Questions you want answered (P&C Edition)

Executive Orders, IIRC everyone was killed down the chain to a CIA director who took over as president.

LeapingGnome wrote:

Executive Orders, IIRC everyone was killed down the chain to a CIA director who took over as president.

The new president wasn't running the CIA, he was chosen as replacement Vice President roughly 30 seconds before the President, House, Senate, and most of the Cabinet were wiped out.

As Kraint pointed out, in this case it was actually the Vice President who became President, since he managed to survive the catastrophe that destroyed the rest of the government.

Spoiler:

It was actually the end of Debt of Honor, the book prior to Executive Orders. During the joint session of Congress held to announce the new Vice President, a terrorist flew a plane into the building and killed almost everyone inside. It got brought up more than once back when 9/11 happened, since the book was published in 1994.

bnpederson wrote:

Well yes, that's the standard since the 1950s and I mentioned it in my question. I'm more curious about the extremely strange hypothetical. For example, say Romney/Ryan wins in November. Then Romney and Ryan die somehow in December, before they're sworn in; is John Boehner the de-facto POTUS come January for a full term, once Obama and Biden leave the office?

My brother suggested that, should this happen, the Electoral College would have to reconvene to choose a new President-Elect. Which makes a kind of sense.

bnpederson wrote:
bnpederson wrote:

Well yes, that's the standard since the 1950s and I mentioned it in my question. I'm more curious about the extremely strange hypothetical. For example, say Romney/Ryan wins in November. Then Romney and Ryan die somehow in December, before they're sworn in; is John Boehner the de-facto POTUS come January for a full term, once Obama and Biden leave the office?

My brother suggested that, should this happen, the Electoral College would have to reconvene to choose a new President-Elect. Which makes a kind of sense.

I actually found a link that talks about this: The Straight Dope

If they die before the Electoral College convenes, the electors can vote for whoever they want (and in fact this has happened once already, although the one who died was the loser of the election and not the winner). If they die after the College convenes... well...

The Article wrote:

The 20th Amendment says "Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified" (one of the qualifications for office presumably being that you're still breathing when you take the oath), but as far as I can tell Congress has never gotten around to so providing.

The article goes on to point out that, by technical succession, it would be the new Speaker of the House to become President, and not the old one, because Congress is sworn in two weeks before the President is. John Boehner wouldn't suddenly ascend to "President-Elect" because that's not an actual position in the line of Presidential Succession, and the offices of President and Vice President are still filled until January 20th, whereas a new Speaker would be chosen before that. Granted, it might end up being him again anyway, but it's not a given. They could even (and probably would) decide upon a specific Speaker because they know he will become President two weeks later.

The article also points out that it's possible that a deal would be made before then. Although Congress hasn't provided for that case yet, they could still do so if such an event comes to pass, and that could indeed be a law that calls for the Electoral College to convene again to determine a new President-Elect. The Constitution, however, does not currently call for it to do so - they've already convened once for that election.

I'm in a bit of a quandry over Mark Wahlberg films. I like most that I've seen, but I'm really uncomfortable with the guy's past. He teenager he was a violent racist and blinded a guy in one eye. Now, he served part of the sentence - so the argument is he's done his allocated time - but still.

It's this common question of what balance there should be between judging the art and the artist. Same with Polanski films.

Thoughts?

It's a commonplace wisdom that artists are often more or less crazy. Do you not look at van Gogh's paintings because he had a history of hurting those around him? I hear Picasso was a major asshole. Phil Spector threatened his artists with guns and eventually shot a fan to death... Are you going to cut yourself off from the hundreds of well-known groups he worked with? Tom Clancy is an arrogant jerk who, after he became wealthy, ditched his loyal wife for a younger model. There are many more examples just in the artistic world.

Mark Wahlberg is just one of many. Why single him out as especially corrupt?

I largely agree Robear. Mostly I'm able to enjoy art made by assholes, unless it's in direct contrast with their actions (like wifebeater Chris Brown singing smarmy lovesongs). But I also like to vote with my euro. If I buy a Guns'n'Roses CD, I feel like I'm enabling one of the biggest a-holes in the known galaxy. So I try not to

KingGorilla wrote:

To an extent you lessen the pressure, especially in the house, of the purpose being re-election and campaigning.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radi...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/...

