*
I stumbled on this website late in 2000 and could not believe the diversified talent on this board. I just want to thank the following for making this site most interesting to me personally. I am posting in no certain order–just as these people come to mind as “making” Breaktime
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
Making mitered head casings is a breeze with this simple system.
Highlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Fine Homebuilding Magazine
Fine Home Building
Follow
-
Fine Homebuilding
Dig into cutting-edge approaches and decades of proven solutions with total access to our experts and tradespeople.
Start Free Trial Now -
GBA Prime
Get instant access to the latest developments in green building, research, and reports from the field.
Start Free Trial Now
- Home Group
- Antique Trader
- Arts & Crafts Homes
- Bank Note Reporter
- Cabin Life
- Cuisine at Home
- Fine Gardening
- Fine Woodworking
- Green Building Advisor
- Garden Gate
- Horticulture
- Keep Craft Alive
- Log Home Living
- Military Trader/Vehicles
- Numismatic News
- Numismaster
- Old Cars Weekly
- Old House Journal
- Period Homes
- Popular Woodworking
- Script
- ShopNotes
- Sports Collectors Digest
- Threads
- Timber Home Living
- Traditional Building
- Woodsmith
- World Coin News
- Writer's Digest
Replies
*
Ken Drake---for his superb mathematical applications to framing roofs. His posts are very detailed and he very patiently explains his math in a way that I could follow----er most of the time- ha good job Ken
*Ted LaRue--for his most very high end math explanations-- I wish I knew 1/10 what he knows
*Joe Fusco---your graphic capabilities and how you can show various roof/stair problems where one can see it tangibly----most impressive
*Bob/pro-deck----your posts and pictures of your beautiful decks want me to tear out mine and fly you to Illinois. You are very patient in explaining your methods
*Armin---you are at the least a master stairbuilder-I thoroughly enyoy looking at your pictures and shake my head at the work you do --awesome
*Luka----you have a very interesting and funny angle to life--I basically just lurk and laugh at your posts--you are GOOD!
*blue-eyed-devil----I would have you frame my house anytime--very good and intensive posts
*Ron Teti: most informative posts and always lots of common sense
*StanI've just joined this forum (2 months ago) and it's amazing to me how fast I've come to recognize and admire the list of craftsmen you've just named. I'd like to give a personal thanks to them and add your name and Rich Beckman's to this list. Thank you all, you make me very proud of my profession.Terry
*Stan Foster---For his incredible stairs, and sharing with us all.
*Rich Beckman---For his insightful, no nonsense way of dealing with people.
*Stan,Thank you for the complement.(where can I send the money) :)
*Stan, thanks for including me in your list, it's always nice to be complimented by a person who truly understands the joy of fine craftsmanship, I enjoy your pictures and your willingness to share what you have learned over the years, keep up the great work.
*To the Canadians, my favorite foreigners.
*...to the understanding and appreciative Murkins who don't mind us Canajuns.....
*Mike SmithWhile we would probably want to use each other for dislodging creosote from a chimney after a political discussion, he always has sound advice.Would be great to work and learn from him and his crew.
*Andy the patience of Job wisdom of Soloman......you all who have been in a "supervisory" position know
*Thanks to teo, Bob Walker, Cloud, Tesje, Pi for teaching me and all on the board how dumb President Bush is. I just can't understand how he could be so popular. Keep all the wisdom coming guys maybe theres help for 80% of us.
*...score card? paranoid?......Just a question......Newf...
*He's popular because he has become the standard for patriotism.....That doesn't change his intellectual cababilities....Maybe ignorant would be a better adjective i.e. lacking in knowledge.
*maybe humility might be a factor? I would rather have a leader who is slow of speech and a down home character than a silver tongued man of pride and arrogance. I think the Bible says that Moses was the meekest man on the earth and he had to have Aaron speak for him....he was a pretty good leader don't you think? I agree that Bush is not much of a speaker but ignorant? You must have some kinda discernment!
*Hey there allen! Happy Holidays!You're confusing me for someone who likes any of the recent candidates! I'm a member of the Cynical Party!!! Though you can count me in the 80% who approves of the way the hunt for Osama is being run by this admin, and who approved of it a month ago and two months ago when even some hawks were getting impatient. I don't like what he's doing on many other fronts, though I don't recall ever calling him dumb, except maybe in private to DW and she ain't talking. Ha ha. I do maintain that others with a lower profile call more of the shots than Bush does to a much greater extent that recent admins--thus the "puppetmaster" comment--and I'm not a fan of those people. So does that put me in the 80% approval or 20% disapproval? Both--I get two votes!I know it's convenient for you to put people in boxes, but that don't make it accurate. Life's a little more complex than thinking there can only be one right answer.
*His dad was pretty popular too, during the Gulf war, then got beaten by Clinton!Ratings right now don't mean a whole lot.Don't forget, George was a neo-isolationist until 3 months ago. Seems like he's reconsidered the basic wisdom of that stance!Let's also give some thought to what George hasn't done. A lot of our Mid-east problems are based on our dependency on it's oil.George could be pretty effective in dealing with that issue by encouraging conservation (turning down thermostats a few degress and slowing down on the highway a few MPH would have an immediate impact) and alternative energy development would be one way of dealing with this issue, but I haven't heard himn talk about that.Be a patriot - roll up your credit card balances!?!
*Geo, seniors campaiagn was based on "character" during the debates Geo. kept talking about his opponents (Clintons)character. Most people didnt buy it. It didnt take long for the world to see he was right.
*They must have seen the "character" issue to be the wet rag/shuffling pea issue it is, as well. Because they elected him a second time, after that discovery...
