text:
Welcome to University Facilities & Capital Planning
UFCP is responsible for the repair, maintenance, replacement, support services, design and construction of all Rutgers University buildings, grounds and infrastructure. Our area of operation encompasses more than 1,000 buildings representing 27 million square feet across the state of New Jersey—from farm structures to high-tech research, medical and clinical facilities. We are committed to serving the university community by providing the appropriate environments for living, learning, teaching and working, all in support of the university's mission and goals.
Is something broken in your office, lab or classroom? Submit an on-line Service Request and we will come and fix it. You can check on its status too.
With physical assets exceeding $8 billion, we take preventive maintenance seriously. All mechanical building systems are inventoried and maintained at prescribed frequencies, extending their life cycles.
Our 160 residential buildings provide housing for 17,000 students from all over the United States and all around the world. Each campus offers first rate choices ranging from traditional dormitories to apartment style units complete with kitchen and laundry facilities.
Did you receive funding to redesign an existing lab, office, classroom or student space? To start the process, submit a Project Request Form. We ensure that all designs are supported by the building infrastructure and that the design will comply with university design standards.
We build energy efficient and sustainable designed buildings which conform and often exceed the State of New Jersey energy mandates and guidelines. Our new facilities meet a minimum rating of LEED Silver certifications and are always built to meet the pedagogical programmatic needs of the academic disciplines occupying the space. Understanding Capital Planning process or CPAC will start this process.
I Want To...
Interruption NotificationUpdated: Apr 02, 2015
University Facilities & Capital Planning has a new Facebook page! "Like" us and you will receive our postings.
Physical Master Plan presented to the Rutgers Board of Governors, February 3, 2015.
Get the results of the annual Recyclemania contest here!


text:
Maximum Customer Directed New Construction incentive per year: up to 65% of a project's cost, or $500,000 of Public Benefit funds per year
If building meets LEED criteria and exceeds Title 24 energy requirements by at least 10 percent, customer can get a rebate of up to $47,500.
New Construction (must exceed Title 24 Standards by at least 10%): $0.15 - $0.45/kWh saved, varies by the extent to which the building exceeds Title 24
LEED Qualification: Up to $47,500
Custom Measures: $0.06 - $0.15/kWh saved
Data Center Measures: $0.02 - $0.08/kwh saved
Central A/C: $80 - $100/ton
Heat Pump: $80 - $100/ton
Commercial Washing Machine: up to $400/unit
Ice Machines: $300 - $500 per unit
Vending Machine Controller: $120
Commercial Refrigerators: $75 - $225
Commercial Freezers: $100 - $500
Insulated Cabinets: $200 - $300
Electric Cooking Appliances: $200 - $1,000
Electric Steam Cooker: $750
ECM Motor for Walk-in Freezer
Lighting: $3.50 - $50/lamp, up to $175 per fixture
Lighting Controls: $15 - $44/sensor
LED Exit Signs: $27
PC Units Configured: $15
Silicon Valley Power (SVP) offers a variety rebates to its business customers, capped at a maximum total incentive of $500,000 per customer per year. Rebates are available for the following:
HVAC systems
Commercial Washing Machines
Food Service Equipment
Data Center and PC Measures
In addition, Customer Directed Rebates are available for energy efficiency related projects that decrease electrical usage and may not otherwise fit into the other rebate offers. Rebate application forms, program guidelines, and equipment specifications may be found on the web site listed above. Contact SVP for any other information on this program.
Review the application forms on the program web site for equipment requirements.
Efficient electrical equipment installed in facilities served by the City of Santa Clara's Silicon Valley Power is eligible for a rebate.
New Construction must exceed TITLE 24 by 10%

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Manuscript Highlights
Territorial Incorporation Records
View scans of Incorporation Records for Oklahoma and Indian Territories 1890-1907.
Joseph Thoburn Collection
American Indian Archives Collection
Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce Collection
Manuscript Archives
1800-present (bulk 1890-1945)
The manuscript archives include paper items created by businesses or individuals. Some collections contain documents of a personal nature and some were generated from a specific business or industry. The types of items are: letters, diaries, and scrapbooks, personal memoirs, biographies, business records and ledgers, research for books and articles, drafts of books and articles. Ephemera such as advertisements, brochures for events or organizations and travel memorabilia are also found. Oversize collections include architectural renderings and plans, maps, posters and certificates. The manuscript archives contain over 2,500 collections ranging in size from 1 item to 75 boxes or more. Spanning over 1,000 linear feet of shelf space, the collection contains near 1,500,000 pages.
