this cuts to the heart of the problem.
Does the Czar arrangement work? Is it more effective than the system it supplants?
My impression is that the arrangement hasn't done much good. But perhaps others have more or better information?
The problem with this with regard to the "czars" is the first sentence. The "czars" are not being appointed with the "advice and consent of the senate." They are merely being appointed by the President as "Special Advisers" in an extra-constitutional manner. And thats why even members of his own party in the Senate are now starting to raise concerns about the "Czars".
Yes they are - de jure - but you've got to read the entire paragraph -
...but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
FDR got Congress to approve the Reorganization Act of 1939 which created the Executive Office of the President (EOP), reporting directly to the President. From 1939 through the present, the situation has changed continually and new units within the EOP have been created either by statute or by executive order of the President. Among the most important are the Council of Economic Advisers (1946), the National Security Council and its staff (1947), the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (1963), the Council on Environmental Quality (1970), the Office of Science and Technology Policy (1976), the Office of Administration (1977), and the Office of National Drug Control Policy (1989). Under President George W. Bush, the Office of Homeland Security (2001 - later became a cabinet department) and the Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives (2001) were added. The EOP is overseen by the White House Chief of Staff and traditionally consists of the President’s closest advisors.
The following currently fall under the Executive Office of the President:
Council of Economic Advisers
Council on Environmental Quality
Domestic Policy Council
National Economic Council
National Security Council
Office of Administration
Office of Management and Budget
Office of National Drug Control Policy
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Office of the United States Trade Representative
President's Intelligence Advisory Board and Intelligence Oversight Board
White House Military Office
White House Office
Have a beef with all this - write your Congresscritter - they're the ones who made the law and can change it. :rolleyes:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
My personal feeling is that some have made the Constitution a flexible document on a case by case basis through the use of legal mumbo jumbo by Lawyers.
When in American history has this not been the case?
The real problem is, is that Barrack Obama is the least experienced person to hold the job of POTUS in the modern age.
I strongly agree with the notion that the current president's lack of experience is problematic.
However, I do not think that making this argument from the stand point of history is the way to go. There are examples of inexperienced presidents going on to do their jobs well, as there are examples of very experienced presidents doing poorly.
And above all, there's a dozy of a question: Can any pre-presidential experience really prepare a person for the loneliest job in America, if not the world?
But he is a pretty smart guy. Smart enough to know he doesn't know what he's doing on certain issues so he's surrounding himself with other smart people who do have experience with the subjects where he's lacking. The big danger in this is that when one turns over the reins to somebody else to "advise" them on issues they have little experience with, they put a great deal of power in those people. It can be difficult to know if the advice they are getting is correct and prudent, since the receiver has no frame of context to challenge it. This over-reliance on others who are not screened or accountable to the American people is not a desirable attribute of a presidential administration.
I respectfully disagree on your assessment of the president's intellect. I would compare his intellectual style to an undergraduate, but that comparison would be disrespectful to collegians.
Therefore, the dynamic you're describing is, in my mind, especially likely to unfold and when it does it will be disastrous. (I dread a conversation between the president and Leon Panetta about an imminent threat to America's security. I think it will go something like a MacGruber skit from SNL.:()
Therefore, the dynamic you're describing is, in my mind, especially likely to unfold and when it does it will be disastrous. (I dread a conversation between the president and Leon Panetta about an imminent threat to America's security. I think it will go something like a MacGruber skit from SNL.)
I fear it'll be a situation like that faced by President Rbt Fowler in The Sum of All Fears by Tom Clancy - I only hope we have a Jack Ryan nearby when it occurs...or... :eek:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Praetorian
07-10-2009, 18:48
And above all, there's a dozy of a question: Can any pre-presidential experience really prepare a person for the loneliest job in America, if not the world?
No.... Nothing can FULLY prepare somebody for that job... But most are better prepared than he was/is. They have at least SOME relevant experience to some policy area that the executive administers. Obama had none.
In terms of making the argument in terms of history, I only mention as some sort of context as to how ill prepared he was.
The time for that debate is now passed. He's been in office now 7 months and I've seen enough to judge his actual performance. I'm unimpressed with how hes risen to the occasion (and honestly, quite scared for the future of the country). His administration seems unfocused, almost scatter shot, tackling a new issue every day (which is fine as far as I'm concerned because it means he's not getting traction on any of them- but its not a way to run a lemonade stand, let alone a government) rather than picking AN ISSUE to move forward with. Each day he adds another czar for some esoteric niche issue, rather than tackling the big, tough issues facing the country right now.