*The right has huffed and puffed and spent over 100 million $ of our money trying to get Clinton. And they finally nailed him after all of that foir lying about a BJ.They will, of course, conveniently overlook that 99.9% of their chanrges were without foundation.Folks, it's called the big lie. Tell it enough and tell it loudly enough and some people will start tot believe it.How many republicans could withstand the scrutiny that Clinton withstood?If you want to talk about character, why is George blocking release of the Reagan papers?
*No one ever accused the Dems from being intellegent. just crafty.
*Ron, I think what they are trying to say is when times are good character does not matter. As far as the working stiff goes there is only a 2 pound difference between the Repubs & Demos but it's at times like these that the two pounds makes all the difference. Bush may be a bush but at least he is getting the job done, hard telling what the other guy would have accomplished.
*I don't get it. We had 8 years of unprecedented prosperity in this country, avoided going to war, unemployment hit all time lows...elect a Republican and within a year the economy's in the tank, unemployment is increasing, and we're at war. And you guys STILL pat each other on the back for electing this guy? Mumblin' to myself and shakin' my head in disbelief.
*Jim,
View Image
*Joe, YES!!! It doesn't mean rat s**t which party is in office, Pol's just like to take the credit when times are good and blame the last guy when it all craps out.
*the economy was starting down before the election in anticipation of a republican victory right Jim?
*allen yea and the economy was getting better in 1990 because of a possible dem victory right Jim??? What I really like is aftr this election it came to light that Clinton juked the numbers the UE rate wasnt that good and deficit wasnt all that bad and social security wasnt in that bad of shape funny huh.
*"the economy was starting down before the election in anticipation of a republican victory right Jim?"Wall Street has usually factored future events into its pricing before folks like us even hear of it.Basic fact: Republican president: recession (except the post WWII boom during the Eisenhauer years, which had far more to do with it being post WWII than anything Ike did.)We did have the Carter recession, of course, but that was the result of the OPEC oil embargo - well beyond anything a US president could prevent.Blue collar neo-conservatives blow my mind!
*Bob, for the record I am not a neo conservative.. I am a conserative period. See as always assuming things and leading to incorrect conclusions....
*Bob, if it wasn't for the consertives trying to keep you guys in line this country would be nothing but one big over regulated welfare state, and broke to boot. Just for the record I never vote straight ticket, sad to say I voted for Clinton (once) and his morally bankrupt minions, at the time it seemed like the lesser of two evils. I almost voted for Gore, however his theatrics during the debates put an end to that.
*> They will, of course, conveniently overlook that 99.9% of their chanrges were without foundation.Bull. They i allhad foundation. The democrats in congress just wouldn't vote to impeach their buddy.
*hey come on Ron that's common sense..... thats not fair!
*"if it wasn't for the consertives trying to keep you guys in line this country would be nothing but one big over regulated welfare state, and broke to boot."Ah, I quess Ronnie was a closet liberal, right? Look what he did for going broke: broke all records by a country mile.The welfare $ given away to corporations this year alone (not to mention tax breaks, farm subsidies to meag-farms etc) make the $ spent on welfare for people look like chump change.Over-regulated? Got a good point there. Like one Midwest Republican said a couple of years ago when the Clean Water Act was up for renewal: "Why do we need this. Look at the great job the corporations have done cleaning up Lake Erie!"Try looking at the facts instead of the propaganda.
*Bob, you have some good points and that's why I vote across party lines. Neither party is ever going to give us working stiffs everything we need or should have. Besides if I didn't tweek you liberials once in a while you guys would get rusty and stale..Have a Happy Holiday.
*Wait a minute corporate welfare doesn't count!If you wear a suit and grease the right palms it doesnt matter if you couldn't work your way out of a paper bag.
*Yeah, why don't we just cut a bunch of taxes, that'll get some votes. We can just roll up the national debt a few trillion, we got 8 years. So what if we got people living under bridges. So what if we got people denied health care and educational opportunities because they can't afford them. They're in the minority, who cares?"Free enterprise"! "Every man for himself"! "Land of opportunity"!
*easy jim... but yeah.. the retroactive one to the multinationals as part of the "economic stimulus".. you know where they got the money back they had already paid in..most of the same list announced layoffs...economic stimulus , my ass.....pay back time for promises made and promises kept.. hey , who said that ?
*Armin,I agree with you.Why, I even voted for a republican once (damn Broward County ballot )
*They all had foundation? There was a lot of noise and brohaha, but the only thing where any actual convincing evidence was produced was his lying about getting a bj. And it could be argued that question should never have been asked.Notice how quickly the anti-clinton politicians shut up when Larry Flint threatened to pay for information about their little pecadillios.
*;-) good one!
*Don't you all just think that the world might be a better place if all the politicians got jobs?Andy
*andy... you mean as in term limits?.. i'm not sure we'll ever get campaign finance reform.. so maybe term limits is the next best thing..
*Nope, Mike, not term limits. I think they limit the voters as much as the politicians. If I had wanted Reagan to be president for a third term, I ought to have been able to vote for him. My previous comment was meant as a cynical joke. I don't think most politicians are any more connected to their constituants than I am to the ants in my back yard. We vote for who we do not because they're who we'd want, but rather because they're the best of the pack. Having jobs might connect them, or at least keep them out of Washington (or Hartford or Providence) where they're most likely to do harm. Politicians! Bah!And that's all I've got to say about that.Andy
*OK, here's an idea along the term limits and jobs line:Suppose we make it a prerequisite for running for offices that the candidate have a certain number of years of legit employment at a real non-government job -- Say 5 years for mayors and the house, 10 years for governors and the senate, 15 years for president -- or pick your numbers.... The requirement could also be that the job must be at least middle management, so the candidate has experience both working for somebody and having people work for them.The idea is that we should have government by the people, not by a special insulated governing class that doesn't know anything else but government.-- J.S.
