I was the Quality Assurance Officer in the maintenance department of the largest helicopter squadron in the Marine Corps, so allow me to pass along a few notes on military aircraft maintenance procedures and the cost accounting of mishaps.
Everything in the maintenance department is done by checklists and written procedures because people make mistakes; written instructions help minimize those mistakes as long as the procedures are followed. In addition to the written instructions, there are at least two levels of QA: Collateral duty inspectors, who are more senior mechanics who check the work was done right, and Quality Assurance representatives, who are still more senior and check the work after the first inspection (they are prohibited from watching the work to ensure they look at each job with no preconceptions). Given the insanely complex maintenance that goes into these machines, this setup is a marvel of efficiency and effectiveness. (Evidenced by the low number of mishaps attributed to maintenance errors.)
RFID tool control works just great until the computer loses power. A lot of maintenance is done in very austere environments and under combat conditions. The current tool control systems are designed to work when the lights are out and the world has gone to hell in a hand basket. If your tool control idea won't survive incoming fire, it's not robust enough.
The bottom line to both of these is that taking shortcuts bypasses the system that prevents these mishaps. Follow the procedures and things will be fine 99.9% of the time.
As regards accounting, when an aircraft sustains more than $2 million in damage (used to be $1 million), it is considered a Class A mishap, which is the same classification for a mishap resulting in total loss of the airframe or the loss of life. From that point of view, $25 million is a total loss. Add in the factors of old airframe, hard to get parts, etc. and you see why this is considered a total loss. If you don't like it, blame the Congresscritters who make the laws, not the guys who live under those laws.
The real problem is very succinctly described by Prof. Richard Muller of Berkeley (a who believes in AGW), who points out the problems wiht the data in this video: http://youtu.be/8BQpciw8suk
If you try doing this to your data in a high school physics class you will fail; it should not be acceptable from professional scientists. As Prof. Muller says, these are people whose conclusions can no longer be trusted because their actions forfeited that trust.
The problem has a political source: government-approved monopolies for cable providers. So the solution must also be political: eliminate the government-approved monopolies. This crap won't happen when there is more than one alternative in the marketplace. Many locations are only served by one provider because the government has granted that provider a monopoly. Get on your state and local legislators' butts about it and get the law changed.
The major problem with teacher training in the US is not that too many teachers are weak in math and science (although that is a problem), it is teacher certification programs that concentrate on the task of teaching and not on how to convey particular material. Most states require teachers to spend almost two years getting a teaching certificate in order to be allowed to teach in the public schools; this certificate is based on learning education theory and not on learning the subject to be taught. I'm a PhD candidate, and when I finish my degree I could get a job as a college professor teaching all manner of IT-related courses. But in most states I couldn't get a job teaching a middle school keyboarding class because I won't have a teaching certificate.
Maybe eliminating that particular certification would entice more technically savvy people into the classroom.
Assuming a person has some objective phenomenon they can point to, such as hearing a noise or seeing an object move, that particular phenomenon can be investigated. For some, an obvious cause can be determined: the pipe is hot because water flows through it; the voices you heard were from another room and were channeled through he heating duct. For other phenomena, no explanation can be found: no one has been in the room, but something left a person-shaped depression in the bed. The cause could be anything from a practical joke to some paranormal phenomenon, but all that can be said is that the investigator does not *know" what the cause was.
If the phenomena are less physical (e.g., seeing something or having a feeling of something), it becomes much more difficult to prove a cause due to their intangible nature. Causes can be suggested, but no one can say for sure exactly what the cause was.
I have a biologist friend who has debunked part of a reputed haunting in his house through a little careful deduction, but other aspects remain unexplained. That is the crux of "science" -- being able (and willing) to distinguish between what you know and what you suspect or believe. And the fact is, nobody *knows* what causes the phenomena generally attributed to "ghosts."
One other important point to consider about CBO estimates is that the CBO can only base its estimates on the information the Congress gives it.
One example in this bill is the contention that Congress will cut Medicaid reimbursements to doctors by 20% per year. This cut has been on the books for a long time and Congress has waived it EVERY TIME. Does anyone really believe Congress will suddenly stop waiving those cuts? But still, CBO must include those cuts in its scoring because that is what Congress told CBO to include.