I do not however think hes unintelligent. I think he has some smarts. I think the fact that hes gotten to where hes gotten DESPITE his obvious lack of qualifications might speak towards his being a pretty bright guy...
I disagree with most of his policies. But I don't necessarily characterize those who disagree with me politically as stupid.
GratefulCitizen
07-10-2009, 19:59
In all honesty I believe many people underestimate Barry's intellegance. Make no mistake IS very smart. That is what scares me about him. A bumbling idiot would make the right decision for the county sometimes, just percentage will be there. No, this guy is tearing down this country IMHO piece by piece. He can then rebuild it to his socilist ideals and maintain a certin amout of power even if he is not president, he would maintaqin power as one of the people that rebuilt this country into the socilist paradise they want.
A president only needs sufficient intelligence.
Any organization larger than about 4 people needs a leader who can delegate wisely.
The ability to judge the competence and motives of others is more important than raw brainpower.
A president also needs the moral courage to make decisions which may cost him personally, but benefit the nation.
Our current president has demonstrated that he has neither these abilities nor the necessary moral courage.
(Oath...schmoath. It's all about the O. :rolleyes: )
<edit>
A relevant article:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/the_audacity_of_conceit.html
When in American history has this not been the case?
There have always been those whom where and are willing exploit the Constitution for personal gain, but now it is the vast majority in DC have jumped aboard the shit on your neighbor train.
It might very well be legal in the eyes of a Lawyer or Legal Scholar, but it is wrong in my book.
Based current events in the US, I can see how Lawyers, Politicians, Journalists, Educators and Intellects end up on the priority hit lists of Cultural Revolutions.
Based current events in the US, I can see how Lawyers, Politicians, Journalists, Educators and Intellects end up on the priority hit lists of Cultural Revolutions.
"Whatever can be done will be done. The only question is, will it be done by you or to you?" Thomas L Friedman, Economist and Futurist
Based on the challenges of the current situation, I can't - but I've seen it happen elsewhere and understand why those seeking power illigetimately choose to do so - and being retired SF and an educator - I guess I'd be on your cultural hit list x 2 - if you could catch me and I didn't find you first. ;)
"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it destroys itself from within." Will Durant, Historian
From what I've studied, seen, and experienced - we're not there...yet...and have many - including lawyers, politicians, journalists, educators, and intellectuals - who remain fully committed to not allowing it to happen. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
From what I've studied, seen, and experienced - we're not there...yet...and have many - including lawyers, politicians, journalists, educators, and intellectuals - who remain fully committed to not allowing it to happen. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry. ~Thomas Paine
Praetorian
07-13-2009, 11:08
Ok.... I Hope this isnt a repost... I did a search and the name didnt come up....
This particular Czar is somebody to keep a VERY close eye on...
John Holdren "Science Czar (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/)
Im usually pretty skeptical of hyperbolic reports about government sponsored eugenics and the such, but every source I've found indicates that these REALLY ARE THIS GUY'S PUBLISHED THOUGHTS.... How ANYBODY could appoint somebody this NUTTY really has me concerned.
Im usually pretty skeptical of hyperbolic reports about government sponsored eugenics and the such, but every source I've found indicates that these REALLY ARE THIS GUY'S PUBLISHED THOUGHTS.... How ANYBODY could appoint somebody this NUTTY really has me concerned.
Again - context is important here when considering such postings on the WWW. Those may have been his thoughts in 1977 - a time when the en vogue science thinking was to predict a rapidly approaching future of ecological catastrophe related to over-population and massive food shortages. It didn't happen quite as predicted - and science moved on to other projected calamities - e.g., a global ice age, global warming, rising sea levels, water shortages, etc.
People - scientists, politicians, and religious leaders included - have historically struggled with accuracy in making such dire predictions and forced to change their opinions on many occasions - and it might, therefore, be more important to know how and why the guy's thinking has progressed - if at all - over the last three decades, and what he thinks now as opposed to what he thought then.
As noted British economist John Maynard Keynes stated, "When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?" ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Praetorian
07-13-2009, 13:23
Again - context is important here when considering such postings on the WWW. Those may have been his thoughts in 1977 - a time when the en vogue science thinking was to predict a rapidly approaching future of ecological catastrophe related to over-population and massive food shortages. It didn't happen quite as predicted - and science moved on to other projected calamities - e.g., a global ice age, global warming, rising sea levels, water shortages, etc.
People - scientists, politicians, and religious leaders included - have historically struggled with accuracy in making such dire predictions and forced to change their opinions on many occasions - and it might, therefore, be more important to know how and why the guy's thinking has progressed - if at all - over the last three decades, and what he thinks now as opposed to what he thought then.