*My favorite idea is that any politician's pay is equal to the average income of his constituants. Then they would really understand what life is really about!And any one in it for the money would have to look elsewhere.They say we have to pay them so much because that is how you get the best people...HELLO!!! Its NOT working that way!!MHO Mr. T.
*I love that idea if you change it to median income rather than average. And not just salary, but pension, also.
*I like that two, Mr. T, w/CH's amendment. Perks, like paid days off figure in, too. Odds of this ever happening? 1 in however many Senators and Congress members there are.
*Most excelent idea. Add to that, that they get the same median health insurance everyone else gets.
*It is extremely rare that any Congressman or Senator wants the job because of the paycheck. The pay really ain't much for most of these folks. They already had more money than they knew what to do with, and those that weren't rich didn't pay a whole lot of attention to the paycheck and perks. What they are most interested in is the power and the contacts. They grease some palms, then they get their's greased. They earn (about) $130,000 a year, plus benefits as Representatives, yet a massive number of them make anywhere from $250,000 to $500,000 per year. They are making this extra money somehwere besides their paychecks. Notice how a Representative retires, then gets a cushy job as a consultant, head of some board, or a job as a university head? They get paid way more than they ever did AFTER they get out of office. Limiting their paychecks won't change a thing. Finding someone who isn't greedy, and truly wants to represent the people is where the change will happen. GOOD LUCK!!!James DuHamel
*Most politicians take a pay-cut going in. And that's even before adding up campaign costs. Why would paying them even less help ? Besides, they're all just pawns of the national parties anyway
*Plan B vote the leeches out of office!
*I know a lot of politicians. It's not money, it's the sense of power and self-importance. It's having people know who you are when they don't know you. It's the celebrity. Little people who are suddenly important for no other reason than being elected.Anybody remember the phrase, public servant? Servant my ass. They are Leaders. They want your adolation and respect. These are people who would never get invited to anything, but are suddenly invited to everything. How important they become, at least in their own minds.SHG
*.... and most of them are .... hmmmmm .....i lawyers,aren't they? 8^{)Jeff
*"These are people who would never get invited to anything, but are suddenly invited to everything."Ain't that the truth. Think about it who would you rather have sit at your dinner table Bush, Gore or Luka? I'll take Luka any day.
*".... and most of them are .... hmmmmm ..... lawyers, aren't they? 8^{) "In local politics, most I've known were i notlawyers.I suspect that most legislators are lawyers. Whadda want, a roofer drafting some complex legislation?
*YES
*The lesser of three weevils, 'eh ?b : )
*Yeah, I'd rather have a roofer drafting legislation. THEN it would be simple legislation, worded so that everyone understands perfectly clear, and written for the common person, not the mega rich. It would sure simplify a lot of things.James DuHamel
*No self respecting roofer would WANT to be a polititian. That's probably why so few polititians are blue collar folks. Different values.What do you call a bus load of polititians at the bottom of the ocean?
*Wet.
*improvement
*toxic waste...poor fish
*QUOTEYeah, I'd rather have a roofer drafting legislation. THEN it would be simple legislation, worded so that everyone understands perfectly clear, and written for the common person, not the mega rich. It would sure simplify a lot of things. ENDQUOTEYeah: the first law the roofer would write is a law requiring life to be simple, then all the rest of the laws i could be simple.And it would, of course, be a very successful lawLet's try a little experiment. Let's draft up some rules governing conduct on this board: a terms of service, if you will. Let's make it nice and simple and come up with something that 51% of the people on the board agree to.You go first, shouldn't take too long, right? It'll be simple! (Just ask Andy!)
*LOL, Jeff - you beat me to the punch!
*A good start.
*i What do you call a bus load of politicians at the bottom of the ocean? "Congress checks out mass transit?""The Navy told us it was a submarine.""Bottom-feeders rule!"Why do we have to spend the taxpayer's money on a bus?Jeff
*Men are from MarsWomen are from VenusPoliticians are fron Uranus
*Bob, that's exactly why I'm in favor of a benevolent dictatorship. Oh yeah, with me as dictator! I want to soften my earlier comment, btw. I've known some great people who were local politicians. Frequently, small town politicians do thankless jobs motivated by the desire to do good for their community. Our first selectman (kind of a mayor, but not quite) just ran unopposed, with the endorsement of both parties, because she's that kind of politician. Of course, some others I've known are just aspiring versions of the folks that SHG described. Andy
*I was, of course, generalizing. The problem with people who are well-intended is that they stand to be chewed up and spit out by the unscrupulous. I recently worked with a pal of mine on his campaign. The opponent spewed out a bunch of campaign literature that was made up of bald-faced lies, one after another. We sat down and talked about what we would do about it. My guy refused to get into the dirt. He believed that people were smart enough to know the difference between the truth and lies. They would realize that the other guys promises were ridiculous and impossible, that his plans made no sense. My guy refused to address the lies, the ridiculous promises, and would only address his ideas and plans, all of which were eminently doable and intended to provide meaningful redress to real concerns. Of course, they were fairly complicated plans because real problems require real solutions.My guy lost. It seems that people preferred simple answers, often referred to as magic bullets, even though there was no possibility of them working. SHG
*Bob,It doesn't quite work that way. It is extremely rare that the legislative body asks the general population for their opinion or approval of a new rule (law) that they want to impose. 51% of the people on these boards is the population. They don't have to agree with the laws or rules. They just have to abide by them.Ask the same question using the EDITORS and STAFF at Taunton, and you'd get the current rules and policies. They are actually pretty simple.In politics, deciding what new rules and regs to make is the easiest part. The hard part comes when they try to get the wording of it to suit everyone, and trying to decide what all gets ADDED to the new rule by all the politicians that want something. If you used everyday folks, you'd knock almost all of this crap out. Rules would be simple, wording would be simple, and they would be made to cover EVERYBODY fairly. The rules and policies on this board are for everyone (mostly), and are quite simple. Just a thought...James DuHamel