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...

My argument is that costs of campaigns is the sympton, not the disease. Costs of seeking re-election has been rising for about 50 years. The time and cost has been rising in that time as well. Last year a total of 12 members of congress were present to cast a vote for all proposed measures. They fly for free.

It gets worse for federal officials seeking presidential appointment. The intent of the congressional recess was to give time to mount election campaigns, and that is not enough, so that campaigning and fund raising has to be done year round. You remove that compulsion for a last term official.

The elephant in the room here is the First Amendment. Your guys can wallpaper the airwaves with attack ads and your news channels are 24 hour rolling editorials. That's where most of the expense comes from. Political advertising on the TV or radio is illegal in the UK except for 5 minutes mandated airtime in the leadup to elections. That would torpedo the whole SuperPAC problem in one shot.

Maq wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

To an extent you lessen the pressure, especially in the house, of the purpose being re-election and campaigning.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radi...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/...

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...

My argument is that costs of campaigns is the sympton, not the disease. Costs of seeking re-election has been rising for about 50 years. The time and cost has been rising in that time as well. Last year a total of 12 members of congress were present to cast a vote for all proposed measures. They fly for free.

It gets worse for federal officials seeking presidential appointment. The intent of the congressional recess was to give time to mount election campaigns, and that is not enough, so that campaigning and fund raising has to be done year round. You remove that compulsion for a last term official.

The elephant in the room here is the First Amendment. Your guys can wallpaper the airwaves with attack ads and your news channels are 24 hour rolling editorials. That's where most of the expense comes from. Political advertising on the TV or radio is illegal in the UK except for 5 minutes mandated airtime in the leadup to elections. That would torpedo the whole SuperPAC problem in one shot.

Are you suggesting we get rid of the First Amendment? Wouldn't changing things back so that corporations aren't "people" for the purposes of speech, or that money does not equal speech, be a far less drastic step?

Robear wrote:

Why single him out as especially corrupt?

There's just something about his attack that seems particularly affecting. It suppose it's because I can't help but imagine how the guy he attacked must feel, seeing how his assailant is lauded.

I'm not saying my decision is equitable and I've taken all other artists' offences into account.

Well Maq we have an additional problem of all US broadcast being in private hands, save the emergency broadcast system. You run into a lot more issues when you start telling the channels what can and cannot get put on there politically.

It would be interesting if candidates suffered some sort of censure for their supporters. Kind of like how little leage baseball teams might lose if a parent/fan gets too rowdy.

I'm not saying my decision is equitable and I've taken all other artists' offences into account.

If you're special-casing, then why worry about it? So Wahlberg punches your buttons, so what? You're allowed to be irrational. If that's where you are with this, well, either accept it or change it. Don't *worry* about it. You know what I mean?

To be fair, rationality wouldn't put divorce in the same category as assault. It's like saying Roman Polanski is really no different than someone who doesn't go to church. That's your morality you're imposing on the artist rather than criminal behavior that 1DGaf has cited for Mark Wahlberg.

There isn't anything wrong with divorce.

Stengah wrote:
Maq wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

To an extent you lessen the pressure, especially in the house, of the purpose being re-election and campaigning.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radi...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/...

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...

My argument is that costs of campaigns is the sympton, not the disease. Costs of seeking re-election has been rising for about 50 years. The time and cost has been rising in that time as well. Last year a total of 12 members of congress were present to cast a vote for all proposed measures. They fly for free.

It gets worse for federal officials seeking presidential appointment. The intent of the congressional recess was to give time to mount election campaigns, and that is not enough, so that campaigning and fund raising has to be done year round. You remove that compulsion for a last term official.

The elephant in the room here is the First Amendment. Your guys can wallpaper the airwaves with attack ads and your news channels are 24 hour rolling editorials. That's where most of the expense comes from. Political advertising on the TV or radio is illegal in the UK except for 5 minutes mandated airtime in the leadup to elections. That would torpedo the whole SuperPAC problem in one shot.