As noted British economist John Maynard Keynes stated, "When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?" ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I would agree to an extent... there are some things where one can say "oops, I changed my mind" (not that I've heard that hes said this?) and then go on to a great career in public service. There are some ideas however which are so beyond the pale that simply ever having supported them, should be a disqualifying factor for future public service, regardless of how in vogue it was at the time. I don't really care that David Duke sewed patches over the eye holes in his bed sheets (the same would go for Robert Byrd IMHO). Having been an outspoken member of the KKK causes me enough questions about his judgment that no matter of time can pass where I can say "OK.... Now you're rehabilitated enough to influence national policy."
Advocating FORCED Eugenics in the 1970's is such a position because of the real world horrors such ideologies brought about just 30 years earlier.
There are plenty of other learned scientists in this country, with credentials at least as impressive as Holdren's who HAVEN'T written books advocating spiking the drinking water to sterilize mass populations.
There are lots of OTHER jobs a person like this can hold in this great country, OTHER than special science adviser to the The President.
Ecoscience; Population, Resources, Environment is a co-authored textbook of over 1000 pages and a template for environmental education and discussion of the topics it covers.
Preface
Since the first edition of Population, Resources, Environment was published seven years ago, the population of the world has grown by almost one-half billion people -- roughly the number that lived in the entire world when the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock. In the same period, famine has stalked the nomads of the sub- Saharan region of Africa and the struggling peasants of the Indian subcontinent, an energy crisis has transformed perceptions of the world resource situation, and nuclear weapons have become increasingly accessible to the nations of the world.
Since 1972, the world economy has been rocked by both monetary inflation and production recession. The significance of environmental deterioration has become inescapable, and its complex relation to economics has been brought to the attention of millions who had never previously paid attention to either. The realization has dawned that seemingly disparate events in the economic, environmental, and political spheres are interconnected. That civilization has entered a period of grave crisis is now doubted only by those afflicted with incurable Micawberism; everyone who is alertable is alerted.
But being alert to the existence of a crisis is not enough if a rational response to it is to be generated. One must also thoroughly understand the elements of the crisis and how they interact. The present book, based on Population, Resources, Environ*ment, is an attempt to provide a more thorough, up-to-date understanding of the population-resource-environment predicament and to discuss strategies for dealing with it. In format and emphasis it is quite different from the earlier book.
There is a brief introductory chapter designed to give the reader a capsule overview of the predicament of humanity, a framework into which the more detailed discussions that follow can be fitted. The first major section, consisting of three chapters, gives a detailed review of the physical and biological systems of Earth. This provides background material for students who have not previously been exposed to basic geology and ecology.
In this section, as in the rest of the book, a great deal of numerical data and some equations will be found. To grasp the prob*lems humanity now faces, one must understand both their magnitudes and the rates at which they are changing. The vast majority of this material, however, calls for no mathematical sophistication beyond arithmetic and the ability to read graphs. In some cases, high school algebra is required, and, in a few, results from calculus are introduced. But the significance of the results is discussed in each case, so knowl* edge of calculus is not required for understanding.
The second section covers population and renewable resources -- land, soil, water, forests, and food. The coverage of all these topics has been updated and consid*erably enlarged from that in the second edition of Population, Resources, Environ*ment.
The third section covers energy and materials far more comprehensively than did our previous books, with special attention paid to nuclear energy and other possible sources for the long term, as well as to the potential of energy conservation.
The material on environmental disruption in the fourth section has been updated and includes more comprehensive coverage of carcinogens, mutagens, climate modification, and many other topics. The last section on social, economic, and political change, including the issue of population control, has likewise been con*siderably expanded.
Extensive footnotes with references to the technical literature document key points throughout the book. In addition, at the end of each chapter there is a brief list of references, Recommended for Further Reading, containing our selection of the most generally useful works for further exploration of the topics in the chapter. This precedes the annotated chapter bibliographies that will be familiar to readers of our other books. In both footnotes and bibliographies, we have concentrated on recent additions to the literature, sometimes at the expense of important, even seminal works. We believe that the more recent contributions contain the latest thinking on a given topic, and their bibliographies often provide a full entrée to the previous literature of that subject.
We have tried throughout the book to state clearly where we stand on various matters of controversy. Our apprehension about the course of humanity expressed in Population, Resources, Environment and Human Ecology has deepened; if there is another edition of Ecoscience, we hope that events will then permit a more opti*mistic evaluation.