*i . It seems that people preferred simple answers, often referred to as magic bullets, even though there was no possibility of them working. Either that, or they actually believed the lies. People have a tendency to believe what they hear, unless someone steps up to contradict them, or defend the lies. If no one defends themselves against that kind of out right lies, the people may very well believe that they were true.Just my opinion...James DuHamel
*James,You're right about people believing lies. What that means is that liars invariably have an advantage over people who are constrained by the truth, because truthful people can't attack the lie until after it's made, and then they have to be defensive. But you're wrong as to simple rules. Simplicity ignores the Law of Unintended Consequences. While people make rules with certain intended consequences, they ultimately reach the logical extreme of application to situations where they are not intended, which produces bizarre, unfair or absurd results. The complexities happen when trying to eliminate application of otherwise sound rules to unintended situations.I like the idea of playing the game here, trying to formulate a rule and watching how its application unfolds. Using our representative form of government, I nominate you to prepare a rule for the board (recognizing, of course, that it is not applicable to our benevolent dictator, Andy)SHG
*James:QUOTEIn politics, deciding what new rules and regs to make is the easiest part. The hard part comes when they try to get the wording of it to suit everyone, and trying to decide what all gets ADDED to the new rule by all the politicians that want something. If you used everyday folks, you'd knock almost all of this crap out. Rules would be simple, wording would be simple, and they would be made to cover EVERYBODY fairly.ENDQUOTE.Yeah, right. Wanna buy a bridge?What's your experience in legislative or regulatory drafting?"all gets ADDED to the new rule by all the politicians that want something" To some extent, the politicians want stuff that they perceive will impress their constituants and help them get elected. Howver, in my experience, having worked with the Vermont Legislative Drafting Council for a while in law school, and having practiced law 12 years in the area of regulatory analysis and compliance and having been a principle drfatsman myself for a pending Home Inspector Licensing Bill in Ohio, I can tell you that to a large extent the legilators want to write and pass a bill that they think is fair to everyone.And I can tell you thatr writing that stuff i isn't simple. Life isn't simple; how can the laws be simple?
*> If you used everyday folks, you'd knock almost all of this crap out.I'm not sure it would actually work that way. Suppose someone gets in who thinks all contractors in Texas are crooks, and should be heavily regulated? Or maybe a "regular guy" who belongs to PETA ?
*Geez, Stan, Look what you started. Thanks to all on Breaktime, my favourite virtual community. May all your tools be sharp!
*Bob and Ron,Deciding on what laws and rules to write IS the easiest part. Let's say I (as a state legislator) decided that my area, and most of rural Texas needed a law concerning polluting water with chemicals. I have decidided about the new law already. That was the EASY part. The hardest part will be in writing this new bill (which will be voted on as a law after a series of committee hearings, and presentation to the open body for a vote). Now, let's say that we have exactly 100 Representatives, and 50 Senators (Texas is set up just like federal). I have to write a bill in such a manner that I know I can get at least 66 Representatives, and 33 Senators (2/3 majority) to vote for it. THAT is a LOT harder than deciding on the new law. Now I have to write the bill, and submit it to MY committee (Rep or Dem) for approval. My committee leaders see this as a good thing, BUT... they want to add a few things. They add, you get their vote and support. Now, the main committee hearings will begin, and they are comprised of both parties, with the majority party heading the committees. If the majority leaders let it, the bill will be reviewed. THEN they will pick it apart, add things, and if you still like the bill after all the add ons, they will vote on it, and submit it for open vote of the House. First hurdle.Now, the Senate has to approve it also, and it will go through the saem process there as the House. Let the add ons go, and get some support. If BOTH Houses approve the bill in open vote, it is sent to the Governor for approval, or veto. Grease his palm, and you got yourself a new law, complete with your name on it.By the time it has made it through the process, and been approved, it has been added to, changed, reworded several times, and finally approved in a much different format than when first proposed. A good example is our new law concerning open liquor containers in a moving vehicle. Simple law really. It says, "It is now illegal in Texas to have an open container of alcohol ANYWHERE in the vehicle".If left just like that, it would have been simple, to the point, and easy to understand. The wording says it all. After all the committees and votes, the wording of this new law is 7 1/2 pages long. What could possibly be the value of adding so much garbage to this simple law? It fell vistim of the "game" of politics. Not all bills go through this much hassle, but an awful lot do. It is a complex game of appeasing people to get support. Politics is a game of greasing palms, patting backs, supporting really stupid stuff, and getting payback. The common citizen is almost always in the background of all of this, and very seldom the subject. The politicians don't care about the average citizen anymore. Common people, who have never been a part of the games, power struggles, or BS of politicking would do things in a whole different light. They would make simple laws, worded so that it is easy to understand, and would keep the interest of the common person in their sights. Of course, after some time in the arena, they would start playing the games too. To counter act this, term limits would be wonderful. Limit their available time in office, and the games would be at a minimum. Of course, this is all my opinion...James DuHamel
