Danoz
10-25-2004, 08:48 PM
Well, I’m off to see the demagogue. I am being dragged to see Michael Moore this week. He’s speaking at our campus, and some other pol.sci majors think the bag of hot air will somehow change my puny conservative mind ;). Our branch has a Democratic club, but it lacks a Republican club as they can’t find a professor willing to run it (not that I blame them, I can’t say participation would be all that great). I’m not especially looking forward to it to the Moore deal, but it should be interesting to say the least.
To update how things are going, I recently gave a speech in Political Argumentation on the prison camps in North Korea, and specifically how they violate articles of the Universal Declaration for Human Rights. The speech was strictly fact/value, so the policy speech will be more interesting and I’m still very unsure of how to go about it. I’d rather not just adopt Bush’s policy as the right course of action, I really want to examine what’s honestly the best way to deal with Kim Jong Il and this nuclear nation. I’d love your feedback on this, because I still don’t know where I’m going with this.
Now, in American Politics we were discussing the powers of the executive branch and the presidency, and I asked the professor if he thought creating two executive offices would be better for our nation (one for domestic and another for foreign policy). He, unexpectedly, sent the challenge right back at me,
Professor Tutor:Why do you think it would be better?â€. I quickly came up with an answer, “Because, as it is, the presidency has become increasingly more powerful and more complicated a position. Breaking it up into two spheres of influence would allow for a single man to concentrate on one or the other.†Phew, I thought I was safe… nope.
Professor Tutor: Right, but would they be equal in power?
This is where I started amending from my ass.
Me: Well, we would amend the President to be in charge specifically of Foreign Policy, and elect separately a Vice President who would be mostly concerned with Domestic issues. Different spheres of influence, but there is still a commander and chief.
Professor Tutor: Okay, I suppose I can see this. Class?
This is where people in class took turns cross examining the idea. I stayed firm. People started asking me about succession and the nomination process (and various other hypotheticals). Let me just tell you what it came down to.
As my professor now says, “The Constitution as written by Daniel J. Porter†– There are two executive offices. We elect the president, and the vice president separately. A person well educated in foreign policy runs for President, while the Vice President is somebody who has had experience in Domestic issues. (It is my belief that the safety of our nation is the #1 in the hierarchy of presidential responsibilities). The problem of succession is solved because the two offices are separately succeeded by a Chief of Staff (both have a different chief of staff). While they run separately, they are still ultimately on the same party ticket. Primary elections decide both President and VP separately, and in the general election they run together against the other parties (this solves the problem of having two conflicting executives of different party affiliation in office at the same time). Phew.
The Professor knew I was amending out of my ass, but I think he was enjoying it—and he pulled me aside to tell me I think on my feet well, and that I should stick with the idea. I actually think it’s a good idea J. He also wants me in his 12-step-program for “recovering republicans†;). He’s very liberal in many respects, but his opinion that free trade should be unhindered and unlimited sort of sets him apart.
Let’s just say I’m really enjoying the major I’ve chosen. In Graphic Design I felt like I was in a box. Don’t get me wrong, I’m still modeling. I’m getting a student version of Lightwave3D to maintain 3D design as an independent study. I do think I’ve found my niche’. Yes, I am in a minority voice as a conservative, but I wouldn’t have it any other way. I’ve learned more about having to really support an argument that I ever have, and I think I have ZMD to thank for a lot of how I’ve developed argumentation wise. While this post may have flowed like a diary, I think it should remain here. I’d seriously like to thank those of you in the backroom, because, I can’t imagine I would have even chosen politics (in addition to communications) without having first had the years of this medium. I’ve always been passionate about what I believe, but I haven’t always been smart about it.
To many more arguments!
<P ID="signature">http://glasko.com/danozoctober.jpg
http://www.georgewbush.com/http://www.glasko.com/bc.jpg</a></P>
To update how things are going, I recently gave a speech in Political Argumentation on the prison camps in North Korea, and specifically how they violate articles of the Universal Declaration for Human Rights. The speech was strictly fact/value, so the policy speech will be more interesting and I’m still very unsure of how to go about it. I’d rather not just adopt Bush’s policy as the right course of action, I really want to examine what’s honestly the best way to deal with Kim Jong Il and this nuclear nation. I’d love your feedback on this, because I still don’t know where I’m going with this.
Now, in American Politics we were discussing the powers of the executive branch and the presidency, and I asked the professor if he thought creating two executive offices would be better for our nation (one for domestic and another for foreign policy). He, unexpectedly, sent the challenge right back at me,
Professor Tutor:Why do you think it would be better?â€. I quickly came up with an answer, “Because, as it is, the presidency has become increasingly more powerful and more complicated a position. Breaking it up into two spheres of influence would allow for a single man to concentrate on one or the other.†Phew, I thought I was safe… nope.
Professor Tutor: Right, but would they be equal in power?
This is where I started amending from my ass.
Me: Well, we would amend the President to be in charge specifically of Foreign Policy, and elect separately a Vice President who would be mostly concerned with Domestic issues. Different spheres of influence, but there is still a commander and chief.
Professor Tutor: Okay, I suppose I can see this. Class?
This is where people in class took turns cross examining the idea. I stayed firm. People started asking me about succession and the nomination process (and various other hypotheticals). Let me just tell you what it came down to.
As my professor now says, “The Constitution as written by Daniel J. Porter†– There are two executive offices. We elect the president, and the vice president separately. A person well educated in foreign policy runs for President, while the Vice President is somebody who has had experience in Domestic issues. (It is my belief that the safety of our nation is the #1 in the hierarchy of presidential responsibilities). The problem of succession is solved because the two offices are separately succeeded by a Chief of Staff (both have a different chief of staff). While they run separately, they are still ultimately on the same party ticket. Primary elections decide both President and VP separately, and in the general election they run together against the other parties (this solves the problem of having two conflicting executives of different party affiliation in office at the same time). Phew.
The Professor knew I was amending out of my ass, but I think he was enjoying it—and he pulled me aside to tell me I think on my feet well, and that I should stick with the idea. I actually think it’s a good idea J. He also wants me in his 12-step-program for “recovering republicans†;). He’s very liberal in many respects, but his opinion that free trade should be unhindered and unlimited sort of sets him apart.
Let’s just say I’m really enjoying the major I’ve chosen. In Graphic Design I felt like I was in a box. Don’t get me wrong, I’m still modeling. I’m getting a student version of Lightwave3D to maintain 3D design as an independent study. I do think I’ve found my niche’. Yes, I am in a minority voice as a conservative, but I wouldn’t have it any other way. I’ve learned more about having to really support an argument that I ever have, and I think I have ZMD to thank for a lot of how I’ve developed argumentation wise. While this post may have flowed like a diary, I think it should remain here. I’d seriously like to thank those of you in the backroom, because, I can’t imagine I would have even chosen politics (in addition to communications) without having first had the years of this medium. I’ve always been passionate about what I believe, but I haven’t always been smart about it.
To many more arguments!
<P ID="signature">http://glasko.com/danozoctober.jpg
http://www.georgewbush.com/http://www.glasko.com/bc.jpg</a></P>