Search Manuscript Archives
More information and a complete listing of collections can be found in the Archives section of the online catalog. To find out more about searching the Manuscripts Archive see the Manuscripts Search Guide (PDF).
Document Retrieval
The holdings of the Manuscript Archives are non-circulating and must be viewed in the Research Center. Finding Aids for manuscript materials are available by searching our online catalog. Manuscript materials can be requested in the Library for viewing Monday-Friday 10:00 am - 4:00 pm. Requests for materials to be viewed on Saturday must be made in advance.
If you are traveling to the Oklahoma History Center for a research visit you are encouraged to contact the Manuscript Archivist in advance of your trip. OHS staff will prepare materials in advance of your visit when you contact us and provide the date and time of your arrival, and the collection and box numbers of the materials you wish to view.
Handling manuscript items in the Library requires the use of cotton gloves, which are provided. No bags, purses, or computer cases are allowed in the viewing room. Lockers are available free of charge to stow your personal items. You may take a notebook or laptop into the viewing room for note-taking. No ink pens or markers are allowed; pencils are provided. There is a photocopy machine for self-service copying in the viewing room, copies are 20 cents per page and can be paid for with cash or credit card at the Library reference desk.
The use of digital cameras without a flash is permitted in the Library and the viewing room without a fee. The use of flatbed scanners and wand scanners is prohibited. Requests for duplications can be accepted during your visit and will be made for you by OHS staff for .25 cents per page. We cannot guarantee immediate duplication services, duplications may be mailed or delivered electronically within 1 week of your visit.
Please see the visitor info page for more details. Orders for copies of records will be filled as they are received, see Orders section below.
Orders & Fees
Materials from the Manuscript Archives are available for duplication either by photocopy or digital scan. Requests for copies can be made in person, by phone or email, or on our website. The collection number, name, and box and folder numbers are required for duplication requests to be processed. Duplications can be delivered by postal mail or electronically. See the Orders & Fees page for the duplication costs.
A general request for research can also be made for OHS staff to research our collections on your topic. See the Orders & Fees page for the cost of this service. Research requests are filled in the order they are received and may take up to 4 weeks to process. OHS staff will research your topic within our library and archival materials for up to 2 hours and submit to you a page count of materials available for duplication. The research fee includes 20 pages of duplications, any pages in addition are 25 cents per page. All duplications are approved by you before any additional fee is incurred.
The Manuscript Archives accepts original documents such as letters or business files. Please see the OHS Collection Policy for specific details. Donations containing multiple formats such as photographs, film, or audio, are welcome as a complete donation. The Manuscript Archives does not accept duplicate copies of publications, copies of materials held by other libraries or archives, or records of people or events in other states or countries.
Contact the Manuscript Archives
Inquiries regarding manuscript collections should be directed to:
Manuscript Archivist
(405) 522-0876
- What does the term "manuscript" mean? I thought it was for book publishing?
The term manuscript is also a literary name for a work submitted for publishing, but the usage for the archives is:
"any text in handwriting or typescript (including printed forms completed by hand or typewriter) which may or may not be part of a collection of such texts. Examples of manuscripts are letters, diaries, ledgers, minutes, speeches, marked or corrected galley or page proofs, manuscript books, and legal papers."
Defined by: Hensen, Steven L. "Archives, Personal Papers, and Manuscripts: A Cataloging Manual for Archival Repositories, Historical Societies, and Manuscript Libraries" – 2nd ed. (Society of American Archivists, 1989).
- I have a bunch of old letters between my parents or grandparents. They weren't famous - would the OHS still want them?
Yes, the OHS archives are dedicated to preserving and sharing the history of all people in Oklahoma, not just those who were well known. The stories of everyday life in Oklahoma, during any time period, are worth preserving.
- If I donate something to the archives, can I or my family members come see it later?
Yes, all materials donated to the OHS are property of the State of Oklahoma and therefore are public record. There is never a fee for visiting our library and archives to view materials.
Preservation Tips
Keeping family treasures on paper is easy if you follow a few basic guidelines:
- Do not store your paper items in a shed or out building
- Do not store your paper items in direct sunlight
- Do not laminate your paper items
If you wish to have an item on display, have it scanned and print a color copy for framing. You can also visit a framing store to discuss various options using protective glass. Ask for UV protective or museum quality glass.