*Bob and Ron,Deciding on what laws and rules to write IS the easiest part. Let's say I (as a state legislator) decided that my area, and most of rural Texas needed a law concerning polluting water with chemicals. I have decided about the new law already. That was the EASY part. The hardest part will be in writing this new bill (which will be voted on as a law after a series of committee hearings, and presentation to the open body for a vote). Now, let's say that we have exactly 100 Representatives, and 50 Senators (Texas is set up just like federal). I have to write a bill in such a manner that I know I can get at least 66 Representatives, and 33 Senators (2/3 majority) to vote for it. THAT is a LOT harder than deciding on the new law. Now I have to write the bill, and submit it to MY committee (Rep or Dem) for approval. My committee leaders see this as a good thing, BUT... they want to add a few things. They add, you get their vote and support. Now, the main committee hearings will begin, and they are comprised of both parties, with the majority party heading the committees. If the majority leaders let it, the bill will be reviewed. THEN they will pick it apart, add things, and if you still like the bill after all the add ons, they will vote on it, and submit it for open vote of the House. First hurdle.Now, the Senate has to approve it also, and it will go through the saem process there as the House. Let the add ons go, and get some support. If BOTH Houses approve the bill in open vote, it is sent to the Governor for approval, or veto. Grease his palm, and you got yourself a new law, complete with your name on it.By the time it has made it through the process, and been approved, it has been added to, changed, reworded several times, and finally approved in a much different format than when first proposed. A good example is our new law concerning open liquor containers in a moving vehicle. Simple law really. It says, "It is now illegal in Texas to have an open container of alcohol ANYWHERE in the vehicle".If left just like that, it would have been simple, to the point, and easy to understand. The wording says it all. After all the committees and votes, the wording of this new law is 7 1/2 pages long. What could possibly be the value of adding so much garbage to this simple law? It fell victim of the "game" of politics. Not all bills go through this much hassle, but an awful lot do. It is a complex game of appeasing people to get support. Politics is a game of greasing palms, patting backs, supporting really stupid stuff, and getting payback. The whole concept is kinda like corporate America. You start at the bottom, make friends and contacts, appease the leaders, and slowly but surely work your way up the ladder of power. After enough time in office, and playing the game with your party, you start getting some power. Now, in order to get YOUR support, the low player must start appeasing YOU, and greasing YOUR palm. In all this crap, the common citizen is almost always in the background, and very seldom the subject. The politicians don't care about the average citizen anymore. Common people, who have never been a part of the games, power struggles, or BS of politicking would do things in a whole different light. They would make simple laws, worded so that it is easy to understand, and would keep the interest of the common person in their sights. Of course, after some time in the arena, they would start playing the games too. To counter act this, term limits would be wonderful. Limit their available time in office, and the games would be at a minimum. Of course, this is all my opinion...James DuHamel
*Ron,Read above post of mine (reply to Bob). If I thought all contractors in Texas were crooks, and wanted a law in place to make their lives miserable, I could easily write one. The problem would be getting 2/3 of my colleagues to agree with that idea. Since Contracting is BIG business in Texas, the chances that I'd get any support anywhere in either house would be slim to none. Being a BIG business, they are also BIG contributors to campaigns and parties. Leaders of these parties would not want to upset their large camapign contributors, so they would never let a bill like that in committe for a vote in the first place. If by chance you COULD find 2/3 support (AND support of both houses) then maybe you have something there. Maybe, after all these people agree with you, there really is something to that idea. Reality says you won't get any support at all, and they's tell you to shut up and go sit in the back of the room.Just an opinion...James DuHamel
*SHG,I do understand the need for a rule to be fashioned in such a way so that it is fair, easy to understand, and covers the unintended circumstances. It takes work, lots of debate and research, and a process by which the new rule is put through some type of testing to see what may come up. When those unintended circumstances show up, the rules need to be modified to cover such. It is a long and tedious process. I just believe that simple folk would leave out the game playing, palm greasing, and tactics used by career politicians in order to get support. These simple folk do not necessarily mean that we are gonna use average educated (high school diploma only), limited knowledge people to make our laws and govern us. To me, it means using educated people with common sense, using fair and honest tactics, and producing an end result that is fair, and beneficial to the majority of Americans. No games, no BS, just be good, fair, and honest leaders. That seems to be too much to ask in our society today. The founding fathers, in my opinon, fit this idea. They were educated, but they had courage, common sense, fore sight, and tried to keep things as simple as they could (under the circumstances). To me, after seeing who they were, what they believed in and stood for, and the processes by which they conducted themselves as leaders, they are really just simple folk, with a passion for serving their fellow citizens. Somewhere along the way over the last 225 years, things got real confusing, and really screwed up. I know progress and growth have had an impact, and complexities of modern life make things a little more intense and difficult, but it has gotten way out of bounds, and somewhere along the way, the politcians forgot about the common people. They, in my opinion, are no longer "of the people, by the people, and for the people". They all seem to now be self serving. They will do, or say anything to get elected, and do not worry in the slightest about who or what they trash and destroy along the way. End result (election into office) is their agenda, and anything standing in the way of that goal will be attacked, and if possible, destroyed. REMOVE ALL ROAD BLOCKS. That seems to be their battle cry. Just an opinion...James DuHamel