FWIW - by reading their bios- it sounds as if it is the Ehrlichs - not Holdren - who are the population experts - Holdren's areas of interest and expertise seem very different to me. Here are the authors bios:
Ehrlichs:
http://www.usc.edu/admin/provost/tylerprize/tyler98.html
Holden:
Dr. John Holdren receives the Heinz Award in Public Policy for his prodigious contributions to such complex issues as arms control, sustainable development and global energy resources. Dr. Holdren is that rare scholar who is also a born negotiator, one who is able to inspire colleagues and students to new heights of effort and understanding while possessing the ability to cut to the heart of a problem and offer new perspectives on which consensus can be based. Dr. Holdren's contributions to public policy are noteworthy, not simply because of their quality and scope, but also because they span a number of disciplines.
He is credited with playing a significant role in mobilizing the international community of policymakers and scientists to take action in the arms control area, where he has been a powerfully effective advocate of U.S. attention to the security of nuclear weapons and nuclear materials in Russia. He has been extremely active in the international policy dialogue regarding global environmental degradation and resource conservation.
He has served in a wide variety of advisory roles for policymakers in state, federal and international agencies since the early 1970s, and he became a member of President Clinton's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) when it was formed in 1994. Dr. Holdren chaired the first study requested from PCAST, which led to a revision of U.S. policy on cooperation with Russia on nuclear materials protection. Also in the mid-1990s, he co-chaired the National Academy of Sciences' reshaping of U.S. policy on the management of this country's weapons-grade plutonium. And from 1995 into 1999, he chaired a series of PCAST studies on revising U.S. energy research strategy to more effectively address the challenges of the 21st century, including especially the challenge of global warming.
Dr. Holdren has been a member since 1973 of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, an international group of scholars and public figures who meet regularly to discuss ways to reduce the dangers from weapons of mass destruction and to build international cooperation on other common problems. He served as chair of the executive committee of the Pugwash Conferences from 1987 to 1997, and was chosen by his colleagues to give the acceptance speech when the organization shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995.
Dr. Holdren has been an extraordinarily effective and articulate leader in shaping public policy, not only through his various advisory roles to government but also indirectly, as an educator engaged in training the next generation of leaders in science and technology policy. He is currently at Harvard University, in both the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences and the John F. Kennedy School of Government, which named him as its first Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy. Additionally, he serves as Visiting Distinguished Scientist at Woods Hole Research Center.
Dr. John Holdren has had a profound influence in international efforts to reduce the dangers of nuclear conflict, achieve solid cooperation in energy-technology innovation and shape new understanding and policies relating to a workable strategy to ensure sustainable development of the earth's resources. He has had an enormous impact on bringing the tools of science and technology to bear on the challenges of formulating public policy to cope with the economic, environmental and security challenges posed by the scientific and technological advances of the 20th Century.
http://heinzawards.net/recipients/john-holdren
It might be worth reading the book for yourself and checking the citations for the text in question - sometimes it offers a much different point-of-view from that being used by someone/group with an apparent political agenda. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Peregrino
07-13-2009, 19:12
Ecoscience; Population, Resources, Environment is a co-authored textbook of over 1000 pages and a template for environmental education and discussion of the topics it covers.
FWIW - by reading their bios- it sounds as if it is the Ehrlichs - not Holdren - who are the population experts - Holdren's areas of interest and expertise seem very different to me. Here are the authors bios:
Ehrlichs:
http://www.usc.edu/admin/provost/tylerprize/tyler98.html
Holden:
It might be worth reading the book for yourself and checking the citations for the text in question - sometimes it offers a much different point-of-view from that being used by someone/group with an apparent political agenda. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Let me guess - their "next edition - more optomistic evaluation" concludes with Soylent Green. :rolleyes:
Let me guess - their "next edition - more optomistic evaluation" concludes with Soylent Green. :rolleyes:
Sure sounds that way, doesn't it. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
John Holdren "Science Czar (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/)
Im usually pretty skeptical of hyperbolic reports about government sponsored eugenics and the such, but every source I've found indicates that these REALLY ARE THIS GUY'S PUBLISHED THOUGHTS.... How ANYBODY could appoint somebody this NUTTY really has me concerned.
You are taking a line of analysis presented by an anonymous person on the internet who describes his/her political views as follows. (Source is here (http://www.zombietime.com/faq/).)
I'm confused too. I've stopped believing in the existence of the "left/right dichotomy." And every existing political label has been rendered meaningless by endless framing, reframing, and counter-reframing by competing political factions. There is no name or category that summarizes my wide-ranging opinions -- opinions which, furthermore, are continuously evolving. The zombietime images speak for themselves, and my personal outlook should be irrelevant in any case.
Verily, I agree that context is important.