For more information please see these online resources:
- National Archives http://www.archives.gov/preservation/family-archives/
- Library of Congress http://www.loc.gov/preservation/family/
- Northeast Document Conservation Center http://www.nedcc.org/resources/family.php
- Oklahoma Cultural Heritage Trust http://www.culturalheritagetrust.org
Manuscript Highlights
The holdings of the Manuscript Archives are diverse in content, collections range from personal letters sent home during wartime, legal records of land disputes following land openings, diaries of missionaries, meeting minutes and ephemera from local philanthropic or ancestral clubs, and much more. The following are only a few examples of the many valuable papers found in the unique holdings.
Joseph Thoburn Collection 1986.01
The papers of Joseph Thoburn span 1900-1941 and contain voluminous correspondence of this prominent Oklahoma City civic leader and curator of the Oklahoma Historical Society. In 1908 Thoburn published the first text adopted by the State of Oklahoma as a history textbook. Manuscripts of other books and various articles authored by Thoburn are also included. Thoburn was instrumental in the founding of the OHS publication, The Chronicles of Oklahoma, which continues to be issued today.
Thoburn's work also included a dedicated interest in Native peoples; he worked with archeologists to discover and protect the rich resources of the Spiro Mounds in eastern Oklahoma. Thoburn also worked closely with Muriel Wright; much correspondence between the pair can be found in his papers.
Here are some examples of the documents in the Joseph Thoburn Collection. You can explore the complete inventory of the Thoburn Collection on the Online Catalog.
This letter from famed anthropologist and Native studies enthusiast George Bird Grinnell discusses Thoburn's work and interests in the mounds of eastern Oklahoma. Dated February 1914.
This correspondence between Thoburn and Muriel Wright is indicative of their close professional relationship. The letter from Thoburn discusses the construction of the Wiley Post Historical Building to house the Oklahoma Historical Society. Dated January 1927.
This manuscript is a typescript draft of Thoburn's work, "The Northern Caddoan Peoples of Prehistoric Times and the Human Origin of the Natural Mounds, so called, of Oklahoma and Neighboring States." Dated 1930.
American Indian Archives Collection
The most unique collection in the Manuscript Archives is the American Indian Archives Collection. Containing over 800 linear feet of records, the American Indian Archives records include three major divisions:
- Records of Executive, Legislative, & Judicial branches of the Five Civilized Tribes: Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Muscogee (Creek) & Seminole
Dating approximately from 1850 to 1910, these materials generated by the tribal governments include census records, accounts of legislative sessions, court dockets, correspondence, election records, treasurer's records, materials relating to land allotment and leases, and school records.
- Records of the Dawes Commission, including: citizenship, town site petitions, leases and correspondence
- Records of the Tribal Agencies representing tribes removed to Oklahoma & Indian Territories: agency funds, land distribution, correspondence with U.S. Federal Government, schools
Researchers should note that each agency may include multiple sub-agencies which served the people of numerous different tribes. The majority of these records date from post-Civil War to the late 1920s, and cover subjects including accounts, agents, agricultural leases, allotments, cattle, census, claims, correspondence, employees, estates, funds, individual Indian files, individual Indian money files, minerals, property, railroads, schools and more.
- Cheyenne and Arapaho Agency
- Kiowa, Comanche & Apache Agency
- Wichita & Affiliated Bands sub-agency including Caddo, Delaware, Keechi, Tawakoni and Waco
- Pawnee Agency
- Ponca sub-agency
- Otoe-Missouria, Tonkawa, Nez Perce
- Quapaw Agency
- Includes Eastern Shawnee, Seneca-Cayuga, Wyandot, Ottawa, Miami, Modoc and Peoria with some Wea & Piankashaw records
- Sac and Fox Agency
- Includes Absentee Shawnee sub-agency - Potawatomi and Mexican Kickapoo
Portions of the American Indian Archives have been microfilmed and can be accessed as well as copied in the Reading Room. Please see the Microfilm Catalog for a complete listing.
To learn more about the American Indian Archives, see:
- Full Description of the American Indian Archives
- Tribal census records on microfilm
- History of the Dawes Commission
- Index to the Dawes Final Rolls
- Index to the 1896 Applications for Enrollment
- Summary of American Indian Holdings
- Sources for information about Freedmen
- American Indian Tribes with headquarters in Oklahoma
- Removal of Tribes to Oklahoma
Below is a sampling of documents from the Indian Archives Collection.
