Your assertion that Congress is smart enough to use Excel is ludicrous.
They use PowerPoint slides with less than 6 words per slide for communication with Congresscritters,
and a spam macro driving Word to produce the legislation.
As far as the book goes, it doesn't sound like it delves much into ADO, which is where there is some really interesting action. The ADOR.Recordset object really gives you a flat linked list to use.
With the Scripting.Dictionary, you come close to having a useful set of data structures to work with.
Lots of gotchas, but, when MS Office is all you have to work with, you can still get a lot done, as long as you remember what Marcellus Wallace said about pride.
Amend. XVI, furthermore, is a change in the method of raising the taxes to fund Article I spending, and has no substantive impact on what the taxes are raised for.
I couldn't agree with you less. Pandora's box, once opened, has made societal tinkering the favorite pastime of DC. The electrical circuit, if you will, is short-circuited, and issues that have little federal bearing now absorb significant federal time.
Because it is a program for the general welfare, it is implemented federally through an executive agency, directly under the Article I umbrella permitting it.
Then just what is the point of the tenth amendment, sir? If _everything_ is general welfare, was it simply a joke?
Where? The "sub-prime meltdown" is a result of the lack of federal regulation.
It was the federal government operating in an area where it very arguably had no business of any sort. Look at these lying lips in motion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
Truly, P.J. O'Rourke has the right of it:
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."
I ask again, where was the amendment violated? How is Social Security not an Article I power? What is general welfare, if not health, safety, and maintenance of basic human dignity?
My contention is that the chain of command has been violated, and a state-level authority has been usurped by the Fed.
While I cannot deny the existence of your "general welfare" argument, my point is that somebody a couple hundred years back foresaw the disasters that would follow an overly broad interpretation of that, and put Amendment 10 in place to curb the scope creep of the Fed, lest DC turn into the tyrannical sort of place that London had been.
Now, the rolling disaster that has been Fannie/Freddie has occured, and we've seen the House of Representatives look a godforsaken circus, and the real doom is just a few years out: http://perotcharts.com/category/challenges-charts/page/14
I don't see any state turning down the money in favor of its own solution.
And why might that be? Have you looked at this post? http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/supercycle
Now, I may be an ignorant redneck, but I'm bettin' that the printin' press we got spewin' money could run out o' ink on o' these days.
Seriously, though, should not the budget balance, and the money originate in the states, and the states manage their own populations?
I'm guessing in advance that you would find this an oversimplification.
At any rate, I thank you for a more serious debate on the matter than I typically enjoy.
Here are a couple of humorous links in an otherwise humorless period: http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=3130 http://www.buymyshitpile.com/
If he hadn't published all of those Dogbert Technical Support cartoons that gave tech. supp. an approval rating that makes Congress look great, you'd be hired immediately.
It's a fairly basic truism that prevents the federal government from commandeering the states to action.
That would be the 16th Amendment. The Fed just taxes to have its way.
It also separates the traditional functions of local government from federal control.
For whatever moving target values of 'traditional' that feel good at the moment.
Further, there is no prohibition on states or the people delegating that power back to federal programs where it makes sense to do so.
Yep, that's true, especially if the concept of a chain of command is non-existent.
Again, this is a case where Social Security comes in--a state-by-state program would not be transferable when you move to Boca.
Ah, so here is a straw to grasp.
Because some choose to move, all must pay so that the whole country is essentially a single state. No other solutions possible.
You've still not answered the question, but by now the reason is clear.
The answer is that the Fed preyed upon fear, caused in part by its own mismanagement, to expand its business model and short-circuit the constitution. Amendment 10 seems a common-sense measure to preclude both entitlement nonsense, and this sub-prime meltdown as well.
Rather like a crappy software project writ large.
To continue my point, if the "general welfare" was sufficiently elastic, why a 16th Amendment to formalize income tax? Mine is a common-sense, what-the-ahem-does-it-say reading.
Not unlike that of the Heller decision.
Seems we're at about point six on the Tytler progression, overall.
I find that the problem with Government isn't scope creep per-se but the complete lack of talent or ability of the administration over the last... 8 years or so.
Yes, interesting how fast we go from "unconstitutional" to "subject to review".
Hmm. And how did my initial interrogative begin?
Let's see: At what point should this drift be made explicit via Constitutional Amendment,
so, where is your argument, sir?
Because some states wont do it. States rights are great for stopping things like Real ID, not so great for worker safety or civil rights.
Why, because the states have punted in favor of the fed? Please explore the origins of this purported impotence.
Social Security is the best name for any government program, ever. It's to provide security to our society - so we don't have food riots or people starving in the streets when the economy takes a dive.
Well, if your commitment is a religious one, then there really isn't need for dialogue, modulo the connection of my wallet to one end of the conversation.
Yes, because opposing better care for less money makes so much sense.
Better for whom, at what unintended consequence, sir?
Returning to my original argument, the level of contention, and risk of frobnication from the likes of Representative Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd is such that getting the idea fully vetted as a Constitutional Amendment, to ensure full debate and put the concept past bitching by the likes of me, is well worth considering.
I feel the idea of federally managed social programs is shown sub-optimal by a survey of history.
More federal programs appear to be throwing good money after bad.
Thus, I'd like to see the ante upped for going any further with it.
Maybe there should be a rider saying that criticism of these social programs are not covered by the First Amendment, so that anyone daring to question them can be locked up, as well.
Of course we're not going to cut Social Security.
We're going to ride that frickin' horse right into the useless ground.
It's like watching a poorly managed software project kill itself, on a larger, uglier scale.
Great responses in this thread, though.
Bread and circuses to you all!
Cheers!
You're right. As long as a single General has his or her welfare improved, anything can be rationalized.
What then would you say is the meaning of the 10th Amendment? Does it mean anything at all? Should we just make a marginal note: "nice try" and get on with life?
Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
would not have been superseded by the 13th and 14th Amendments.
The essence of the 10th Amendment is to preclude scope creep.
What we see unfolding today is evidence of massive scope creep.
Would you agree?
Yes. Why is allowing states to sort these matters out for themselves, (with the Constitution as a low common denominator)
a) a bad thing
b) not what the Framers intended?
50 labs to try ideas, and see which dogs hunt, sounds like a splendid plan to me.
If you think your state capital is ronngg, you vote with your ballot, or you vote with your feet.
I'm bemused that the simple ideas seem so outlandish to some.
I'd like to see it taken to a higher level of abstraction.
Ensure we understand the original model of the country, grasp the current model, and then agree on the direction of the future model.
What I find massively ironic are those who hate US hegemony and root for doom on the one hand, and then seek to increase US federal power on the other.
If one thinks DC too powerful, why not trim the power?
Sure. All of these ideas are subject to review.
The question of defense is clearly laid out in the constitution.
The states do have their own National Guard units for Army and Air Force. Curiously, Navies are not supported at the state level, either due to maintenance costs or lack of coasts.
The military is a national-level defense asset.
The goodness of national-level social welfare assets is the question I'm raising.
Let the states manage them, say I, or at least give me an opt-out.
I want the Fed borking my retirement
as much as I want them borking my housing
as much as I want them borking my health care.
Again, let all of the ideas be kicked around. Your question is indeed a fair one, as the same patterns of abuse occur in the DoD and the Intelligence Community as elsewhere.
My contention is that 'elsewhere' is less constitutionally founded that in Defense.
As the problem appears related to excessive concentration of power in DC, it would seem that relieving DC of some of that power would be a great start.
Your point about privileging the constitution as some religious document is well-taken: consider the wart that is the 3/5 compromise.
Nevertheless, the 10th Amendment argument has the virtue of being short, historical, and rather clearly intended to preclude the current mess.
My own hypothesis is that people's own knowledge of expertise (whether it be in Religion, Mathematics, Politics, English Literature, specific operating systems [i.e. Mac fanboyism], or whatever) will cause those people to have undo and irrational confidence in their beliefs regarding the subject.
Which correlates to the shift from the ends of the endeavor to the means, as the org chart takes on age and depth.
Organizations, like rosebushes, require pruning, but rarely find such outside catastrophe.
Slashdot Mirror
Excellent Tolkien abuse. :)
Well, the process involves some doggerel and typing...
But the real point is to escape briefly the election season.
"Of spammy ring"
In the shower we sing,
While suds we fling,
Cleanshaven chin bring...
Burma Shave
I thought non-edged weapons were VB-only...
