Checks and Balances

[+]
<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Go back
William Falk on Checks and Balances
July 5 2007 at 11:01 AM Melody Maxim (Login melmax)
Veteran Member
I love William Falk's writing, and I've been keeping this article on my nightstand for almost eight months, now:


The Election Aftermath

11/10/2006

Our nation is based on a fundamental distrust of power. The Founders did not fight a war of rebellion against one king to serve another, so they designed a government in which the power of any one branch—the president, the Congress, and the courts—was checked by the others. It’s not a perfect system, but it works admirably—except when one party controls both Congress and the presidency. Then the checks and balances built into the government fail. Rather than govern from the sensible center, the ruling party—whether Republican or Democratic—panders to its ideological base and ignores roughly half the population. It becomes corrupt. Without having to answer to Congress or to anyone, the president, too, grows smug and reckless—and his popularity plummets (see Carter, circa 1979; Clinton, circa 1994; and Bush, circa 2006). From this historical perspective, this week’s election was a necessary—and inevitable—corrective.

Divided government is, in a very real sense, what the Founders intended—contentious, noisy, and messy. “Politicians compromise because they have to, not because they like to,” says Jonathan Rauch in National Journal this week. “Divided government forces them to compromise as a fact of daily life.” When our elected leaders have no choice but to debate their ideas, and factor in the insights of the other side, they get smarter. Clearly, both parties could afford to add some IQ points: Republicans have made an unholy mess in Washington and Iraq, while Democrats, sitting on the sidelines and jeering, have lacked both coherence and courage. Now we’ll see what they can do when they have to play on the same team. The results may not necessarily be better, but they sure can’t be worse.

William Falk
Editor-in-chief
http://www.theweekmagazine.com/news/articles/news.aspx?ArticleID=1729


Does this remind everyone of the current political situation in cryonics? LEF is in control of CCR, 21CM, and SA. Saul Kent of LEF also sits on the board at Alcor, and of course, CI is affiliated with SA.

I walked away once, but I am determined to let this be as "contentious, noisy and messy" as it needs to be, until we all get smarter.


Respond to this message
Author Reply
cytosine
(Login cytosine)
Registered User
Re: William Falk on Checks and Balances
July 5 2007, 12:15 PM

"Does this remind everyone of the current political situation in cryonics? LEF is in control of CCR, 21CM, and SA. Saul Kent of LEF also sits on the board at Alcor, and of course, CI is affiliated with SA."

For the sake of completeness: 21CM "controls" Alcor's vitrification solution and CCR "controls" Alcor (and SA's) medications list and protocol.

Admittedly, this control appears to be self imposed.

On the other hand, two people associated with 21CM sit on the Alcor board. And CCR's Scientific Director is Alcor's Chief Medical Advisor.




Respond to this message
Finance Department
(Login Finance_Department)
Veteran Member
And the funniest thing about Alcor ...
July 6 2007, 12:34 AM

...as I've pointed out before from time to time, is that the Alcor President and the Alcor Board Chairman are each other's bosses, by virtue of Michael Riskin being both Board Chairman and Vice President of Alcor. Reminds me of the old hillbilly song "I'm My Own Grandpa".

That's at least equally goofy to SA being run by a consultant who claims that he doesn't.




Respond to this message
Current Topic - William Falk on Checks and Balances
<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Go back