These records are from the file of Josephine Yellowhair; the correspondence discusses her attendance at Chilocco Indian School. Dated 1926.
These are examples of documents from the Cherokee Nation Records Court files. Dated 1881.
This letter to the US Indian Agent from the US Department of the Interior allows for the sale of a tract of allotted land in order to incorporate it into the Tulsa town site. The letter is accompanied by a plat map showing the land in question and an appraisal. Dated 1908.
This letter to the US Indian Agent from the US Department of the Interior is an example of the correspondence regarding land claims and allotment disputes. Dated 1879.
Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce 2000.44
The Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce Collection contains records from 1897 to 1988.
In 1923, Chamber Managing Director Stanley Draper required that each division save the most important of its materials that reflected the year's activities and accomplishments. He directed that these be bound into books. In addition, records dating back to 1897 were also bound. Thus, in 1923, the physical arrangement of the collection was basically established, that is, each division having its own series of record books, compiled annually. The arrangement has been maintained since that time, with the addition of new divisions when created, or deleted when disbanded or absorbed. In 1948, the Public Relations Division became responsible for collecting and arranging for binding the records. The Chamber also maintained an in-house lending library of the bound volumes, which were used by staff and occasionally by members of the public. Chamber officials used the materials in the preparation of reports, news releases, and historical overviews. – excerpt by Dianna Everett
The historic records are bound into volumes by Division and contain:
- Proceedings: Executive Committee of Board of Directors Minutes; Executive Committee of Division Minutes; Committee Minutes; Subcommittee Minutes; Agendas; Resolutions; Membership Lists; Attendance Records; Reports (typescript and published); Annual Reports of Divisions; and Committee Reports.
- Correspondence: Incoming/outgoing letters; postcards; memos; telegrams.
- Printed Material: circulars, invitations; chamber-produced brochures, booklets, and annual reports; Economic Development Reports (annual) and plans for coming year; promotional publications; tickets; certificates; programs; news clippings; books and booklets produced by outside entities.
- Literary Productions: scripts, speeches, news releases
- Photographic Material: positive prints, b/w and color
- Legal Documents: contracts, deeds, agreements, articles of incorporation
- Financial Documents: statements, checks, invoices, receipts, ledger pages, audits
A complete listing of all volumes and their contents can be found on the Online Catalog. The OKC Chamber of Commerce continues to build their collection by contributing annual reports, membership directories, press releases and the Chamber newsletter, "The Point".
The pages below are from Volume Ab4, The Greater Oklahoma City Movement, 1932.
The first page gives an introduction to the volume.
The envelope seen here was used to mail the ballot for Chamber members to vote on proposed projects for the year. You can see Stanley Draper's notes on the envelope about the design.
This is a booster newsletter from January 1932, distributed to those assisting the Chamber in raising funds for their efforts.
This is a booklet, pasted onto a page in the volume, which contains a report from the divisions of the Chamber on their work for the year 1931.


text:
Jun 8, 2007
"Building Robots with LEGO MINDSTORMS NXT": A Review
One of the book's strong suits is its non-intimidating style. The book is easy to understand and follow, with clear explanations throughout.
Beginners will appreciate the primer on NXT's basic elements: sensors, motors and Technic parts. Beginners will also appreciate the book's overview of building techniques, including an in-depth examination of NXT gearing.
Advanced users will enjoy the chapter on pneumatics, and the brief but fun chapter on building Sumo robots. Both beginners and advanced users will appreciate the chapter on building animals, as well as the chapter on building robots that walk.
There are no complete building instructions in the book, which is probably deliberate. The book focuses on construction principles and design theory, leaving it to the reader to design their own creations. That said, there are a few design ideas offered to get the reader started.
The chapter on programming is only an overview, without detailed instructions. A more in-depth look at NXT-G would have been helpful for the beginner. However, there are brief overviews of RobotC, NBC, pbLUA and LeJOS NXJ for the advanced user.
All in all, the book is a great reference work, especially for those new to the NXT. Teachers will be able to adapt the material for classroom use as well.
7 comments:
Thanks for the comments on the book. A comment to the note about building instructions:
A: Yes, one of the goals for the update to Mario / Guilio's original (MINDSTORS RCX) work was to keep with a similar approach - which included not adding specific building instructions. This was done because we wanted to focus in everything NXT, and not on just instructions.
That said, some chapters do include building instructions for a few robots to get the ideas flowing. Most others are in-depth expantions on various subjects related to the NXT - and with many pictures.