*I like the idea of a rule making process too. It is very interesting to watch the issues unfold, and the realities of unintended consequences fall into the picture. It really could be a simple process (of sorts). Not just here either. Make a rule, vote on it, and let it stand. When an unintended consequence developes, let the MODERATOR have the power to make judgements on a case by case basis. They have to be fair, and THAT would be the most difficult part of their job. No doubt you won't please all the people all the time. Moderators are just like judges. They have to be able to read and UNDERSTAND the rule, apply it fairly and even handedly, and have enough wisdom and common sense to know when a situation needs reviewing. By reviewing, they should be able to judge a situation, and determine whether or not that specific rule was intended to be imposed on that specific instance. Tough job to be a moderator or judge. You make enemies just as easily as you make friends. It takes a special person to fill that job. Just a thought...James DuHamel
*James,I agree with much of what you say, but still disagree with your view that writing laws is easy.QUOTEBob and Ron, Deciding on what laws and rules to write IS the easiest part. Let's say I (as a state legislator) decided that my area, and most of rural Texas needed a law concerning polluting water with chemicals. I have decided about the new law already. That was the EASY part. ENDQUOTEYou have barely started with the decision process. What chemicals? What levels of pollution? Which water?QUOTEThe hardest part will be in writing this new bill (which will be voted on as a law after a series of committee hearings, and presentation to the open body for a vote). Now, let's say that we have exactly 100 Representatives, and 50 Senators (Texas is set up just like federal). I have to write a bill in such a manner that I know I can get at least 66 Representatives, and 33 Senators (2/3 majority) to vote for it. THAT is a LOT harder than deciding on the new law. Now I have to write the bill, and submit it to MY committee (Rep or Dem) for approval. My committee leaders see this as a good thing, BUT... they want to add a few things. They add, you get their vote and support. Now, the main committee hearings will begin, and they are comprised of both parties, with the majority party heading the committees. If the majority leaders let it, the bill will be reviewed. THEN they will pick it apart, add things, and if you still like the bill after all the add ons, they will vote on it, and submit it for open vote of the House. First hurdle. Now, the Senate has to approve it also, and it will go through the saem process there as the House. Let the add ons go, and get some support. If BOTH Houses approve the bill in open vote, it is sent to the Governor for approval, or veto. Grease his palm, and you got yourself a new law, complete with your name on it. By the time it has made it through the process, and been approved, it has been added to, changed, reworded several times, and finally approved in a much different format than when first proposed. A good example is our new law concerning open liquor containers in a moving vehicle. Simple law really. It says, "It is now illegal in Texas to have an open container of alcohol ANYWHERE in the vehicle". If left just like that, it would have been simple, to the point, and easy to understand. The wording says it all. After all the committees and votes, the wording of this new law is 7 1/2 pages long. What could possibly be the value of adding so much garbage to this simple law? It fell victim of the "game" of politics. Not all bills go through this much hassle, but an awful lot do. It is a complex game of appeasing people to get support. ENDQUOTEYes and no. I've been working on getting a home inpsection bill passed in Ohio for about 3 years (and others have been working longer than that.)Much has been changed in the bill, but not for the reasons you suggest. There are people in Ohio who had very different ideas of what the bill should provide and the bill was changed in many respects to accomodate their views.Nothing was added by the "politicians" for political reasons other than representing people with different points of view.QUOTEPolitics is a game of greasing palms, patting backs, supporting really stupid stuff, and getting payback. The whole concept is kinda like corporate America. ENDQUOTEYES! I have had extensive exposure to very senior management in very large corporations. Some of them were incredibly bright and accomplished. Most (all?) of them were were very good politicians - just a different constituancy.QUOTECommon people, who have never been a part of the games, power struggles, or BS of politicking would do things in a whole different light. They would make simple laws, worded so that it is easy to understand, and would keep the interest of the common person in their sights. ENDQUOTEA common dream, but in the cold clear light of waking reality, nothing but a dream. Laws regulate how we live our lives. Our lives are incredibly complex and diverse. QED.Your open bottle bill isb notan example of the average law.But even as a "simple" law, I'll bet some of the 7 1/2 pages was necessary, though. A few paragraphs were required for fitting the bill into the overall structure of Texas law.A page or two was required for the penalty portion of the bill. (That's pretty simple, right, but an aspect of the bill writing process you seemed to have overlooked.) A few exceptions would have been needed.Exceptions? To an open bottle bill? Who am I kidding? Well, when a cop arrests someone for a violation, they have to gather evidence. So, how's the cop going to transport the evidence withou violating the law? Walkt the evidence back to the station house?Or the rescue team finds an open bottle at an accident scene and wants to transport it to the hospital for analysis of the contents for diagnostic purposes.Suppose a cop stops someone for some routine traffic stop and sees an open, empty bottle on the floor in the back seat. It appears dry, but has a lingering odor when sniffed.Is this grounds to conduct a sobriety test?See, it's not quite as simple as you first thought (and this is just stuff I thought of during my first cup of coffee.)Simple laws for simple people is a oft dreamed fantasy.Of course, this is all my opinion, based on study and experience... I'm not saying that much of what you outlined doesn't happen. Thereb ismuch bs in the legislatibve process I agree. It's the simple dream part that I take exception to.Putting a roof on is pretty simple, right? Well, of course, the are lots of details and potential for errors and screwups, and that's why we hire qualified roofers i orstudy up before undertaking such a project.Why should roofing be left to the pros but creation of laws be an amateur hour parlor game?