Are you suggesting we get rid of the First Amendment? Wouldn't changing things back so that corporations aren't "people" for the purposes of speech, or that money does not equal speech, be a far less drastic step?

No need to throw it out. No country has unconstrained freedom of speech. All countries who enshrine the right still constrain the manner in which it's exercised. Right to protest is enshrined in the first amendment but that gets pretty heavily regulated. You don't even have to ban editorialising in the press, just create a broadcast equivalent of "free speech zones" for campaign ads.

Funkenpants wrote:

To be fair, rationality wouldn't put divorce in the same category as assault. It's like saying Roman Polanski is really no different than someone who doesn't go to church. That's your morality you're imposing on the artist rather than criminal behavior that 1DGaf has cited for Mark Wahlberg.

There isn't anything wrong with divorce.

Where did divorce come from in this discussion?

SixteenBlue wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:

To be fair, rationality wouldn't put divorce in the same category as assault. It's like saying Roman Polanski is really no different than someone who doesn't go to church. That's your morality you're imposing on the artist rather than criminal behavior that 1DGaf has cited for Mark Wahlberg.

There isn't anything wrong with divorce.

Where did divorce come from in this discussion?

Robear wrote:

Tom Clancy is an arrogant jerk who, after he became wealthy, ditched his loyal wife for a younger model. There are many more examples just in the artistic world.

Funkenpants wrote:

To be fair, rationality wouldn't put divorce in the same category as assault. It's like saying Roman Polanski is really no different than someone who doesn't go to church. That's your morality you're imposing on the artist rather than criminal behavior that 1DGaf has cited for Mark Wahlberg.

There isn't anything wrong with divorce.

Which is your morality. I agree with you, just pointing out that you're also making a moral statement. For some people, getting a divorce just to have a young trophy wife is also wrong. In some places it's not legal.

Funkenpants wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:

To be fair, rationality wouldn't put divorce in the same category as assault. It's like saying Roman Polanski is really no different than someone who doesn't go to church. That's your morality you're imposing on the artist rather than criminal behavior that 1DGaf has cited for Mark Wahlberg.

There isn't anything wrong with divorce.

Where did divorce come from in this discussion?

Robear wrote:

Tom Clancy is an arrogant jerk who, after he became wealthy, ditched his loyal wife for a younger model. There are many more examples just in the artistic world.

Ah missed that. I was reading divorce vs assault as Polanski vs Wahlberg and very confused. Sorry about that.

Stengah wrote:

Which is your morality. I agree with you, just pointing out that you're also making a moral statement. For some people, getting a divorce just to have a young trophy wife is also wrong. In some places it's not legal.

Divorce isn't a crime outside outdated laws which aren't enforced. It's not even viewed as immoral by society, based on how widespread it is. It's not like assault and child rape, which are crimes everywhere.

Funkenpants wrote:
Stengah wrote:

Which is your morality. I agree with you, just pointing out that you're also making a moral statement. For some people, getting a divorce just to have a young trophy wife is also wrong. In some places it's not legal.

Divorce isn't a crime outside outdated laws which aren't enforced. It's not even viewed as immoral by society, based on how widespread it is. It's not like assault and child rape, which are crimes everywhere.

It is a crime in some places, just not in the US. It is viewed as immoral by parts of society, even in the US, just because they're in the minority doesn't mean they don't exist. Assault and child rape* aren't crimes everywhere.

* Nearly everywhere, sure, but even then, different societies have different definitions.

Wahlberg and others get a pass from me for doing stupid stuff as kids, especially if context plays into it (poor, bad neighborhood, absentee parent, etc).

There are very few entertainers that I'll actively avoid due to their antics. Not because I'm extra forgiving, but because I don't feel like expending the effort. Besides, one's entertainment options would be extremely limited if one avoided all the people who have done bad things.

Stengah wrote:

It is a crime in some places, just not in the US. It is viewed as immoral by parts of society, even in the US, just because they're in the minority doesn't mean they don't exist. Assault and child rape* aren't crimes everywhere.