Dave Astolfo (Tech Editor / Lead Author)
- Jun 8, 2007, 8:35:00 AM
What is our opinion of how the book turned out? This project made me nervous because of how it shirttails on one of the best LEGO books ever.
Is it worthy of the name?
Dean Hystad
- Jun 8, 2007, 8:47:00 AM
- Maniac of Mayhem said...
If it's anything like the RCX edition, I'm sure it will be superb. Now I just have to decide, this book... or theNXTstep Idea book?
- Jun 8, 2007, 9:14:00 AM
Manic - get this one.
- Jun 8, 2007, 2:45:00 PM
- Rick Rhodes said...
Actually, I see the two books as complimentary. (How's THAT for straddling a fence!) :-)
The NXT Step Idea book coming out this summer has an introduction to the NXT, along with several theory chapters. It has detailed, step-by-step building instructions for nine robots. It also has detailed programming instructions for these nine robots, using NXT-G.
So, buy ONE book yourself; then ask your friends/family to get you the OTHER book for a gift. :-)
- Jun 9, 2007, 6:27:00 AM
okay so I got this book and I'm not sure what to say. I like some of the ideas in the book but I can't build the ones I want cause there are no instructions! The title says building robots but I can't build them!!!!!
okay I'll calm down now :P I do like some of the book but I would of preferred more robot plans and programs to experment with.
- Jun 24, 2007, 9:45:00 AM
Do you have an ebook version of it??
- Jan 16, 2008, 2:17:00 AM


text:
Wedgwood® Barbie® Doll
Second in a series that celebrates the elegance and exquisite artistry of Wedgwood china, Barbie® doll looks stunning in a gorgeous pastel pink ensemble. Her full-length pink taffeta gown is embellished with delicate white floral embroidery and complemented by a pretty white petticoat. Inspired by the famous Wedgwood porcelain designs, her dress is decorated with two white bows in front and a graceful train in back. Long white evening gloves and simple pearl drop earrings set off the ensemble to perfection. To make this doll even more special, she comes with a real piece of Wedgwood Jasper™ wear—a miniature cameo captured in a lace-trimmed choker necklace.
Wedgwood is a registered trademark of Wedgwood Limited Barlaston, Stoke-on-Trent, England. The color Wedgwood blue is a registered trademark of Wedgwood Ltd.
Production doll may vary from the photo shown above. Mattel reserves the right to modify the fashion/fabrics, sculpt, hair color/style, and accessories. Doll cannot stand alone as shown.


text:
Your shopping bag is empty.
Don't Miss Out..Sign up to receive updates on our newest collections, exclusive offers, and receive 10% off your first order!
only left in this size
AG-ed jeans combine the laid-back look of yesteryear with AG's jean making expertise of now. Updated with modern fabrics and styled with flattering fits, AG-ed denim is an ode to vintage, emulating naturally aged denim ranging from 1 to 30 years old. From subtle rips to crafty patches, the higher the number, the lighter and more distressed the jean. A pair of AG-ed jeans is as close as you can get to that unique vintage flea market find. Tailored leg. A relaxed waistline, anchored by a tailored leg. Constructed in grey Italian denim with comfort stretch, this 5-pocket style is a sophisticated alternative to the everyday blue jean. Subtle whiskering and three-dimensional wrinkling at back knee deliver a softly broken-in appearance to the faded 6 Years Trance wash. Detailed with tonal stitching, zip fly, and single-button closure.
FINAL SALE - cannot be returned or exchanged. No price adjustments.


text:
Resources to learn more
Contact information
Cardinal Health
7000 Cardinal Place
Dublin, OH 43017
- 614.757.5000
Did you know?
- 12 to 17 year olds abuse prescription drugs more than they abuse ecstasy, crack/cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine combined
www.drugfree.org - Partnership for a Drug Free America
- Among 12- and 13-year-olds, prescription drugs are the drug of choice.
www.theantidrug.com National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2006. Office of Applied Studies
- 4 out of 5 of the most-abused narcotics in high schools are prescription drugs.
www.drugfree.org - Partnership for a Drug Free America
- 40% of teens surveyed believed that prescription and over-the-counter medications are safer to use than illegal drugs.
www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp - The Office of National Drug Control Policy
- There are more deaths from overdoses of prescription opiod painkillers than from cocaine and heroin.
www.drugfree.org - The Partnership for a Drug Free America
Websites for parents
- www.getsmartaboutdrugs.com - sponsored by the Drug Enforcement Administration
- www.theantidrug.com - Parents. The anti-drug.