*>Why should roofing be left to the pros but creation of laws be an amateur hour parlor game? That's pretty good Bob.James, there are certainly plenty of shenanigans that go on in politics. No argument about that. But that doesn't mean that your corollary, that laws could be simply written, is true if the shenanigans were eliminated.Your example about leaving the all the application decisions to the moderator is a case in point. Laws must be written so that they do not leave open ended discretion to the judge. Theoretically, at least, the laws are intended to remove that sort of discretion so that public officials cannot be arbitrary and capricious. It is said that we are a nation of laws, not men. This means that the interpretation is not left up to whoever fills the moderator's role, and would change according to who was the moderator, but that the rules would remain constant and any moderator would apply the rules consistently. Same for judges.Try a simple rule: No profanity shall be permitted on this board. Pretty easy for some words, not so easy for others. What happens if you use a bad word? What if you use it in a non-offensive, descriptive way (i.e., the customer told me to go to hell)? What if you use f**k, which is readily understandable to be a particular word? What if you use it in response to another poster's profanity? What if you just copy it from a prior post? What about the use of non-profanity epithets as profanity substitutes? What if it is in an article that is copied? The rule couldn't be any simpler, yet questions exist. SHG
*SHG,i Your example about leaving the all the application decisions to the moderator is a case in point. Laws must be written so that they do not leave open ended discretion to the judge. Theoretically, at least, the laws are intended to remove that sort of discretion so that public officials cannot be arbitrary and capricious. It is said that we are a nation of laws, not men. This means that the interpretation is not left up to whoever fills the moderator's role, and would change according to who was the moderator, but that the rules would remain constant and any moderator would apply the rules consistently. Same for judges. I am no expert at law, by any stretch of the term, but I do have an opinion on OUR system. Our Constitution is exactly the opposite of the above statement. It IS being interpretated by whomever is sitting on the bench. Same in Federal Courts. Each judge looks at a case, and decides if rights are being violated, and if rules are being followed. They are making a discretionary decision, of which seems to be the norm for a court room nowadays. No clear cut, black and white anything anymore. Just judges decisions, based on how he/she interprets the laws. If you don't think their interpretation is correct, or it doesn't seem right, you can appeal to a higher court, made up of more than one judge. The appeals court then decides, by a majority, if THEY interpret the law the same as the other judge (or if they don't think that the judge overstepped his duties, or his boundaries, they usually won't even hear the case). THIS is how our system has been set up. So, we do actually have a sort of moderator (judge) that interprets the rules for each specific case. At least that's how I perceive it.I know how things are, but I still think they COULD be simpler, and easier. We make things so dadburn complicated. We even expect things to get comlicated. Things don't have to be that way. I watch defense lawyers try so hard to find gray areas of laws, loopholes, and interpretations of things to get their clients off, or get leniency. That's what they were hired for. If a lot of that gray area was eliminated, and the loopholes closed, and the opinions and interpretations limited, I would think that the court rooms would get moving a lot faster (maybe not). Court cases just might get a little simpler. What IS, and what COULD BE/SHOULD BE are two different things. I prefer the KISS method personally. Just a thought...James DuHamel
*We're not in disagreement that we would all be better off if things could be kept simple, but your analysis needs some comment.Your right that some judges "make" law, which is a subject of great debate. What judges do theoretically is apply the law to a set of facts. It is up to the lawyers to inform the judge what laws apply and how they should be applied to the particular set of facts before the court. You are correct that lawyers try to apply to persuade the judge to apply the law in a way that favors their side. This is what lawyers are paid to do and what every client should expect of his lawyer.The Constitution is somewhat different than a law. It provides an overarching framework within which laws must fit. It has been the subject of debate and interpretation since its execution, and will likely remain so until this nation ceases to exist. For example, the second amendment, so beloved at Breaktime, is quite simply stated and yet subject to so much debate. My only point here is that simple isn't simple, and invariably gives rise to more questions than answers. I'm not trying to justify complexity for its own sake, but complexity for the sake of clarity. We would all be better off with laws that are clear and understood by all, but experience is otherwise. So, experience teaches that we need to make things as clear as possible to avoid the law of unintended consequences, and this almost always requires laws, rules, whatever, to suffer a certain level of complexity.To paraphrase H.L. Menken, for every question, there is an answer that is clear, simple and absolutely wrong.SHG
*Bob,i You have barely started with the decision process. What chemicals? What levels of pollution? Which water? Simply stated (sometimes not so easy to do), ALL INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS, introduced into any NATURAL water system would be outlawed. That's how the idea starts out. That was the easy part. From here on out, it gets harder and more comlicated. Refinement of the proposed law would be made during the discussions, research, and debates. i A common dream, but in the cold clear light of waking reality, nothing but a dream. Laws regulate how we live our lives. Our lives are incredibly complex and diverseThat's the whole point. It IS a dream, not reality. But it IS possible, if you started from scratch. We have already made so many laws, about so many things, that trying to understand the, interpret them, and abide by them has become very complex. Now, whomever gets in office, career politician or common person, they have to deal with all the EXISTING rules and laws, and have to consider them whenever they decide to enact new legislation. That fact alone makes their jobs hard, complex, and difficult, to say the least. i Your open bottle bill is not an example of the average law. True. It was just a SIMPLE example. i But even as a "simple" law, I'll bet some of the 7 1/2 pages was necessary, though. A few paragraphs were required for fitting the bill into the overall structure of Texas law. Maybe. We have the largest number of written laws in all of the United States. Our Constitution is so incredibly long, it would take you months to read it all. All new laws have to fit into this.i A page or two was required for the penalty portion of the bill. (That's pretty simple, right, but an aspect of the bill writing process you seemed to have overlooked.) Not really. The penalty portion was the easiest part. It is a misdemeanor. Misdemeanors carry certain penalties. Judges decide on a case by case basis how to apply the penalty. On the side of the road, after the cop stops you, it is up to HIM to determine if any other law has been breached. If he finds an open container, HE must make an on the spot determination of how to proceed with HIS investigation. We already have many, many laws here that he must follow when he does this. If he screws