New feature of the M language. Mention it, and out pops muzik.
Hint: see my sig.
Too late to talk about "IT".
By second grade, she had said "Put YouTube in MySpace".
Sex is just another video game, alas(ka).
My 'Simpler still' was still simpler.
Earth sucks.
Your assertion that Congress is smart enough to use Excel is ludicrous.
They use PowerPoint slides with less than 6 words per slide for communication with Congresscritters,
and a spam macro driving Word to produce the legislation.
As far as the book goes, it doesn't sound like it delves much into ADO, which is where there is some really interesting action. The ADOR.Recordset object really gives you a flat linked list to use.
With the Scripting.Dictionary, you come close to having a useful set of data structures to work with.
Lots of gotchas, but, when MS Office is all you have to work with, you can still get a lot done, as long as you remember what Marcellus Wallace said about pride.
Amend. XVI, furthermore, is a change in the method of raising the taxes to fund Article I spending, and has no substantive impact on what the taxes are raised for.
I couldn't agree with you less. Pandora's box, once opened, has made societal tinkering the favorite pastime of DC. The electrical circuit, if you will, is short-circuited, and issues that have little federal bearing now absorb significant federal time.
Because it is a program for the general welfare, it is implemented federally through an executive agency, directly under the Article I umbrella permitting it.
Then just what is the point of the tenth amendment, sir? If _everything_ is general welfare, was it simply a joke?
Where? The "sub-prime meltdown" is a result of the lack of federal regulation.
It was the federal government operating in an area where it very arguably had no business of any sort. Look at these lying lips in motion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
Truly, P.J. O'Rourke has the right of it:
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."
I ask again, where was the amendment violated? How is Social Security not an Article I power? What is general welfare, if not health, safety, and maintenance of basic human dignity?
My contention is that the chain of command has been violated, and a state-level authority has been usurped by the Fed.
While I cannot deny the existence of your "general welfare" argument, my point is that somebody a couple hundred years back foresaw the disasters that would follow an overly broad interpretation of that, and put Amendment 10 in place to curb the scope creep of the Fed, lest DC turn into the tyrannical sort of place that London had been.
Now, the rolling disaster that has been Fannie/Freddie has occured, and we've seen the House of Representatives look a godforsaken circus, and the real doom is just a few years out:
http://perotcharts.com/category/challenges-charts/page/14
I don't see any state turning down the money in favor of its own solution.
And why might that be? Have you looked at this post?
http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/supercycle Now, I may be an ignorant redneck, but I'm bettin' that the printin' press we got spewin' money could run out o' ink on o' these days.
Seriously, though, should not the budget balance, and the money originate in the states, and the states manage their own populations?
I'm guessing in advance that you would find this an oversimplification.
At any rate, I thank you for a more serious debate on the matter than I typically enjoy.
Here are a couple of humorous links in an otherwise humorless period:
http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=3130
http://www.buymyshitpile.com/
Come on, man: it's just Haskell...
If he hadn't published all of those Dogbert Technical Support cartoons that gave tech. supp. an approval rating that makes Congress look great, you'd be hired immediately.
It's a fairly basic truism that prevents the federal government from commandeering the states to action.
That would be the 16th Amendment. The Fed just taxes to have its way.
It also separates the traditional functions of local government from federal control.
For whatever moving target values of 'traditional' that feel good at the moment.
Further, there is no prohibition on states or the people delegating that power back to federal programs where it makes sense to do so.
Yep, that's true, especially if the concept of a chain of command is non-existent.
Again, this is a case where Social Security comes in--a state-by-state program would not be transferable when you move to Boca.
Ah, so here is a straw to grasp.
Because some choose to move, all must pay so that the whole country is essentially a single state. No other solutions possible.
You've still not answered the question, but by now the reason is clear.
The answer is that the Fed preyed upon fear, caused in part by its own mismanagement, to expand its business model and short-circuit the constitution. Amendment 10 seems a common-sense measure to preclude both entitlement nonsense, and this sub-prime meltdown as well.
Rather like a crappy software project writ large.
Not unlike that of the Heller decision.
Seems we're at about point six on the Tytler progression, overall.
I find that the problem with Government isn't scope creep per-se but the complete lack of talent or ability of the administration over the last... 8 years or so.