More than socialized education, it is the ever-increasing tendency to invest the schools with responsibilities beyond teaching. When schools are insisting students perform "community service" in order to graduate, are pressed into service as monitors of their charges' weight, and similar activities having nothing to do with the conveyance of academic knowledge, then it is only natural that some administrators will come to see themselves as the arbiters of all student behavior.
Too many school administrators increasingly tell parents that they are the "experts" who know best how to run their kids' education and that parents need to butt out. Power tends to corrupt; this is only the logical extension of a culture where administrators feel they are the final authority on child rearing.
To be fair, much of the blame must be laid at the feet of politicians who insist that schools be used to effect social change to that politician's liking. Leave the schools to teach the three Rs and leave the social engineering out of it and this sort of problem will cease.
Actually, you missed the very beginning of the argument. Those of us who remember the 70s recall the breathless press accounts of the coming ice age, which would have had a substantial portion of the world population dead of starvation by now because of the loss of farmland to glaciers. Given the full 30+ year history of climate change alarmism, a little skepticism is healthy.
The plain fact is, there is a whole lot more uncertainty surrounding the climate than most people are willing to admit.
It'd be better to have a government-run pension plan that everyone pays into (than a private system) to help the system itself adapt to the changing workforce.
Actually, the math doesn't work there, either. The US Social Security system is in theory just such a system. But the Baby Boom generation had many fewer children than their parents did. Because current taxes are paying current beneficiaries (the "trust fund" is only an accounting device), more people are retiring than are entering the workforce. The end result is fewer taxpayers per beneficiary. Within about 20 years, we will be to the point where there are only two people paying into the system for every person drawing benefits. That's hardly a recipe for a stable system.
Politicians of both parties have failed to address this issue honestly, so the system will soon collapse of its own weight. This is just more evidence that trusting the government to take care of your needs is asking to be left in the lurch. If you want to know it is there, do it yourself.
Historical perspective, indeed. Your comparison between the American Revolution and modern terrorists suffers from some fatal flaws, among them:
- American revolutionaries may have blended in among the civilian population while not fighting, but they did not hide behind the civilians while in the act of attacking. Modern terrorists often deliberately launch attacks from locations that are surrounded by civilians in the hope of incurring embarassing collateral damange when the target counter-attacks
- While many of the Colonial forces may have fought using irregular tactics, that is not the same as flaunting the customary laws of war. The vast majority of them obeyed the laws of armed conflict as they existed at that time (e.g., prisoners were treated humanely, not beheaded)
- While there are civilian casualties in all wars, there is a world of difference between inadvertently killing or maiming noncombatants and deliberately targeting them. Instances of either side in the American Revolution deliberately targeting civilians were few and far between; for modern terrorists, targeting civilians is the norm
Try not to let your political views get in the way of historical facts.
You're almost entirely correct. In addition to sticking only to the scientific facts as they are known, it is important to admit what _isn't_ known, or the limits of the model or experiment being discussed. Many people are very jaded abut what they hear about research because of the long history of over-hyped or half-reported "scientific findings." Some of this is the press' fault for usually going for the sensational healine over the nuanced full picture, but it's not all their fault.
To take two examples:
Look at the "saccharin causes cancer" sensation of thirty yeas ago. Yes, saccharin is a carcinogen. But the levels required to induce cancer in mice was the equivalent of dringkning cases of diet soda every day. That was not how it was reported in the press. Once that word got out, people quit worrying about it and began to question whether the research was being accurately reported at all.
Also, look at the more current global warming controversy. Part of the reason people don't jump at what they hear from climatologists is based on past experience with over-hyped dangers (e.g., saccharin). But how often do we hear climatologists being very up-front about the limitations of the models their predictions are based on? This information is available to the public; when word gets out that the latest dire prediction was based on a model with certain limitations that were not admitted up-front in the initail wave of publicity, it gives the impression that only part of the truth is being presented.
