Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 59 of 59

Thread: Wanna Fly High? Fuggetaboutit!

  1. #51
    L16 Pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    187
    Or apparently members of congress could use some " further training" and I'd suggest drug and alcohol testing. If zero tolerance is good enough for pilots it should be good enough for those make the laws.
    If God had intended man to fly He would have given us more money!

  2. #52
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,948
    Quote Originally Posted by saber25 View Post
    Considering what some of the respondents here have gone through to get and maintain their positions, is asking the potential head of state to go through a similar process too much?
    Several problems there. First, you have the issue as to *who* actually does the investigation. What happens if the investigation claims that the opponent of an incumbent president isn't qualified to serve? There's an obvious conflict of interest, since security investigations are under the control of the president (executive branch). How do you resolve that?

    Second, this does tend to politically bias the selection process. An individual might be denied a security clearance because, for instance, they were arrested during peaceful political protests. But would that truly make them unsuitable for high office?

    A lot of people don't understand that most of the "laws" governing security are implemented as presidential executive orders. Those executive orders can be changed on a political whim, and could obviously be used as political weapons.

    Ron Wanttaja

  3. #53
    Dana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    927
    When I worked for the Navy in the 1980s (civil service engineer) the security officer told us, "we don't care about weed, it's the beer of the 80s." Of course that was an era where having a couple of beers with lunch at the officer's club before going back to the office was routine.

    I had two other jobs left that required pre employment drug screening, no random testing after hiring. I got the impression they were trying to weed out (no pun intended) people without the self control to abstain for a few weeks, but didn't much care beyond that if it wasn't a problem or on the job (one guy was fired for drinking in the parking lot on his lunch break).

    As for drug testing for politicians, great idea! Give 'em a shot of sodium penthothal once a week and ask "what laws have you broken this week?"

  4. #54
    DaleB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    KMLE
    Posts
    654
    Quote Originally Posted by Dana View Post
    As for drug testing for politicians, great idea! Give 'em a shot of sodium penthothal once a week and ask "what laws have you broken this week?"
    Not that I'm not concerned about the laws they have broken, but the real problem is generally the laws they pass.
    Measure twice, cut once...
    scratch head, shrug, shim to fit.

    Flying an RV-12. I am building a Fisher Celebrity, slowly.

  5. #55
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,718
    Quote Originally Posted by rwanttaja View Post
    Several problems there. First, you have the issue as to *who* actually does the investigation. Ron Wanttaja
    Ron, I don't believe this is a problem at all as historical precedents have dealt with this issue very well in the form of the Office of the Independent Counsel and/or Special Counsel for investigations. Watergate, Bill Clinton, Enron and now Trump administration are high profile examples. Canada appoints Royal Commissions usually headed by a former Supreme Court Justice to do it's independent investigations of wrongdoing and illegal activities.
    Last edited by Floatsflyer; 11-25-2017 at 09:33 AM.

  6. #56
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Dana View Post
    As for drug testing for politicians, great idea! Give 'em a shot of sodium penthothal once a week and ask "what laws have you broken this week?"
    Excellent proposal! Should be made mandatory by law.

  7. #57
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,948
    Quote Originally Posted by Floatsflyer View Post
    Ron, I don't believe this is a problem at all as historical precedents have dealt with this issue very well in the form of the Office of the Independent Counsel and/or Special Counsel for investigations. Watergate, Bill Clinton, Enron and now Trump administration are high profile examples. Canada appoints Royal Commissions usually headed by a former Supreme Court Justice to do it's independent investigations of wrongdoing and illegal activities.
    The problem there is that Special Counsels (and probably Royal Commission) are Very Big Deals. They're complex, disruptive, and still liable to claims of political bias. They also generally take a long time, and are not conducive to deadlines (e.g., voting day). If a Special Counsel reports that Candidate XXX is unfit two weeks before the election, there'll be hell to pay and no pitch hot.

    The only alternative would be to start early...and then you'd be running a dozen or so Special Counsels in parallel to be able to cover all the candidates. And you'd STILL have the deadlines of the party conventions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dana View Post
    As for drug testing for politicians, great idea! Give 'em a shot of sodium penthothal once a week and ask "what laws have you broken this week?"
    I tend to put sodium penthathol into the same bin of tools of mythical utility as lie detectors. If sodium pentathol actually *worked*, why the big deal setting up foreign sites to physically torture Taliban prisoners? Why go though all the effort to hire sadists to run waterboarding sessions, when, supposedly, a prick of a needle will get anyone blabbing?

    Ron Wanttaja

  8. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,718
    Quote Originally Posted by rwanttaja View Post
    The problem there is that Special Counsels (and probably Royal Commission) are Very Big Deals. They're complex, disruptive, and still liable to claims of political bias. They also generally take a long time, and are not conducive to deadlines (e.g., voting day). If a Special Counsel reports that Candidate XXX is unfit two weeks before the election, there'll be hell to pay and no pitch hot.

    The only alternative would be to start early...and then you'd be running a dozen or so Special Counsels in parallel to be able to cover all the candidates. And you'd STILL have the deadlines of the party conventions.
    Ron Wanttaja
    You are very right to say that SP's deal only with Very Big Deals or as I like to point out only those events and issues that are of the highest public interest. And you point out some possible drawbacks but the positives in terms of independence, integrity, usual unimpeachable reputation of the lead investigator and the absolute least political bias possible outweighs, IMO, those limitations. Also, there is no time limit to produce findings and the budget is big to allow for the hiring of the best and brightest lawyer investigators.

  9. #59
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,718
    Quote Originally Posted by rwanttaja View Post
    In addition, the Government periodically performed a full background check, for which we had to agree to allow investigators access to certain financial and medical records. As part of that, I was once grilled about apparent spending beyond my means, and how I was able to support my lifestyle (e.g., new house, new cars, old airplane). Told them to talk to Jeff Bezos about my wife's stock options.....Ron Wanttaja
    Your wife picked the company with the best upside IMO to work for. I just read this morning that as a result of Amazon shares surging on optimism over holiday sales, Bezos saw his net worth climb to over $100 Billion as of yesterday's market close. According to Bloomberg, this is the first time the $100 Billion threshold has been crossed since Bill Gates in 1999. Time for your wife to negotiate for more options.

    Full disclosure: I own 14 shares bought 7 months ago(most I could afford at the time). Net profit is about $6K US to date or $100K Canadian :>)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •