jwkpiano1

None of this contradicts the point I was making, which is that the OP implied that’s what the term meant, and it simply isn’t.

In case you weren’t aware, the “safety control rod ax man” thing is aprocryphal and almost certainly not reflective of the origins of the term.

Let me state this very simply: executive agencies have only the power granted to them by Congress. So yes, all actions taken by an executive agencies are bound by the law. Anything else is ultra vires and of no effect.

That’s not what the law is. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/111

Executive orders aren’t laws. This is: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/111.

This isn’t how this works. Laws don’t change just because the executive decides it’s going to ignore them. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/111

The executive doesn’t pass laws. Congress created the Department of Defense. Only Congress can rename it. The executive being elected is irrelevant to this point. The Constitution actually matters.

You are. Congress could stop this right now if they wanted. That they aren’t is of course a problem, but that’s very different than saying the system of checks and balances doesn’t exist. The latter is giving the executive power it doesn’t have.

The problem with this argument is that the _original_ Department of War is now called the Department of the Army, which existed alongside the Department of the Navy. Besides, it’s a moot point unless Congress actually changes the name.

It very much still exists, and statements like this are what’s called “obeying in advance.” Don’t do it.

This is indeed happening, but note that PC is not required for a Terry stop, only reasonable suspicion, which is a lower bar.

We sure as shit are or there will be civil conflict. Period.

That’s for _Congress_ to decide, not the executive. That’s the issue here.

Indeed, California has 52 times the representation but about 80 times the people. That disconnect is why the cap on the size of the House needs to be lifted.

He has zero experience running a large organization. The Secretary of Defense, while a political appointee, also requires some ability to manage a large organization, which again, he doesn’t have. And suggesting that we didn’t get the desired outcomes from another qualified candidate doesn’t mean we should switch to literally unqualified candidates. Take your partisan hat off for a few minutes and think about what qualities are necessary in a SecDef, and think about whether Hegseth meets them or not.

Dude, none of that has _anything_ to do with being able to run a huge organization. Nothing. It’s undeniable that Hegseth, even if you ignore all of the white supremacist shit, is completely unqualified to run a large organization. Noting other folks that aren’t super qualified doesn’t change that one bit, and it’s insulting to others’ intelligence to suggest it does.

He’s made that pretty clear to us Angelenos too.

I’m sorry you’re offended by people trying to be nice to others by avoiding language they don’t appreciate. I promise nobody is gonna force you to do the same.

It’s funny how you think you’re not doing the exact same thing you’re accusing others of doing: policing language.

Come on. You can’t honestly tell me that “folks” or “y’all” are signs of language policing. I think many Southerners would vehemently disagree with you.

I mean, if that’s true I imagine they also don’t have much to do with the colors “black” or “white” either, right? Language changes all the time. I think for most software folks, who aren’t dealing with set theory, allowlist and denylist work pretty well. That’s been my experience, anyway.

“That said, the article would have been a lot better without moralizing about harmful colonialism,”

Your bias towards flippantly dismissing colonialism is insulting to those groups of people who experienced it. Do better.

You’re dead wrong, I do care. It does matter. I disagree with the comment but I would not have responded this way if it hadn’t made such a blatant factual error. If we’re going to make assumptions about the internal mental state of other commenters, would you have said the same thing if he misidentified, say, Germans for French? I don’t think you would have.

In my experience y’all works as a perfect alternative to “you guys”, even as a non-Southerner myself. After my initial discomfort using it it became quite natural.

I think it is strongly indicative that your underlying bias so colored your reading of the article that you made a very basic factual error. I would encourage you to read it again with a more open mind.

What’s really ironic is that your language purported to make decisions for others more than the article itself did.

The fact that you have equated Polynesians and Melanesians here, two completely disparate groups of people, does not help your point whatsoever.

You don’t get to decide for everyone what “we” are doing or not doing. People will make their own decision on what language they would like to use, including you.

What you’re referring to is called the Swiss cheese model, and the many layers that comprise its design are critical to ensuring safety. It’s precisely due to this design that air travel is so safe. Cars are not designed with nearly as many backup systems.

This is a ridiculous comment. They basically refused to participate in the trial, so much so that they got a default judgment against them. Any reasonable observer sees what happened here. You’re not fooling anyone.