Once I think you're hiding facts from me, you're going to have to work twice as hard to convince me of the truth of your argument. Credibility lost is very hard to regain. To restore the public's trust, scientists need to be up-front with all the facts and admit what it is they don't know.
I agree almost completely with what you say, except that your interpretation of the Constitution is deeply flawed. The Constitution clearly sets out a government whose three branches (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) are co-equals. This is apparent not only from the text of the document, but also from the Federalist Papers. The Presidency is no more supposed to be a rubber stamp of the Congress than the Congress should be a rubber stamp of the Presidency.
Each branch has different powers, but none can exercise significant power without the consent of at least one other branch. Yes, there are areas where each has latitude to act unilaterally, but major initiatives generally require the consent of at least two branches. And before you say "Bush went to war on his own," recall that Congress has the power to limit or end funding for the war whenever it wants to. It may not have the will, but it has the power.
The only branch of the US government that has been able to act unilaterally has been the Judicial branch, and that is a phenomenon largely of the last 50 years. Congress has declined to exercise its powers to limit the Courts' jurisdiction as granted under Article 2 of the Constitution.
Our Founders deliberately devissed a government where no one branch could accumulate too much power because they distrusted government. This is the very essence of hte Constitution's system of checks and balances -- each branch has certain powers that can nullify decisions of the other branches, and it takes at elast two branches to get most things done. Whether those powers are exercised or not, or if they are weilded responsibly when exercised, is another matter entirely.
Actually, it already has. the area around Reston / Herndon Virginia (perhaps 20 miles from Maryland) is a huge IT hub. It's the Silicon Valley of the East coast. Why so many high-tech companies? Because Virginia doesn't see a corporation as a cash cow to be milked to death (at least, not yet).
As are the rotor blades on the CH-53E, the V-22, and many other modern helicopters. I've flown through the rain, hovered 5 feet above the water in a cloud of salt spray, and watched our aircraft sit on the ramp through days of rain at a time. And still the carbon fiber rotor blades didn't delaminate due to the water.
It doesn't take a lot of legwork to check out the more outlandish claims here.
I might be more amenable to your position if you avoided the hyperbole. For example, you state there are "no checks, no balances." WRONG! The checks and balances provided in the Constitution are the ability of the Judicial branch and the Legislative branch to counter actions of the Executive. Those remain in full effect.
Your recommendation to write one's Congressional delegation shows that there are checks and balances (i.e., legislation overturning this Executive Order).
In addition, this will no doubt be challenged in the courts by various civil liberties groups. That's another check and balance.
While I don't necessarily agree with this order, it is only when debates are conducted on a factual basis can we arrive at a reasonable conclusion.
And yet, one stubborn fact remains: there is not a single instnace in the entire fossil record where one species can be traced through its entire transformation into one or more other species. That is a glaring lack of evidence that should prevent any honest scientist from claiming evolution has been "proven."
The theory of macro evolution has been reinforced, it has been supported, and it "has been..." many things with respect to the fossil record. But at this point, "proven" is a bridge too far.
Some of these comments get close to one of your key issue, but none that I see hit it cleanly on the head: management isn't your job; *leadership* is your job.
You can manage things, but you need to lead people. Any knucklehead can count beans and make sure there are enough desks and computers in the shop. But to get people to work together toward a common goal -- that takes a talent called leadership. Contrary to popular belief, it is most often a learned skill. I spent some time as a leadership instructor in the Marine Corps, and in over a decade of active duty, I met many good and a few great leaders. But I only met one person who was a natural leader. The rest learned the skill.
That said, here are the basics:
Always treat your people with honesty and respect. Let them know they don't work *for* you, they work *with* you -- BIG difference.
Yes, they're *your* people. Treat them like what they are -- precious assets entrusted to your care. The best thing you can do for them is to keep the day-to-day annoyances off their backs so they can get the job done. When your boss is trying to push something that's going to cause needless trouble for your people, fight tooth and nail for them. If you work hard for them, they'll work hard for you.
Don't just be in charge, take charge. If something calls for a decision, go ahead and make it. If it was the wrong decision, you'll figure that out in short order, and you can make adjustments from there. One of the worst people to work for is the one that won't make a decision. Any company that kills a career over one bad decision is a company you don't want to work for anyway.