Maybe so, but the two people who were engaged in the question both hail from modern anglo-based societies, and in questioning the inclusion of divorce in Robear's list of examples, I did so from within the same culture and moral system. There's a lack of internal consistency there.

Divorce might have been considered immoral once, but as a society we have moved past that outside some people who hold to old ways. It's no different than suggesting that Oscar Wilde be included in the list because he engaged in sodomy. There are still people who believe that homosexuality is a wrong, but we wouldn't raise that in the same breathe with sleeping with a child these days.

Maq wrote:

No need to throw it out. No country has unconstrained freedom of speech. All countries who enshrine the right still constrain the manner in which it's exercised. Right to protest is enshrined in the first amendment but that gets pretty heavily regulated. You don't even have to ban editorialising in the press, just create a broadcast equivalent of "free speech zones" for campaign ads.

We wouldn't need to regulate the speech if we actually regulated the funding. If they weren't allowed to raise or use campaign funds except in a small window, or if there were a cap on them way below what is spent today, then it wouldn't be so much of a problem, right?

Not that that's going to happen.

Funkenpants wrote:
Stengah wrote:

It is a crime in some places, just not in the US. It is viewed as immoral by parts of society, even in the US, just because they're in the minority doesn't mean they don't exist. Assault and child rape* aren't crimes everywhere.

Maybe so, but the two people who were engaged in the question both hail from modern anglo-based societies, and in questioning the inclusion of divorce in Robear's list of examples, I did so from within the same culture and moral system. There's a lack of internal consistency there.

Divorce might have been considered immoral once, but as a society we have moved past that outside some people who hold to old ways. It's no different than suggesting that Oscar Wilde be included in the list because he engaged in sodomy. There are still people who believe that homosexuality is a wrong, but we wouldn't raise that in the same breathe with sleeping with a child these days.

That it's not consistent from your cultural and moral perspective isn't the question, it's whether it's consistent for the person who is deciding whether or not they can allow themselves to enjoy the artist's work. If a person thinks [activity] is immoral, it's rational for them to not want to be seen as supporting an artist who has participated in [activity]. Whether [activity] is immoral or not is entirely subjective.

Stengah wrote:

That it's not consistent from your cultural and moral perspective isn't the question, it's whether it's consistent for the person who is deciding whether or not they can allow themselves to enjoy the artist's work.

Yes, if somebody considers child molestation and divorce to be equally corrupt, they will need to decide if they can read enjoy that work. However, our culture, which is not an individual entity but a collective one, does not see those two acts as comparable.

I was not using divorce as illegal or a measure of immorality, but rather of character, just like racism. Many divorces happen for reasons of genuine incompatibility.

Funkenpants wrote:
Stengah wrote:

That it's not consistent from your cultural and moral perspective isn't the question, it's whether it's consistent for the person who is deciding whether or not they can allow themselves to enjoy the artist's work.

Yes, if somebody considers child molestation and divorce to be equally corrupt, they will need to decide if they can read enjoy that work. However, our culture, which is not an individual entity but a collective one, does not see those two acts as comparable.

There are large groups within our culture that do see divorce and assault as comparable. There are some that see divorce as worse than assault (of some kinds).

Demyx wrote:
Maq wrote:

No need to throw it out. No country has unconstrained freedom of speech. All countries who enshrine the right still constrain the manner in which it's exercised. Right to protest is enshrined in the first amendment but that gets pretty heavily regulated. You don't even have to ban editorialising in the press, just create a broadcast equivalent of "free speech zones" for campaign ads.

We wouldn't need to regulate the speech if we actually regulated the funding. If they weren't allowed to raise or use campaign funds except in a small window, or if there were a cap on them way below what is spent today, then it wouldn't be so much of a problem, right?

Not that that's going to happen.

Funny thing, I've asked people who support the Corporate Spending = Free Speech line of thought how restricting campaign ads within a month of Election Day is any different from restricting campaigning within howevermany yards of voting booths, and was met with deafening silence.

Also, don't support the movies of those who you don't want to support.

This page really gave me whiplash.

So to answer his question. It is OK to dislike Mark Wahlberg because he stabbed a guy?