A comment on the anonymous poster at zombietime dot come. It is interesting how the unnamed author attempts to deconstruct Mr. Holdren's alleged positions on a number of controversial issues while holding many of the same sensibilities he professes to deplores in Mr. Holdren.
If you're going to chide someone for hiding behind the passive voice, then don't turn around and use the passive voice to justify your unwillingness to grapple honestly with your political views before. And certainly do not use verbs such as "to seem" to avoid offering a reliable account of events that you witnessed.:rolleyes: Examples are here (http://www.zombietime.com/marines_protest_berkeley_6-21-08/).
Praetorian
07-13-2009, 20:36
You are taking a line of analysis presented by an anonymous person on the internet who describes his/her political views as follows.
No... Like I said... I am normally very skeptical of such internet hyperbole... I dont take "Zombies" analysis. I merely take his presentation of HOLDREN's words (and then re-verified that those at least appeared to be honestly attributed to him.) I (or you, or anybody else for that matter) can easily analyze those words without the help of anybody else. The words speak for themselves.
Here's FrontPage Mag's (David Horowitz's publication) analysis of Holdren (http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34198)
No... Like I said... I am normally very skeptical of such internet hyperbole....Here's FrontPage Mag's (David Horowitz's publication) analysis of Holdren (http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34198)
The words speak for themselves.
With respect, you say you are skeptical of internet hyperbole but then proceed to offer another piece of analysis from the internet. Like the piece you offered from zombieworld, this analysis offers an interesting interpretation of Mr. Holdren largely based on a small part of a work which he co-authored.
Have you had the chance to see the book in question? Do you know for a fact that there's no comment in the introduction which lays out a division of labor by chapter?
I raise these points and ask these questions because you are presenting such a staunch opinion of Mr. Holdren. This opinion appears to be part of a broader effort to question the efficacy of presidential appointees working in the executive branch.
The initial thrust of your argument was that these appointees were contrary to the U.S. Constitution. You held this position after it was pointed out that this line of analysis was unsustainable.*
Now, you want to motivate readers of this BB to focus attention on Mr. Holdren based upon a cursory glance at something he co-wrote over thirty years ago without any discussion of the context or, it appears, a closer examination of that work itself.
While I am not a raving fan of the president and while I agree that he's expanding executive authority over public policy, I do not yet agree with your lines of reasoning thus far.
__________________________________________________
* On this point, if one were to do research on the National Security Act of 1947 one would soon find that the legislation was going to be passed in spite of the reservations of the navy and the lukewarm support of President Truman who was more interested in universal military training.
Based on the challenges of the current situation, I can't - but I've seen it happen elsewhere and understand why those seeking power illigetimately choose to do so - and being retired SF and an educator - I guess I'd be on your cultural hit list x 2 - if you could catch me and I didn't find you first. ;)
From what I've studied, seen, and experienced - we're not there...yet...and have many - including lawyers, politicians, journalists, educators, and intellectuals - who remain fully committed to not allowing it to happen. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I have no hit list, but if I did you wouldn't be on it because you actually do educate by presenting differing view points which leads to good debate and your Military Service gets bonus points with me.
Now if it came to a game of E&E, I would bank on you catching me, but I would make you earn it...I've been watching ManTracker :rolleyes:
My 'Why' would have been better stated as a how. As divided as the political views and cultural values are, and how they continue to grow in depth I can better understand 'How' those hit lists come about.
It is my Grandpa and Dad versus my Hippie cousins over Thanksgiving Dinner all over again.....it was the Stars and Stripes sewn to Cousin Charlies ratty jean jacket. Cousin Charlie saying so what if the Flag got burned and trampled, it was just a piece of cloth. Dad unloaded on him, Men died for that Flag! You would die for a stupid piece of cloth Uncle Chuck? The Old Man was this close to trampling his long haired ass into the ground and Grandma intervened.....just over a flag made of cloth in some eyes.
Desecrating the Flag was to my Dad, like using Gods name in vein was to my Grandma...it was a sin....it was absolute that it did not happen. Should the Old Man have kicked Charlies ass over the Flag? I think so.
So if those teachers at my kids schools that were pimping Obama and how he was the Savior of the world lost their jobs tomorrow I would smile.
If that Obama Supporting Customer (An Educator no less that indulges in Che and Mao, who thinks you are all mindless idiots following a blind cause) of mine that made a joke about What do you get with a Humvee, 4 Soldiers....something to do with a ZIPPO.....if they had something unfortunate happen to them..... I might say Oh well....I might even chuckle with a Cold one in hand.
If someone like Michael Moore, Al Gore, Chris Matthews, Keith Oberman, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid or any of the other vermin were getting mugged across the street, I am not quite sure if I'd intervene or not. I do not perceive that they give a good damn about me and mine, so why should I care?
Why...maybe because my perception is that their goals and values desecrate and/or rob me of what I hold near and dear.
It is nasty, nasty path. Two wrongs don't make it right, but what do you do? Turn the other Cheek? How many more times?
Just my nominal 2 bits.
No... Like I said... I am normally very skeptical of such internet hyperbole... I dont take "Zombies" analysis. I merely take his presentation of HOLDREN's words (and then re-verified that those at least appeared to be honestly attributed to him.) I (or you, or anybody else for that matter) can easily analyze those words without the help of anybody else. The words speak for themselves.
Let me make my argument clearer -
Holdren co-authored the book - BUT - the words cited from the book which your questionable source attributes to Holdren may not be his words - AND - based on the bios of the book's three authors, actually appear to belong to the other authors - BECAUSE - the population issues presented in the book's final section are a long-studied area in which the Ehrlichs - and not Holdren - are subject matter experts.
The words may speak for themselves - but may not speak for Holdren.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
In all honesty I believe many people underestimate Barry's intellegance. Make no mistake IS very smart. That is what scares me about him.
Could be. If you've never been in a room with a group of geniuses (defined as two standard deviations above the mean on a standardized IQ test or its equivalent), you might wish to sample the experience. There are brilliant insights - and bizarre conclusions. And there are both highly successful individuals and remarkably dysfunctional ones.
Therein lies the problem. A leader (which the POTUS is, for good or ill) should be intelligent. But if the POTUS is extremely intelligent, he just might make some of those bizarre conclusions I alluded to earlier.
Praetorian
07-14-2009, 06:55
Let me make my argument clearer -
Holdren co-authored the book - BUT - the words cited from the book which your questionable source attributes to Holdren may not be his words - AND - based on the bios of the book's three authors, actually appear to belong to the other authors - BECAUSE - the population issues presented in the book's final section are a long-studied area in which the Ehrlichs - and not Holdren - are subject matter experts.
The words may speak for themselves - but may not speak for Holdren.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
He has written on population control himself as well.
Here is an excerpt from "The No-Growth Society" entitled Population and the American Predicament: The Case against Complacency (http://books.google.com/books?id=7jjp9bv0qNYC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=Holdren+Population&source=bl&ots=toR1hejGip&sig=__faLN1k2QhAslPSVvqsu5fQtGI&hl=en&ei=kn9cSrfwPI_UsQO1kJWlCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10)
Praetorian
07-14-2009, 07:26
With respect, you say you are skeptical of internet hyperbole but then proceed to offer another piece of analysis from the internet. Like the piece you offered from zombieworld, this analysis offers an interesting interpretation of Mr. Holdren largely based on a small part of a work which he co-authored.
I cited Front Page Mag solely because it is of a sufficient reputation that you cant dismiss it as "an anonymous internet blog". As far as it being a "small part of work which he "Co-Authored", above you will see a link to a SOLELY credited essay written by him calling for population reduction. Like I have said, I am not asking you or anybody else to DO anything. You can read the excerpts and come to your own conclusions, or not read them at all. Im just providing information I think you and others may find interesting. The end analysis is up to you.
Have you had the chance to see the book in question? Do you know for a fact that there's no comment in the introduction which lays out a division of labor by chapter? I have only seen the portions that have been listed. And quite honestly, to me it does not matter. I WOULD NOT put my name on a book, as an author, co-author, or be in any way or shape involved with ANY project that offered such totalitarian ideas. Simply saying "His Co-authors" may have written that passage is no defense for him not reading the final edit and saying "Wait a second.... WTH IS THIS??? I dont want to be associated with this, (Even if its what the cool kids are saying right now) because I may want to have a career in public office someday!"
I raise these points and ask these questions because you are presenting such a staunch opinion of Mr. Holdren. This opinion appears to be part of a broader effort to question the efficacy of presidential appointees working in the executive branch.
The initial thrust of your argument was that these appointees were contrary to the U.S. Constitution. You held this position after it was pointed out that this line of analysis was unsustainable.*
With all due respect, I like many, question the Constitutionality of the Executive expanding the office ad nauseum without the advice and consent of the Senate (and for what its worth, the Reorginaztion act of 1939 expired on its own accord). I would direct you to "With the Stroke Of a Pen" by Mayer.
The Executive started with a Cabinet, selected by the President and approved by the Senate.
This was expanded to include the somewhat controversial "Kitchen Cabinet" who were appointed often with LESS congressional oversight.