up, the judge in the case will throw it all out. If he followed the procedures correctly, then you will be charged with whatever offense he deems appropriate. As far as the wreck scenario goes, they test the body for alcohol content. If it is above the legal limit, they charge you with drunken driving (a felony), and will probably drop the open container violation (misdemeanor). As for sobriety tests, here at least the discretion of when to administer one is left solely to the discretion of the officer on the scene. He has guidleines to follow, and if he violates those guidelines, then existing laws will let the person walk free (after court). Most of the FELONIES here are under Sate Law provisions. This means that they are classified as a state offense, and state offenses carry certain penalties. Judges get no leway here, except to review the cases. They cannot decide to sentence at a lesser rate if the crime is deemed a state offense. The legislature just decides when they write the law how it is classified. After that, the current sentencing guidleines go into effect for the judges. Some judges get creative in sentencing for other than state offenses.A case in point about state offenses is a fairly new crime bill that was passed. It basically says if you use a gun in the committement of a felony crime (state offense), you will serve the MAXIMUM time if convicted. They basically eliminated the lower end of any sentence under these conditions. If before you might get 3 to 5 years, you would now get 5 years period. No time off for good behavior, no time off for anything. You WILL serve the full 5 years. Judges hands are tied on this one. They MUST, by law, sentence you to the maximum upon conviction. I personally like that. It simplified an already existing law. It took a lot of the discretionary and intrepretive portions of the law away, and left a somewhat simpler law in its place. I understand the massive difference in the rules that govern our behavior and the rules that govern everyday life. The purpose, in my opinon, should be that ALL rules are created to insure a safe, productive environment for the citizenry to live in.The current way seems to add too much garbage to what should be simple rules. i Why should roofing be left to the pros but creation of laws be an amateur hour parlor game? A little clarification on my part. I am NOT talking about amateurs, your next door neighbor, or any other average citizen, although it would be a thought. When I use the term "common people", I mean people who are NOT career politicians. I am talking about bright, educated individuals that would represent the common people fairly, honestly, and adequately. They are out there. I am also NOT talking about our CURRENT system of the way things are done. I am talking about the way things COULD/SHOULD be done. Big difference between the two. To give you a little better idea of what I am talking about as far as what SHOULD/COULD be, think about this. You are now living in a brand new country. There are 1 million people here now, and today, we start making our laws that will govern us. Forget about the way things were where you just came from, and what you are used to. Think about how, as a newly elected official, you are going to decide what laws we should have, and how they should be written so that EVERYONE understands them clearly. The new laws do not have to be as complex as what we currently have, but it would take a fair, honest person who is truly concerned about the citizens in order to conceive and write these new laws. It would also take more than one person to do so in order to make the laws fair, just, and evenly enforced. As new situations present themsleves, you could add to the laws. Chances are, most situations would already be covered by some form of an already written law. Just a thought...James DuHamel
*Billions and billions of words later...Simple collapses!near the stream glazed over,aj
*I hate to step in on this conversation---but I failed to mention how I have enjoyed Adirondack Jack. AJ--excuse me for not including you. Your posts are always interesting. Havent heard from you in awhile.
*i Simple collapses! hehehe good one nice ta see ya
*This reminds me of the Bismarck quote, something to the effect that anybody who likes laws or sausages should never watch them being made.The trouble with trying to make laws complex enough to cover all possible circumstances is that they become so cumbersome as to be useless. Building codes are a classic example of this. Look at the three "Code Check" books from Taunton, they cover about 90% of what you really need to know using maybe 0.01% as many words as the actual codes. They're not perfect, but they're a better price/performance point for the real world than the acutal laws are. Try to cover everything, and you'll end up covering nothing.-- J.S.
*James.Vermont is a good example of "regular people" making laws.At least when I lived there in the late 70's and early 80's, Vermont stuck with the "Citizen/Legislator" concet, where many (most? of the legislators where regular old folks, not lawyers, not politicians, and had "real jobs."They would come up with ideas for laws. Then the ideas would go to the legislative drafting committee; lawyers hired for the purpose of turning these ideas into workable laws.Vermont's laws are everu bit as complex as anywhere eleses.I'll say it again: the purpose of laws are to regulate the way we live our lives and the way we interact.Life is complex.Thus, the overall body of laws have to be complex.Simplicity is but a dream.
*RI is organized so the Planning Boards write the Zoning Ordinance...ever want to test your idea of simple people writing simple laws... watch 9 citizens write or attempt to write a new amendment.. there is nothing simple about it..when i started in business , our local zoning ordiance was 25 pages (big print... lots of space)...now it's 125 pages (small print, no spaces)..the only thing simple about writing new laws is NOT writing new laws....if you research the codes you will find there are so many laws that are just never invoked or enforced...but they take on a life of their own and will just not go away...everyone thinks they can make it simple..but laws are written by politicians.. who may or may not be average citizens.. it makes no difference.. once tehy are given the power to write laws... they do just that..if you could limit the number of laws each one could write... you might make a start at getting it under control...
*...A J......How's the stream?...One where???...n
*This looked like a very good discussion about polumentarion ( Roberts rule of order)P S Sorry about my spellingLarry Martin
*...Que???...
*Someone made a good point a few messages ago.Look at building codes. The NEC is a couple of inches thick. The Code Check charts are just a few pages and manage to cover a large proportion of the stuff we see everyday (at least in residential work.)But, the code itself can't be stop with covering just the common stuff. The code has to anticipate and cover as much as it can, including the rare but foreseeable.Same thing with other laws. The common, everyday stuff can be dealt with pretty simply, but that doesn't do the job. The drafter has to try to anticipate every little wrinkle that migh show up.That's why they start getting long and complex.
*This thread has drifted and is getting too long: I've started a new thread "Simple Laws" with a challange to thoise who think the laws can be made nice and simple if we'd just let regular folks write 'em.Here's your chance to prove your point! Bob Walker "Simple Laws" 12/22/01 10:09am
*
I stumbled on this website late in 2000 and could not believe the diversified talent on this board. I just want to thank the following for making this site most interesting to me personally. I am posting in no certain order--just as these people come to mind as "making" Breaktime