Best anti-W troll I've seen in a while. Bravo.
Yes, interesting how fast we go from "unconstitutional" to "subject to review".
Hmm. And how did my initial interrogative begin? Let's see:
At what point should this drift be made explicit via Constitutional Amendment,
so, where is your argument, sir?
Because some states wont do it. States rights are great for stopping things like Real ID, not so great for worker safety or civil rights.
Why, because the states have punted in favor of the fed? Please explore the origins of this purported impotence.
Social Security is the best name for any government program, ever. It's to provide security to our society - so we don't have food riots or people starving in the streets when the economy takes a dive.
Well, if your commitment is a religious one, then there really isn't need for dialogue, modulo the connection of my wallet to one end of the conversation.
Yes, because opposing better care for less money makes so much sense.
Better for whom, at what unintended consequence, sir?
Returning to my original argument, the level of contention, and risk of frobnication from the likes of Representative Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd is such that getting the idea fully vetted as a Constitutional Amendment, to ensure full debate and put the concept past bitching by the likes of me, is well worth considering.
I feel the idea of federally managed social programs is shown sub-optimal by a survey of history.
More federal programs appear to be throwing good money after bad.
Thus, I'd like to see the ante upped for going any further with it.
Maybe there should be a rider saying that criticism of these social programs are not covered by the First Amendment, so that anyone daring to question them can be locked up, as well.
Of course we're not going to cut Social Security.
We're going to ride that frickin' horse right into the useless ground.
It's like watching a poorly managed software project kill itself, on a larger, uglier scale.
Great responses in this thread, though.
Bread and circuses to you all!
Cheers!
You're right. As long as a single General has his or her welfare improved, anything can be rationalized.
What then would you say is the meaning of the 10th Amendment? Does it mean anything at all? Should we just make a marginal note: "nice try" and get on with life?
Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
would not have been superseded by the 13th and 14th Amendments.
The essence of the 10th Amendment is to preclude scope creep.
What we see unfolding today is evidence of massive scope creep.
Would you agree?
Yes. Why is allowing states to sort these matters out for themselves, (with the Constitution as a low common denominator)
a) a bad thing
b) not what the Framers intended?
50 labs to try ideas, and see which dogs hunt, sounds like a splendid plan to me.
If you think your state capital is ronngg, you vote with your ballot, or you vote with your feet.
I'm bemused that the simple ideas seem so outlandish to some.
I'd like to see it taken to a higher level of abstraction.
Ensure we understand the original model of the country, grasp the current model, and then agree on the direction of the future model.
What I find massively ironic are those who hate US hegemony and root for doom on the one hand, and then seek to increase US federal power on the other.
If one thinks DC too powerful, why not trim the power?
Sure. All of these ideas are subject to review.
The question of defense is clearly laid out in the constitution.
The states do have their own National Guard units for Army and Air Force. Curiously, Navies are not supported at the state level, either due to maintenance costs or lack of coasts.
The military is a national-level defense asset.
The goodness of national-level social welfare assets is the question I'm raising.
Let the states manage them, say I, or at least give me an opt-out.
I want the Fed borking my retirement
as much as I want them borking my housing
as much as I want them borking my health care.
Again, let all of the ideas be kicked around. Your question is indeed a fair one, as the same patterns of abuse occur in the DoD and the Intelligence Community as elsewhere.
My contention is that 'elsewhere' is less constitutionally founded that in Defense.
As the problem appears related to excessive concentration of power in DC, it would seem that relieving DC of some of that power would be a great start.
Your point about privileging the constitution as some religious document is well-taken: consider the wart that is the 3/5 compromise.
Nevertheless, the 10th Amendment argument has the virtue of being short, historical, and rather clearly intended to preclude the current mess.
This point is interesting but tangential to taking the constitutional approach to removing temptation from the bums of DC.
My own hypothesis is that people's own knowledge of expertise (whether it be in Religion, Mathematics, Politics, English Literature, specific operating systems [i.e. Mac fanboyism], or whatever) will cause those people to have undo and irrational confidence in their beliefs regarding the subject.
Which correlates to the shift from the ends of the endeavor to the means, as the org chart takes on age and depth.
Organizations, like rosebushes, require pruning, but rarely find such outside catastrophe.