Or the parent is just pleased with people that are able to vaguely meet vague goals, rather than employees who ask for clarification with pesky questions like "Why?"
An open air memorial that is normally open 24/7 and actually took resources to close, while leaving it open would not have?
I even got you some numbers to satisfy my own curiosity:
According to the National Park Service's FY13 Greenbook, the National Mall and adjoining shrines and memorials (which include the National World War II Memorial) are treated as a single item and cost the National Park Service $32,282,000 to maintain in 2012, or over $88,200 each day.
These costs do not include Park Police, which are listed as a separate $79,763,000 expenditure in the DC area alone in '12.
An open air memorial that is normally open 24/7 and actually took resources to close, while leaving it open would not have?
Groundskeeping, maintenance and security are not free. The federal government is charged with maintaining (i.e. not abandoning) the sites, and the cheapest and easiest way to maintain anything is to close off public access.
I understand what you're saying, but what kind of ass backwards policy would it be to have the Chief Justice of the United States pick judges for a court that he has no jurisdiction over?
It'd be an olive branch, a consolation prize to the Chief Justice to give the appearance of SCOTUS influence where there need not be. After all, the Chief Justice doesn't have that kind of say over bread-and-butter district, bankruptcy and circuit judges.
It's especially ballsy to try and argue that the Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction.
Emphasis mine:
In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction only where Congress allows it. If Congress excepted the FISA court from Supreme Court jurisdiction, that's the end of it.
To redirect back on topic: why does it seem like everything the federal government does was declared "essential" and not affected EXCEPT for science?
Because the standard used for "essential" is "Would stopping this put life and limb into immediate jeopardy?" As you'll note from the constant complaints about science funding or the lack thereof, spending on scientific research and development is the epitome of a long term investment, which generally means that turning it off won't cause any immediate hospitalizations.
And everyone wants to see their own special interest declared "essential." The Tea Party wanted the exception to be certain war monuments, for example. Why is a space telescope more essential than, say, Head Start? This is how politics works.
It comes from being born into circumstances in which you can actually afford an education. In our society, these circumstances are highly correlated with being white and male.
1.) Ultimately, "Tea Party" of the self-declared is little more than a bunch of true Scotsmen moving goalposts around. Once you get beyond "Tea Party" office-holders (i.e. the folks who actually get elected on what they declare to be "Tea Party values," and who are uniformly right-wing reactionaries), you're left with a myriad of small groups not much more than a dozen strong, who together can't even agree on what day it is. Which brings me to my next point...
2.) Knowledge of hard sciences is (at best) independent of knowledge of social sciences, or economics, or any number of other factors that arguably make one more fit to govern. Their inability to organize, to the point where they are being led around by the nose by the likes of Sarah Palin, should highlight this. So an average "Tea Party member" acknowledges anthropogenic climate change. Ask them what should, or even can be done about it. Ask them what is politically feasible to accomplish on a national or international level.
The author notes that he doesn't know any self-declared Tea Party members personally. The general inclination here is to view him as an "ivory tower academic." But there's a converse: the law professor doesn't know any Tea Party members because the Tea Party doesn't actually value the study of law.
It's because of such people that legitimate criticisms like these get lost in a sea of complaints that are meritless at best, maliciously cynical at worst. This is not going to be heard above the din of cries about our Kenyan-born, atheist Muslim, socialist fascist, elected despot who hates America, grandma and apple pie. Republicans will ignore it because it just seems so insignificant to the bullshit they're so willing to swallow, while Democrats will ignore it because they've long since tuned out the noise of that boy who keeps crying "wolf!"
But obviously the most important thing to worry about here is decorum, you're right.
Canada "fucking NATIONALIZED healthcare." The United Kingdom "fucking NATIONALIZED healthcare." Democrats couldn't even agree among themselves to offer everyone the ability to voluntarily buy into Medicare.
But thanks for proving my point: your inability to even recognize the difference is why We Can't Have Nice Things.
A grown-up discussion ignores labels and whimsical associations, and cuts right to the battle of ideas.
Ah, how noble! Well, on one side the idea is "Maybe we could sort of regulate the banks that, when left unregulated, broke the global economy, and wouldn't it be nice if we had a modern healthcare system while we're at it?" On the other we have "HITLER HITLER HITLER ARGLEBARGLE!" Surely there's an enlightened discussion to be had between such well-reasoned views!
Also, citation needed on "defaulting on national debts would be Bad," preferably not one from an op-ed.
You go around natural history museums asking "Were you there?" don't you?
Slashdot Mirror
Go back to bed. Seriously.
Yeah, but does it say that on the TV's box, or anywhere in the documentation?
Parent is going by typical usage, not recommended usage.
I have some fine, genuine 24-karat gold-plated HDMI cables you may be interested in.
... they'd spend the money on lobbying instead.
I never read TFA, so I'm already halfway there!
Yes: you shouldn't assume that a degree is irrelevant to competence because this survey makes no effort separate the competent from the incompetent.
Or the parent is just pleased with people that are able to vaguely meet vague goals, rather than employees who ask for clarification with pesky questions like "Why?"
You don't need a college degree to read a phone script.
Just because there's a lot of 'em doesn't mean they're all good.