911 led to what amounts to the "Closet under the Stairs."
And now Obama has expanded it to become an 9x12 Public Storage Unit in Hemit where we spend precious money to park our junk that we probably dont really need. As others have pointed out, often the only real reason for adding MORE and MORE departments to the Executive is to spend MORE and MORE Tax Money (Often on redundant departments) because the expenditure of public funds for whatever reason is considered to be GOOD POLICY by many. But beyond this waste there is a management problem. The Cabinet is there to direct their departments and REGULARLY ADVISE the President to issues he needs to be aware of so that he may make the ultimate decisions where appropriate. When you start expanding to dozens and dozens of departments ruled by "Czars" it becomes less and less possible for them to advise the President simply because there arent enough hours in his day, and THOSE CZARS become more and more autonomous. And autonomy coupled with little third party oversight and a dash of radical ideology has a history of leading to bad policy.
Now, you want to motivate readers of this BB to focus attention on Mr. Holdren based upon a cursory glance at something he co-wrote over thirty years ago without any discussion of the context or, it appears, a closer examination of that work itself.
While I am not a raving fan of the president and while I agree that he's expanding executive authority over public policy, I do not yet agree with your lines of reasoning thus far.
__________________________________________________
* On this point, if one were to do research on the National Security Act of 1947 one would soon find that the legislation was going to be passed in spite of the reservations of the navy and the lukewarm support of President Truman who was more interested in universal military training.
And the fact that a bill passes, is not the final arbiter of its Constitutionality. The fact is, the Executives in the past have flexed the muscle given them from time to time with MINOR grumblings from the Legislature. And that has caused the practice to fly mainly under the radar. AFAIK the highest appeal of the Constitutionality of such expansion of the Executive WITHOUT the involvement of Congress is at the Appellate Court level. But like any privilege, when it is abused (as I contend it is now), its more likely to attract attention.
He has written on population control himself as well.
Here is an excerpt from "The No-Growth Society" entitled Population and the American Predicament: The Case against Complacency (http://books.google.com/books?id=7jjp9bv0qNYC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=Holdren+Population&source=bl&ots=toR1hejGip&sig=__faLN1k2QhAslPSVvqsu5fQtGI&hl=en&ei=kn9cSrfwPI_UsQO1kJWlCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10)
So he did - a 1975 piece - but Eugenics?
FWIW - ZPG amongst the industrialized western societies vs the virtually unchecked growth and overpopulation issues of the so-called Third World were major concerns at that time - still are. For example, in 1973-74 in SEA, as an SF Medic in a camp whose dispensary also had a CA mission, we implanted IUDs in a WHO-HN program to mandate and reduce local village population growth - which I offer as it may account for some of my apathy towards the sky is falling approach by some to such thoughts which may or may not have been written by Holdren nearly a half-century ago. IMO - the fact that they may have been a subject of discussion but never seriously brought about speak volumes.
I guess you would have had to have been there.
And so it goes... ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
He has written on population control himself as well.
Once upon a time...back in about 1966...my family and I moved to San Antonio. It was a city of 250,000 at the time. We could use all the water we wanted - we had quite a nice lawn, St. Augustine grass, green, and pleasant. We could drive 30 miles or so and be in a rural environment.
Today, the city has 1,200,000 people. We're in stage 2 water restrictions, and not far from stage 3. There are severe fines for letting water get into the street. You can water only one day per week, and that only during limited, specified hours. And still, the city grows. Oh, and the lawn? It's brown and dead. Even the Bermuda grass is in trouble.
San Antonio is growing at about 2.6% per year, which implies the city will double in 30 years. I think it won't be a very good place to live by then. And San Antonio is merely a microcosm of the situation in both the nation and the world.
No offense meant, but I think there can be too many people. Indeed, I think there are too many people.
Praetorian
07-14-2009, 07:41
So he did - a 1975 piece - but Eugenics?
FWIW - ZPG amongst the industrialized western societies vs the virtually unchecked growth and overpopulation issues of the so-called Third World were major concerns at that time. For example, in 1973-74 in SEA, as an SF Medic in a camp whose dispensary also had a CA mission, we implanted IUDs in a WHO-HN program to mandate and reduce local village population growth - which I offer as it may account for some of my apathy towards the sky is fallingapproach by some to such thoughts which may or may not have been written by Holdren nearly a half-century ago. IMO - the fact that they may have been a subject of discussion but never seriously brought about speak volumes.
I guess you would have had to have been there.