Praise in public, reprimand in private -- ALWAYS.
MBWA -- Management By Walking Around. You don't really know what's going on if you spend all your time at your desk. Make the rounds and talk to people -- if they think someone's willing to listen and do something about it, they'll tell you where the problems are.
I would also recommend checking out the Marines' 11 principles and 14 traits of leadership here -- they apply to the office just as much as the battlefield.
They may be charging this guy under the Patriot Act, but it has been a federal offense to interfere with the safe operation of an aricraft for many years. I was a Marine Corps helicopter pilot for 11 years, and back in the mid 90s we had someone flashing our aircraft at night with one of those ultra-bright (million candle power or so) flashlights. After several near-crashes, we finally pinpointed his house, and that night he got a visit from his friendly neighborhood FBI agent.
So please, stop acting as if every enforcement of a provision of the Patriot Act is some new depradation by the current administration. There may be some provisions of that act that should be revisited, but that doesn't make the entire thing some vast conspiracy to revoke our civil liberties.
What About the Constitution?
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
One thing that always seems to be left out of discussions of the economy is any mention of the federal government's legal role. The form and function of the United States government is ultimately controlled by the US Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of the economy or business. And per the 10th Amendment, those powers not specifically given the federal government are reserved for the states or the people at large.
In short, it is not the government's function to create jobs. It's the government's function to get out of the way and let businesses create jobs. Yes, government has a place in regulating businesses to ensure they are not endangering people or the environment unnecessarily. Every government regulation costs businesses money -- money that might otherwise go to hiring new employees to produce more product. These are especially hard on small businesses (who are responsible for over half of all US jobs). These regulations also affect the quality of your work life, so don't think they only affect the fat cats.
About three years ago, my employer was working out the details of a formal telecommuting program, which would make my work life easier and save them money (fewer people on site == lower expenses). This would have included picking up part of the tab for internet connections, new computers, etc. Unfortunately, the Labor Department announced that they had the power to regulate home offices used for telecommuting the same way they could regulate those office spaces provided by the emloyer. This extended to inspecting home offices just as they do employer-provided spaces, and the intention to fine employers for regulatory violations found in the home offices. Employers could also be held liable for injuries incurred in the home office.
Needless to say, the telecommuting project died before it began -- the potential liabilities were so great they posed a significant risk to the company's future.
This is but one example of the government often doing more harm than good. And there's not much any president can do to alter that -- the people who came up with this hare-brained idea are probably still there, waiting for a more favorable time to put this idea into action. They can't be fired because they're civil servants, so they don't change with the administration.
There really isn't much a president can do to create jobs (and it's not his responsibility anyway). The best thing he can do is push policies that give businesses the freedom to act.
Also, note that the Labor Department just declared they had this regulatory power -- no act of Congress granted it, they just assumed it -- such is the power-hungry nature of any bureaucracy. And any entity that has the power to find you a job has the power to have you removed from that job. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
There's just one problem with the analogy you draw (1930s Nazi party to current events in US). The Nazis created their enemies out of thin air. Ours left 3000 dead bodies in New York, plus 17 dead sailors aboard USS Cole, plus smoking embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, plus... (need I go on?)
One need not agree with the PATRIOT Act or the current administration's policies to acknowledge the reality of the terrorists' war on America. Whether we like it or not, there are people in this world bent on westerners in general, and Americans in particular. To claim otherwise is to bury one's head in the sand.
This is just another example of an ill-informed, alarmist media alowing their own political views to color their reporting. I recall seeing a similar article about a year ago. Turns out that for as long as people have been able to get to the North Pole an spend enough time there to do some real research, there have been periods during the summer where there was a hole in the middle of the polar ice cap.
And remember, it has been much less than a century that we have had the technology to actually spend significant time at the North Pole studying the area. The first known human expedition to the North Pole was in 1909. Even today, getting there and spending enough time to gather a lot of data is very hard. No one has ever spent an entire year there, so we really don't know what the long-term behavior of the polar ice cap is.
There was a Saturday Night Live skit about this back when John Belushi was still part of the cast (that is, back when it was funny). It had Garret Morris as a football player who was the recipient of a "donor" face that allowed him to live a normal life. The catch was that he received the face of a nine-year-old white girl. There were others, but his was the main character. So really, this is just a very old idea with a new audience.
I'm glad to see that scientists have been spending my tax dollar trying to bring SNL to life. As if life weren't strange enough already.
Funny thing about Ferrarris -- they only go fast on very smooth roads. Hummers can go fast without paved roads. Most of the planet is not paved, so for most terrain, the Hummer will run the Ferrarri into the ground.
Kind of like OSs -- most of the world is a rough place, and your OS (even on a desktop) needs to be able to handle the rough spots without crashing. I'm not saying AIX and Solaris have that problem, but other well-known OSs do.
Slashdot Mirror
I was the Quality Assurance Officer in the maintenance department of the largest helicopter squadron in the Marine Corps, so allow me to pass along a few notes on military aircraft maintenance procedures and the cost accounting of mishaps.
Everything in the maintenance department is done by checklists and written procedures because people make mistakes; written instructions help minimize those mistakes as long as the procedures are followed. In addition to the written instructions, there are at least two levels of QA: Collateral duty inspectors, who are more senior mechanics who check the work was done right, and Quality Assurance representatives, who are still more senior and check the work after the first inspection (they are prohibited from watching the work to ensure they look at each job with no preconceptions). Given the insanely complex maintenance that goes into these machines, this setup is a marvel of efficiency and effectiveness. (Evidenced by the low number of mishaps attributed to maintenance errors.)
RFID tool control works just great until the computer loses power. A lot of maintenance is done in very austere environments and under combat conditions. The current tool control systems are designed to work when the lights are out and the world has gone to hell in a hand basket. If your tool control idea won't survive incoming fire, it's not robust enough.
The bottom line to both of these is that taking shortcuts bypasses the system that prevents these mishaps. Follow the procedures and things will be fine 99.9% of the time.
As regards accounting, when an aircraft sustains more than $2 million in damage (used to be $1 million), it is considered a Class A mishap, which is the same classification for a mishap resulting in total loss of the airframe or the loss of life. From that point of view, $25 million is a total loss. Add in the factors of old airframe, hard to get parts, etc. and you see why this is considered a total loss. If you don't like it, blame the Congresscritters who make the laws, not the guys who live under those laws.
The real problem is very succinctly described by Prof. Richard Muller of Berkeley (a who believes in AGW), who points out the problems wiht the data in this video: http://youtu.be/8BQpciw8suk
If you try doing this to your data in a high school physics class you will fail; it should not be acceptable from professional scientists. As Prof. Muller says, these are people whose conclusions can no longer be trusted because their actions forfeited that trust.
The problem has a political source: government-approved monopolies for cable providers. So the solution must also be political: eliminate the government-approved monopolies. This crap won't happen when there is more than one alternative in the marketplace. Many locations are only served by one provider because the government has granted that provider a monopoly. Get on your state and local legislators' butts about it and get the law changed.
The major problem with teacher training in the US is not that too many teachers are weak in math and science (although that is a problem), it is teacher certification programs that concentrate on the task of teaching and not on how to convey particular material. Most states require teachers to spend almost two years getting a teaching certificate in order to be allowed to teach in the public schools; this certificate is based on learning education theory and not on learning the subject to be taught. I'm a PhD candidate, and when I finish my degree I could get a job as a college professor teaching all manner of IT-related courses. But in most states I couldn't get a job teaching a middle school keyboarding class because I won't have a teaching certificate.
Maybe eliminating that particular certification would entice more technically savvy people into the classroom.
Correct and well said, up to a point.
Assuming a person has some objective phenomenon they can point to, such as hearing a noise or seeing an object move, that particular phenomenon can be investigated. For some, an obvious cause can be determined: the pipe is hot because water flows through it; the voices you heard were from another room and were channeled through he heating duct. For other phenomena, no explanation can be found: no one has been in the room, but something left a person-shaped depression in the bed. The cause could be anything from a practical joke to some paranormal phenomenon, but all that can be said is that the investigator does not *know" what the cause was.
