Just as separation of church and state is part America's founding principles to combat tyranny, so is the civilian control of the military to avoid the pernicious effect of a permanent military force, which will inevitably attempt to grow in budget and capability. The military-industrial complex cannot be trusted to regulate itself, it will look for ways to not only justify its continued existence, but also for ways to increase its power and influence.
Separation of church and state is not part of the founding principles, but I accept as true the rest of your statement. It does not, however, mean that a former military officer ought not be Secretary of Defense -- or President, or anything else. Heck, our first President was an Army General, and we've had several subsequent military officers as President. Are you saying those were unwise choices? Actually, I think it's a truism that all government offices (and all career politicians) look for ways to justify their continued existence and to increase their power. Soooo ... why single out the military to the exclusion of all other parts of the government?
Okay, since Jefferson and the 1st Amendment then. Because they kill a lot more people than other government offices, and they have the capacity to greatly decrease the security of the nation.
Separation of church and state is not part of the founding principles, but that's a tangent. We've had 12 Presidents who were Army Generals, plus others who held lesser military rank (e.g., both Bush Presidents were pilots). The Sec of Defense wasn't really discussed much in my schooling but the stats I read said approximately 7/10 have had a military background. What makes you say their military records have ever been part of any problem? Next are you going to say no military veteran should serve in a House or Senate committee overseeing anything to do with the military? But, then, wouldn't that also mean that no military veteran should serve in the House or Senate at all, because every legislator votes on the military budget every year?
I did think that military personnel had to be retired for 7 years before being appointed secretary of defence.
so here's an interesting ny times article about the bubble in coastal property in the usa. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/24/science/global-warming-coastal-real-estate.html?_r=2 i like this part of it, although there's lots to read: can't do anything about it, so as to not "spook" the market. and you see this too when politicians direct their state governments to not even mention climate change. i've seen this happening first hand. awesome, sunny day in florida...all the streets are flooded in miami beach, or boca, or ft. lauderdale. more and more of these cases are happening in cities around the coast of the state. my in-laws used to own property down there and recently my father-in-law was lamenting they sold. i told him it was the luckiest/greatest thing that ever happened to him. this is real. this is happening. the disconnect between what people are thinking and what is actually happening is a massive cognitive bubble. but sadly, those people won't get it until it kills their property values--yet another bubble.
don't worry philo. all those conservatives are just going to come up to the safety of the north and our fresh water, while demanding we bail them out. it's cool, we got gay marriage all set to go for them, legal abortion, and legal weed. liberal paradise! with fresh clean water away from the coast! booyah!
i can't wait for the inevitable, well the land and water are hurting our feelings because they insist on warming, in direct contradiction to how i vote politically. trump told me this was a hoax! and i believe him! just talk to us planet earth. if you just engage us, we will come to your side on this.
There is a big part of the Australian Liberal Party who pretty much oppose man made climate change. They are big enough and powerful enough to prevent the Prime Minister from getting away from coal based power.:bang::bang:
Saw an article about advances in attribution science today. I think this could go one of two ways: either provide the irrefutable evidence that anthropological climate change is real and we can prove it, or drive the deniers into increasingly batty conspiracy theories about how all climate scientists are involved in a secret plot to topple the brave and noble oil barons... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/yes-some-extreme-weather-can-be-blamed-on-climate-change/
Just finished the article, and that was very interesting. Didn't know they could do such things. Using early climate data, and then creating a world with out climate change and comparing weather simulations to our conditions today. I have to wonder, if we were to take Anthropogenic climate change out of the equation, would the climate still have warmed/cooled with the same pattern as Phils graph showed earlier? The only thing I can see the right attacking this is that there may be some that don't trust computer modeling at all. To which I find that utterly nonsensical as computer modeling has been used to predict all sorts of intrinsic and complex things. Me I think that kind of thing with programs are cool as heck.
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/7000-methane-bubbles-beneath-siberia/ Apparently they've discovered 7,000 methane bubbles underneath the melting Siberian permafrost. This is significant because methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Starting to see signs of the runaway global warming. Incredibly depressing really, both for the loss of biodiversity and the sheer amount of human misery this will cause.
Global warming is a hoax and a waste of taxpayers money. It's true 'cos the gub'mint told me so. (Sorry, I'm still just so depressed about the whole thing).
Of course! These guys will be relieved to hear that: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39304098
No I hear you man. Head of the EPA is disputing the role of CO2 in climate change while we defund science and attempt to hide it from the public. And people are cheering. I'm glad it's almost the weekend and I can crack open the whisky.