And so it goes... ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
OK... I think we have some agreement. I am in no way saying "the SKY IS FALLING!!!!" I dont think were on a jack-booted march to Brave New World because Obama appointed this guy as an advisor. But I think it speaks VOLUMES to BOTH of their judgments. Holdren's in the past, and Obama's in the present. My humble opinion is, yes, there were a lot of nutty ideas that were mainstream when I was but a wee one.... I remember them quite well.... But even then I remember NOT BUYING INTO THEM HOOK LINE AND SINKER. I remember the hand wringing over the "population bomb" and "Silent Spring" and all the rest of the real "Sky is falling" folks of the era who were given more publicity then they deserved, and thinking they should all take a breath.
Now that we've survived 40+ years (and ten years longer than they said we would) without their dire predictions coming true, I think its enough to IGNORE THEM, not give them a new podium from which to try again.
Now that we've survived 40+ years (and ten years longer than they said we would) without their dire predictions coming true, I think its enough to IGNORE THEM, not give them a new podium from which to try again.
I - too - would hope this would be the case - but also have fears - when not being a contrarian - to a resurgence of such ideas due to all the issues discussed by the articles authors and the world's ever burgeoning population growth - which has nearly tripled in my lifetime alone (2.5B 1950 - 6.8B 2009). On the other hand - what might happen if it was not being openly discussed? Look at China, e.g. And does this mean we also quit discussing things such as the Brave New World potentials of cloning, DNA testing and selective birthing (e.g., What do you do if you find within the first tri-mester of pregnancy that your fetus has Downs Syndrome?). Not a pleasant or easy series of discussions to have - but IMO the greater danger is to either not have them at all or to only have them among the 'select', 'The Indsiders', the appointed government policy makers. :eek:
And as far as Mr Holdren is concerned - I fear he's a far more rabid eco-fatalist than he ever was a Eugenecist (if at all). ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Praetorian
07-14-2009, 14:21
And as far as Mr Holdren is concerned - I fear he's a far more rabid eco-fatalist than he ever was a Eugenecist (if at all). ;)
;)
I fear the two go hand in hand.... Most of the extreme environmentalists Ive ever known (and I'm sorry to say Ive known a LOT...) had a misanthropic streak at the heart of their beliefs.
It appears Mr. Holdren had some rather strong views. He may be a lightning-rod for controversy. Curious, is it not, that the current administration would choose someone with such a background?
LINK (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/More-Holdren-Traditional-family-is-obsolete-50807107.html)
Obama's Science Czar: Traditional family is obsolete, punish large families
By: David Freddoso
Commentary Staff Writer
07/15/09 9:05 AM EDT
President Obama's Science Czar, John Holdren, took a controversial and amoral approach to the science of population by recommending mass compulsory sterilization and even forced abortion (and/or forced marriages) under certain circumstances. His 1977 tome, Ecoscience, which he co-authored with Paul and Anne Ehrlich, also displays a revealing disregard for the institution of the traditional human family.
Holdren and the Ehrlichs write:
Radical changes in family structure and relationships are inevitable, whether population control is instituted or not. Inaction, attended by a steady deterioration in living conditions for the poor majority, will bring changes everywhere that no one could consider beneficial. Thus, it is beside the point to object to population-control measures simply on the grounds that they might change the social structure or family relationships.
Holdren, with a blithe “of course,” encourages government to wage an effective war on the family in America. It begins with the abolition of “pronatalist” policies and continues with their complete reversal:
As United States taxpayers know, income tax laws have long implicitly encouraged marriage and childbearing...Such a pronatalist bias of course is no longer appropriate. In countries that are affluent enough for the majority of citizens to pay taxes, tax laws could be adjusted to favor (instead of penalize) single people, working wives, and small families. Other tax measures might also include high marriage fees, taxes on luxury baby goods and toys, and removal of family allowances where they exist. Other possibilities include the limitation of maternal or educational benefits to two children per family.
Holdren notes that some of these proposals “have the potential disadvantage of heavily penalizing children (and in the long run society as well).” This is not a disqualifier, though, as long as the proposals are “carefully adjusted to avoid denying at least minimum care for poor families, regardless of the number of children they may have.” Even here, the objection is practical, not ethical. It's fine to level stiff penalties against those who choose families and children, but not to the point that this policy exacerbates the original problem (unwanted children, living in squalor) that population control purports to combat.
Some Americans might cite the Founding Fathers and argue that a government whose policy is to make war on the family in the name of science has clearly overstepped its mandate. That was not the opinion expressed by John Holdren, the man President Obama has put in charge in the nation's science policy.
FYI/FWIW, Mr. Holdren is appearing tonight on The Late Show with David Letterman.