The irrelivance of our Constitution

[UNI88]

stereotypes might be socially uncouth but they are usually rooted in a kernel of truth

I'm not one of those "kumbaya" progressives... never have been.

So the stereotype that African Americans are shiftless and lazy is rooted in a kernal of truth? That women are too emotional to handle leadership positions?


You forgot to answer the other questions:
- Are the elected officials that we have now truly empathetic or are they pretending to care in order to curry favor?
- Do you need to be empathetic to recognize that poverty is a problem or that our education system is broken in order to work on solutions?

[native]

stereotypes might be socially uncouth but they are usually rooted in a kernel of truth

I'm not one of those "kumbaya" progressives... never have been.

So the stereotype that African Americans are shiftless and lazy is rooted in a kernal of truth? That women are too emotional to handle leadership positions?...

The Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard expend a great deal of money and effort into screening aviators. Among the perhaps surprising results of the psychological and aptitude tests conducted, it has been discovered that young women are more emotionally stable than young men, and less likely to take an action inimical to their physical well being. On average, men score higher on spatial analysis, but women score higher on emotional stability. Go figure.

Here's another interesting stat for ya: Even with pregnancies, female military personnel - at least in the eighties and nineties - missed fewer work days than male military personnel. This was due largely to the greater proclivity of young males towards substance abuse, fighting, and accidents.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

stereotypes might be socially uncouth but they are usually rooted in a kernel of truth

I'm not one of those "kumbaya" progressives... never have been.

So the stereotype that African Americans are shiftless and lazy is rooted in a kernal of truth? That women are too emotional to handle leadership positions?


You forgot to answer the other questions:
- Are the elected officials that we have now truly empathetic or are they pretending to care in order to curry favor?
- Do you need to be empathetic to recognize that poverty is a problem or that our education system is broken in order to work on solutions?

i was being facetious about stereotypes... hence the

as for the other questions:
I've met both... I think people would be surprised at the number of political leaders who genuinely care about this stuff, and not just the photo op. There are plenty of cynical bastards too, but oddly many more of them are staffers, as voters have a surprisingly keen nose for when someone is being disingenuous. (see Kerry, John)

I think empathy is important when making policy decisions... cold analysis has it's place... but i dont think that place is elected office. I think the guys who make the "hard analysis" should be presenting at committee hearings about bills, but i dont know that i see a place for them in the house or senate.

part of that is because i'm a hack, and always thinking about elections, and knowing these guys could never win... but also because i'm not keen on electing someone who has a limited capacity to care about other people to a position where they are the voice of other people.

i don't think empathy is required to see flaws in our education system, but i do think it's required in putting together a solution for it...

[Pwns]

We need a constitutional convention to redefine the powers that the state and federal government are allowed to exercise. You can call me a conspiracy theororist, but the federal government scares the sh*t out of me.

[bobbythekidd]

We need a constitutional convention to redefine the powers that the state and federal government are allowed to exercise. You can call me a conspiracy theororist, but the federal government scares the sh*t out of me.

Why do we need to redefine them? They are already defined in the 10th amendment. If you want them to change, you have the ability do do so via another amendment.

TTBF likes to call libertarians anarchists. The truth is at the opposite end of the spectrum. Libertarians are rule followers. We play by the rules as they are written and expect everyone else to follow them as well. When some nair-do-well breaks the rules (commits a crime) we expect our government to step in and arrest/prosecute/imprison the violator. We don't want government to do much other than protect us from people that violate the law, and provide a sturdy infrastructure that allows us to prosper.

[ASUMountaineer]

We need a constitutional convention to redefine the powers that the state and federal government are allowed to exercise. You can call me a conspiracy theororist, but the federal government scares the sh*t out of me.

Why do we need to redefine them? They are already defined in the 10th amendment. If you want them to change, you have the ability do do so via another amendment.

TTBF likes to call libertarians anarchists. The truth is at the opposite end of the spectrum. Libertarians are rule followers. We play by the rules as they are written and expect everyone else to follow them as well. When some nair-do-well breaks the rules (commits a crime) we expect our government to step in and arrest/prosecute/imprison the violator. We don't want government to do much other than protect us from people that violate the law, and provide a sturdy infrastructure that allows us to prosper.

[houndawg]

So the stereotype that African Americans are shiftless and lazy is rooted in a kernal of truth? That women are too emotional to handle leadership positions?


You forgot to answer the other questions:
- Are the elected officials that we have now truly empathetic or are they pretending to care in order to curry favor?
- Do you need to be empathetic to recognize that poverty is a problem or that our education system is broken in order to work on solutions?

i was being facetious about stereotypes... hence the

as for the other questions:
I've met both... I think people would be surprised at the number of political leaders who genuinely care about this stuff, and not just the photo op. There are plenty of cynical bastards too, but oddly many more of them are staffers, as voters have a surprisingly keen nose for when someone is being disingenuous. (see Kerry, John)

I think empathy is important when making policy decisions... cold analysis has it's place... but i dont think that place is elected office. I think the guys who make the "hard analysis" should be presenting at committee hearings about bills, but i dont know that i see a place for them in the house or senate.

part of that is because i'm a hack, and always thinking about elections, and knowing these guys could never win... but also because i'm not keen on electing someone who has a limited capacity to care about other people to a position where they are the voice of other people.

i don't think empathy is required to see flaws in our education system, but i do think it's required in putting together a solution for it...

Struggled with math eh?

[Pwns]

We need a constitutional convention to redefine the powers that the state and federal government are allowed to exercise. You can call me a conspiracy theororist, but the federal government scares the sh*t out of me.

Why do we need to redefine them? They are already defined in the 10th amendment. If you want them to change, you have the ability do do so via another amendment.

TTBF likes to call libertarians anarchists. The truth is at the opposite end of the spectrum. Libertarians are rule followers. We play by the rules as they are written and expect everyone else to follow them as well. When some nair-do-well breaks the rules (commits a crime) we expect our government to step in and arrest/prosecute/imprison the violator. We don't want government to do much other than protect us from people that violate the law, and provide a sturdy infrastructure that allows us to prosper.

I wouldn't abolish every federal government beaurocracy, even many of the 99.99% of them that are unconstitutional. The reality is that times have changed a great deal since 1789. For example, does it make a lot of sense to judge the constitutionality of agencies like the FAA and FCC when the constitution was written in a time when there was no EM telecommunications or air travel? I think you'd be hard pressed to make an argument against getting rid of these agencies even if they do cause problems sometimes.

The way I see it, we can either make the 10th amendment work for our times or we can continue to let the monster get more and more powerful with the interpretation of the interstate commerce and general welfare clauses.

[bobbythekidd]

[quote="Pwns]I wouldn't abolish every federal government beaurocracy, even many of the 99.99% of them that are unconstitutional. The reality is that times have changed a great deal since 1789. For example, does it make a lot of sense to judge the constitutionality of agencies like the FAA and FCC when the constitution was written in a time when there was no EM telecommunications or air travel? I think you'd be hard pressed to make an argument against getting rid of these agencies even if they do cause problems sometimes.

The way I see it, we can either make the 10th amendment work for our times or we can continue to let the monster get more and more powerful with the interpretation of the interstate commerce and general welfare clauses.[/quote]
I think the FAA and FCC fall under "interstate commerce". I'm fine with them. Again, my issue rests with the method of implementaion. If the Feds want to start a new program or extend their power, just add an amendment.