An open air memorial that is normally open 24/7 and actually took resources to close, while leaving it open would not have?
I even got you some numbers to satisfy my own curiosity:
According to the National Park Service's FY13 Greenbook, the National Mall and adjoining shrines and memorials (which include the National World War II Memorial) are treated as a single item and cost the National Park Service $32,282,000 to maintain in 2012, or over $88,200 each day.
These costs do not include Park Police, which are listed as a separate $79,763,000 expenditure in the DC area alone in '12.
An open air memorial that is normally open 24/7 and actually took resources to close, while leaving it open would not have?
Groundskeeping, maintenance and security are not free. The federal government is charged with maintaining (i.e. not abandoning) the sites, and the cheapest and easiest way to maintain anything is to close off public access.
I understand what you're saying, but what kind of ass backwards policy would it be to have the Chief Justice of the United States pick judges for a court that he has no jurisdiction over?
It'd be an olive branch, a consolation prize to the Chief Justice to give the appearance of SCOTUS influence where there need not be. After all, the Chief Justice doesn't have that kind of say over bread-and-butter district, bankruptcy and circuit judges.
It's especially ballsy to try and argue that the Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction.
Emphasis mine:
The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction only where Congress allows it. If Congress excepted the FISA court from Supreme Court jurisdiction, that's the end of it.
To redirect back on topic: why does it seem like everything the federal government does was declared "essential" and not affected EXCEPT for science?
Because the standard used for "essential" is "Would stopping this put life and limb into immediate jeopardy?" As you'll note from the constant complaints about science funding or the lack thereof, spending on scientific research and development is the epitome of a long term investment, which generally means that turning it off won't cause any immediate hospitalizations.
And everyone wants to see their own special interest declared "essential." The Tea Party wanted the exception to be certain war monuments, for example. Why is a space telescope more essential than, say, Head Start? This is how politics works.
It comes from being born into circumstances in which you can actually afford an education. In our society, these circumstances are highly correlated with being white and male.
Born on third, think they hit a triple, etc.
1.) Ultimately, "Tea Party" of the self-declared is little more than a bunch of true Scotsmen moving goalposts around. Once you get beyond "Tea Party" office-holders (i.e. the folks who actually get elected on what they declare to be "Tea Party values," and who are uniformly right-wing reactionaries), you're left with a myriad of small groups not much more than a dozen strong, who together can't even agree on what day it is. Which brings me to my next point...
2.) Knowledge of hard sciences is (at best) independent of knowledge of social sciences, or economics, or any number of other factors that arguably make one more fit to govern. Their inability to organize, to the point where they are being led around by the nose by the likes of Sarah Palin, should highlight this. So an average "Tea Party member" acknowledges anthropogenic climate change. Ask them what should, or even can be done about it. Ask them what is politically feasible to accomplish on a national or international level.
The author notes that he doesn't know any self-declared Tea Party members personally. The general inclination here is to view him as an "ivory tower academic." But there's a converse: the law professor doesn't know any Tea Party members because the Tea Party doesn't actually value the study of law.
"Can" and "must" are two different words.
Hell, the document went in force in 1789 and the Navy wasn't effectively established until 1794.
Caring for injured veterans for the rest of their lives will cost most of a trillion dollars.
Ah, but the parent said "budget for the Department of Defense." Veterans' Affairs is "somebody else's problem."
Nothing is a "done deal" with this Congress until January 2015. I fully expect this to happen every two months until then.
HDCP
Find me a kid that wants to get measles, mumps and/or rubella.
Each state could use resources given to them by the federal government to build their own exchanges!
Oh, wait...
Are you saying Benghazi was no big deal and/or a lie?
No, I'm saying that 99% of what Congressman Issa says and does is complete and utter bullshit, and the remaining 1% is suspect at best.
Would you prefer "copulating imbeciles?"
It's because of such people that legitimate criticisms like these get lost in a sea of complaints that are meritless at best, maliciously cynical at worst. This is not going to be heard above the din of cries about our Kenyan-born, atheist Muslim, socialist fascist, elected despot who hates America, grandma and apple pie. Republicans will ignore it because it just seems so insignificant to the bullshit they're so willing to swallow, while Democrats will ignore it because they've long since tuned out the noise of that boy who keeps crying "wolf!"
But obviously the most important thing to worry about here is decorum, you're right.
Canada "fucking NATIONALIZED healthcare." The United Kingdom "fucking NATIONALIZED healthcare." Democrats couldn't even agree among themselves to offer everyone the ability to voluntarily buy into Medicare.
But thanks for proving my point: your inability to even recognize the difference is why We Can't Have Nice Things.
A grown-up discussion ignores labels and whimsical associations, and cuts right to the battle of ideas.
Ah, how noble! Well, on one side the idea is "Maybe we could sort of regulate the banks that, when left unregulated, broke the global economy, and wouldn't it be nice if we had a modern healthcare system while we're at it?" On the other we have "HITLER HITLER HITLER ARGLEBARGLE!" Surely there's an enlightened discussion to be had between such well-reasoned views!
Also, citation needed on "defaulting on national debts would be Bad," preferably not one from an op-ed.
You go around natural history museums asking "Were you there?" don't you?