An Appointed Leader

Post 36:


I just found this out, and am very excited (you should be too):
DIABLE 3 HAS BEEN ANNOUNCED!!!!

*MAP UPDATE*
As you can see, Obama has made some gains and taken the states of Nevada and Virginia. He has also pushed Florida into a tie. McCain on the other hand is making up ground in Ohio (one poll puts him 10 points up) and Colorado. Remember, these are outright, ignoring error. As you can tell, McCain has some serious ground to gain.

*END OF UPDATE*


So, as I was sitting at the table eating my Lucky Charms on Saturday I happened to read a letter to the editor in the Columbus Dispatch that was titled “Ohioans have the right to repeal bad laws.” Now, of course, who in their right mind disagrees with this concept? It is an inherent right of any American to petition their grievances and alter laws that they deem bad (via a vote, of course). However, that is not what threw me about this letter; what caught me off guard was the following quote:
“The nonelected attorney general's actions of slowing down the process”
Now, I want you to look at the word that I bolded in that quote. Think about it for a second. Really, this quote bugs me for three (gasp) main reasons: That is how our law works - This is a passing-the-buck situation - I didn't get my way.

This is how our law works:
Quite often people complain when a non-elected body gets to make a decision (often one that the complaining party disagrees with). The thing, however, is that our laws and even our Constitution requires it to work this way. If we have a president resign his Veep takes over, even if he was appointed later. If a justice on SCotUS dies, then he is replaced via an appointment. Our AG resigns, then he is replaced by the Governor until a special election takes place. Our system is set up in this way so that in case of emergency we can run as-is without the need of a national/statewide election. Really, this is a security measure; there is no way that any organization could run if it could not name a temporary leader until the members could get together and decide. Notice the important thing, nobody tries to change this policy, they just complain about it when they don't get their way.

This is a passing-the-buck situation:
Really, whenever anybody uses this sort of argument, they are doing it simply because they can not win any other way. When was the last time you heard somebody say “God-damned supreme court, they decided the right way but them bastards are not elected”? Never hear it? I beat that you hear all about appointed judges when the court decides the “wrong” way. That is the main problem here, these people are not taking responsibility for themselves (in the letter-writers case, probably a failure of signatures) and are blaming others. Here, they have a nice clear target in front of them.

I didn't get my way:
Really, this is the main cause of the pass the buck situations. The complainer did not get their way, so, clearly, the appointed official is in the wrong. I never have really understood this position. All of my friends know this of me: I will bitch no matter what way it goes if I think something was done wrong. Why are we all fair-weather fans in this country? What leads us to only complain when we lost, and not complain when there is bad happening. This reminds me of the idea that we will let evil happen as long as it does not affect us. News flash people: If it is wrong in one situation, it is wrong in all. Fight it in all of STFU.












As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Feel free to e-mail me if you so wish too instead.
Thanks,
Robert M. Barga,
Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
barga.24@osu.edu



Stumble It!