If the phenomena are less physical (e.g., seeing something or having a feeling of something), it becomes much more difficult to prove a cause due to their intangible nature. Causes can be suggested, but no one can say for sure exactly what the cause was.
I have a biologist friend who has debunked part of a reputed haunting in his house through a little careful deduction, but other aspects remain unexplained. That is the crux of "science" -- being able (and willing) to distinguish between what you know and what you suspect or believe. And the fact is, nobody *knows* what causes the phenomena generally attributed to "ghosts."
One other important point to consider about CBO estimates is that the CBO can only base its estimates on the information the Congress gives it.
One example in this bill is the contention that Congress will cut Medicaid reimbursements to doctors by 20% per year. This cut has been on the books for a long time and Congress has waived it EVERY TIME. Does anyone really believe Congress will suddenly stop waiving those cuts? But still, CBO must include those cuts in its scoring because that is what Congress told CBO to include.
As with any process, garbage in == garbage out.
More than socialized education, it is the ever-increasing tendency to invest the schools with responsibilities beyond teaching. When schools are insisting students perform "community service" in order to graduate, are pressed into service as monitors of their charges' weight, and similar activities having nothing to do with the conveyance of academic knowledge, then it is only natural that some administrators will come to see themselves as the arbiters of all student behavior.
Too many school administrators increasingly tell parents that they are the "experts" who know best how to run their kids' education and that parents need to butt out. Power tends to corrupt; this is only the logical extension of a culture where administrators feel they are the final authority on child rearing.
To be fair, much of the blame must be laid at the feet of politicians who insist that schools be used to effect social change to that politician's liking. Leave the schools to teach the three Rs and leave the social engineering out of it and this sort of problem will cease.
Actually, you missed the very beginning of the argument. Those of us who remember the 70s recall the breathless press accounts of the coming ice age, which would have had a substantial portion of the world population dead of starvation by now because of the loss of farmland to glaciers. Given the full 30+ year history of climate change alarmism, a little skepticism is healthy.
The plain fact is, there is a whole lot more uncertainty surrounding the climate than most people are willing to admit.
It'd be better to have a government-run pension plan that everyone pays into (than a private system) to help the system itself adapt to the changing workforce.
Actually, the math doesn't work there, either. The US Social Security system is in theory just such a system. But the Baby Boom generation had many fewer children than their parents did. Because current taxes are paying current beneficiaries (the "trust fund" is only an accounting device), more people are retiring than are entering the workforce. The end result is fewer taxpayers per beneficiary. Within about 20 years, we will be to the point where there are only two people paying into the system for every person drawing benefits. That's hardly a recipe for a stable system.
Politicians of both parties have failed to address this issue honestly, so the system will soon collapse of its own weight. This is just more evidence that trusting the government to take care of your needs is asking to be left in the lurch. If you want to know it is there, do it yourself.
Or maybe they're taking part in the Georgia v. Russia conflict.
Historical perspective, indeed. Your comparison between the American Revolution and modern terrorists suffers from some fatal flaws, among them:
- American revolutionaries may have blended in among the civilian population while not fighting, but they did not hide behind the civilians while in the act of attacking. Modern terrorists often deliberately launch attacks from locations that are surrounded by civilians in the hope of incurring embarassing collateral damange when the target counter-attacks
- While many of the Colonial forces may have fought using irregular tactics, that is not the same as flaunting the customary laws of war. The vast majority of them obeyed the laws of armed conflict as they existed at that time (e.g., prisoners were treated humanely, not beheaded)
- While there are civilian casualties in all wars, there is a world of difference between inadvertently killing or maiming noncombatants and deliberately targeting them. Instances of either side in the American Revolution deliberately targeting civilians were few and far between; for modern terrorists, targeting civilians is the norm
Try not to let your political views get in the way of historical facts.
You're almost entirely correct. In addition to sticking only to the scientific facts as they are known, it is important to admit what _isn't_ known, or the limits of the model or experiment being discussed. Many people are very jaded abut what they hear about research because of the long history of over-hyped or half-reported "scientific findings." Some of this is the press' fault for usually going for the sensational healine over the nuanced full picture, but it's not all their fault.
To take two examples:
Look at the "saccharin causes cancer" sensation of thirty yeas ago. Yes, saccharin is a carcinogen. But the levels required to induce cancer in mice was the equivalent of dringkning cases of diet soda every day. That was not how it was reported in the press. Once that word got out, people quit worrying about it and began to question whether the research was being accurately reported at all.
Also, look at the more current global warming controversy. Part of the reason people don't jump at what they hear from climatologists is based on past experience with over-hyped dangers (e.g., saccharin). But how often do we hear climatologists being very up-front about the limitations of the models their predictions are based on? This information is available to the public; when word gets out that the latest dire prediction was based on a model with certain limitations that were not admitted up-front in the initail wave of publicity, it gives the impression that only part of the truth is being presented.
Once I think you're hiding facts from me, you're going to have to work twice as hard to convince me of the truth of your argument. Credibility lost is very hard to regain. To restore the public's trust, scientists need to be up-front with all the facts and admit what it is they don't know.
I agree almost completely with what you say, except that your interpretation of the Constitution is deeply flawed. The Constitution clearly sets out a government whose three branches (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) are co-equals. This is apparent not only from the text of the document, but also from the Federalist Papers. The Presidency is no more supposed to be a rubber stamp of the Congress than the Congress should be a rubber stamp of the Presidency.
Each branch has different powers, but none can exercise significant power without the consent of at least one other branch. Yes, there are areas where each has latitude to act unilaterally, but major initiatives generally require the consent of at least two branches. And before you say "Bush went to war on his own," recall that Congress has the power to limit or end funding for the war whenever it wants to. It may not have the will, but it has the power.
The only branch of the US government that has been able to act unilaterally has been the Judicial branch, and that is a phenomenon largely of the last 50 years. Congress has declined to exercise its powers to limit the Courts' jurisdiction as granted under Article 2 of the Constitution.
Our Founders deliberately devissed a government where no one branch could accumulate too much power because they distrusted government. This is the very essence of hte Constitution's system of checks and balances -- each branch has certain powers that can nullify decisions of the other branches, and it takes at elast two branches to get most things done. Whether those powers are exercised or not, or if they are weilded responsibly when exercised, is another matter entirely.
Actually, it already has. the area around Reston / Herndon Virginia (perhaps 20 miles from Maryland) is a huge IT hub. It's the Silicon Valley of the East coast. Why so many high-tech companies? Because Virginia doesn't see a corporation as a cash cow to be milked to death (at least, not yet).
As are the rotor blades on the CH-53E, the V-22, and many other modern helicopters. I've flown through the rain, hovered 5 feet above the water in a cloud of salt spray, and watched our aircraft sit on the ramp through days of rain at a time. And still the carbon fiber rotor blades didn't delaminate due to the water.
It doesn't take a lot of legwork to check out the more outlandish claims here.
I might be more amenable to your position if you avoided the hyperbole. For example, you state there are "no checks, no balances." WRONG! The checks and balances provided in the Constitution are the ability of the Judicial branch and the Legislative branch to counter actions of the Executive. Those remain in full effect.
Your recommendation to write one's Congressional delegation shows that there are checks and balances (i.e., legislation overturning this Executive Order).
In addition, this will no doubt be challenged in the courts by various civil liberties groups. That's another check and balance.
While I don't necessarily agree with this order, it is only when debates are conducted on a factual basis can we arrive at a reasonable conclusion.
And yet, one stubborn fact remains: there is not a single instnace in the entire fossil record where one species can be traced through its entire transformation into one or more other species. That is a glaring lack of evidence that should prevent any honest scientist from claiming evolution has been "proven."
The theory of macro evolution has been reinforced, it has been supported, and it "has been..." many things with respect to the fossil record. But at this point, "proven" is a bridge too far.
You can manage things, but you need to lead people. Any knucklehead can count beans and make sure there are enough desks and computers in the shop. But to get people to work together toward a common goal -- that takes a talent called leadership. Contrary to popular belief, it is most often a learned skill. I spent some time as a leadership instructor in the Marine Corps, and in over a decade of active duty, I met many good and a few great leaders. But I only met one person who was a natural leader. The rest learned the skill.
That said, here are the basics:
I would also recommend checking out the Marines' 11 principles and 14 traits of leadership here -- they apply to the office just as much as the battlefield.
Best of luck to you.
They may be charging this guy under the Patriot Act, but it has been a federal offense to interfere with the safe operation of an aricraft for many years. I was a Marine Corps helicopter pilot for 11 years, and back in the mid 90s we had someone flashing our aircraft at night with one of those ultra-bright (million candle power or so) flashlights. After several near-crashes, we finally pinpointed his house, and that night he got a visit from his friendly neighborhood FBI agent.
So please, stop acting as if every enforcement of a provision of the Patriot Act is some new depradation by the current administration. There may be some provisions of that act that should be revisited, but that doesn't make the entire thing some vast conspiracy to revoke our civil liberties.
In short, it is not the government's function to create jobs. It's the government's function to get out of the way and let businesses create jobs. Yes, government has a place in regulating businesses to ensure they are not endangering people or the environment unnecessarily. Every government regulation costs businesses money -- money that might otherwise go to hiring new employees to produce more product. These are especially hard on small businesses (who are responsible for over half of all US jobs). These regulations also affect the quality of your work life, so don't think they only affect the fat cats.
About three years ago, my employer was working out the details of a formal telecommuting program, which would make my work life easier and save them money (fewer people on site == lower expenses). This would have included picking up part of the tab for internet connections, new computers, etc. Unfortunately, the Labor Department announced that they had the power to regulate home offices used for telecommuting the same way they could regulate those office spaces provided by the emloyer. This extended to inspecting home offices just as they do employer-provided spaces, and the intention to fine employers for regulatory violations found in the home offices. Employers could also be held liable for injuries incurred in the home office.
Needless to say, the telecommuting project died before it began -- the potential liabilities were so great they posed a significant risk to the company's future.
This is but one example of the government often doing more harm than good. And there's not much any president can do to alter that -- the people who came up with this hare-brained idea are probably still there, waiting for a more favorable time to put this idea into action. They can't be fired because they're civil servants, so they don't change with the administration.
There really isn't much a president can do to create jobs (and it's not his responsibility anyway). The best thing he can do is push policies that give businesses the freedom to act.
Also, note that the Labor Department just declared they had this regulatory power -- no act of Congress granted it, they just assumed it -- such is the power-hungry nature of any bureaucracy. And any entity that has the power to find you a job has the power to have you removed from that job. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
I have this strange feeling of deja vu... (check http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/16/203022 2&tid=137&tid=216 for the previous mention of this tech and these same two sites).
One need not agree with the PATRIOT Act or the current administration's policies to acknowledge the reality of the terrorists' war on America. Whether we like it or not, there are people in this world bent on westerners in general, and Americans in particular. To claim otherwise is to bury one's head in the sand.
And remember, it has been much less than a century that we have had the technology to actually spend significant time at the North Pole studying the area. The first known human expedition to the North Pole was in 1909. Even today, getting there and spending enough time to gather a lot of data is very hard. No one has ever spent an entire year there, so we really don't know what the long-term behavior of the polar ice cap is.
There was a Saturday Night Live skit about this back when John Belushi was still part of the cast (that is, back when it was funny). It had Garret Morris as a football player who was the recipient of a "donor" face that allowed him to live a normal life. The catch was that he received the face of a nine-year-old white girl. There were others, but his was the main character. So really, this is just a very old idea with a new audience.
I'm glad to see that scientists have been spending my tax dollar trying to bring SNL to life. As if life weren't strange enough already.
Funny thing about Ferrarris -- they only go fast on very smooth roads. Hummers can go fast without paved roads. Most of the planet is not paved, so for most terrain, the Hummer will run the Ferrarri into the ground.
Kind of like OSs -- most of the world is a rough place, and your OS (even on a desktop) needs to be able to handle the rough spots without crashing. I'm not saying AIX and Solaris have that problem, but other well-known OSs do.