- www.drugfree.org/notinmyhouse - The Partnership for a Drug Free America
- www.compdrug.org/prescription.htm - provided by Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)
- www.teendrugabuse.us/prescription_drug_abuse.html - sponsored by Teen Help
- Drug Guide by Slang
The Partnership for a Drug-Free America
- Pharming: The Lingo of Teen Prescription Drug Abuse
Not In My House
Websites for teens
- www.justthinktwice.com - sponsored by the Drug Enforcement Administration
- www.freevibe.com
- kidshealth.org/teen/drug_alcohol/drugs/prescription_drug_abuse.html - part of www.kidsshealth.org through the Nemours Foundation
General resource websites
- www.usdoj.gov/dea/resources/drug_prevention.html - links to resources sponsored by the Drug Enforcement Administration
- www.nida.nih.gov - National Institute on Drug Abuse
- www.acde.org - American Council for Drug Education
- www.drugfree.com
- www.Treatment4Addiction.com – An online directory of recovery resources such as sober livings, treatment centers, and therapists throughout the country
Articles and stories on teen prescription drug abuse
- Pharmacists join in abuse fight
- DEA Press Release: The Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008, including teen prescription drug abuse statistics
- Prescription drug mills contribute to increases in overdoses
- Today Show segment
- Campaign targets teen prescription drug abuse
- Downward Trend in Teen Marijuana Use Slows; Prescription Drug Abuse Remains High
- Generation Rx: National Study Confirms Abuse of Prescription and Over-the-Counter Drugs
- Monitoring the Future Study: Prescription drug abuse among teens remains steady, even as illicit drug use wanes; Clio area schools make preparations to tackle problem


text:
Dotsie wrote:And wasn't there a reference in Interesting Times to him wearing glasses?
Cohen calls him four eyes in Interesting Times
Moderators: Tonyblack, Jason, Toothy
Dotsie wrote:And wasn't there a reference in Interesting Times to him wearing glasses?
Welcome to the site, J.S. Lopes!J.S. Lopes wrote:In Brazilian Portuguese translation , Twoflower is called "four eyed", but I think translator didn't catch the real sense (in Brazil it's also use this pejorative expression four-eyed for people with glasses) due the influence of Josh Kirby's art. Josh also depicted Rincewind as an old-aged white-bearded man, while in the book he's clearly described as a 20 to 30-year-old nerdish guy.
That was the thing. When Terry wrote the book he said that Twoflower had four eyes - but what he actually meant was he was wearing glasses. Remember the people in A-M hadn't seen glasses at this point. Josh Kirby took the description literally when he did the cover.author3 wrote:I always imagined him four eyed but then I saw the movie and now I picture him with glasses uugh
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


text:
HEAD Junior Speed 21 Tennis Racquet
Item # 19489606
|Eligible for Free Shipping, No Minimum! (see promotion details)
|Members of The League get 5% back when you spend $100! (see promotion details)
Product Details
Help young players get into the game with a HEAD® junior Speed 21 tennis racquet. Weighing just 6.3 ounces, it's pre-strung and wrapped with a 3 5/8-inch grip for optimal hand comfort and less vibration upon impact. The oversized 107 square-inch head encourages more contact with the ball to build up a beginners' confidence; it's recommended for kids ages 4 to 6.
Get your new HEAD® tennis racquet today from Sports Authority.
- Pre-strung tennis racquet
- Recommended for kids ages 4 to 6
- Grip Size: 3 5/8 inches
- Weight: 6.3 ounces
- Beam: 19 millimeters
- Head Size: 107 square inches
- Length: 21 inches


text:
This product contains Tinnevelly Senna (Leaf). Read and follow directions carefully. Do not use if you have or develop diarrhea, loose stools or abdominal pain because Senna may worsen these conditions and be harmful to your health. Consult your physician if you have frequent diarrhea or if you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication or have a medical condition.
The color of tea may vary slightly due to the natural herbs.


text:
Skip to main content, skip to search, or skip to the top of the page.
The Michigan State Law curriculum embodies a 21st-century approach to legal education, with expanded opportunities for practical skill development. The required curriculum includes 32 credits, with 29 taken during the first year of enrollment. The 1L curriculum includes:
Fall Semester (15 credits total)
Civil Procedure I (4 credits)
Contracts (4 credits)
Foundations of Law (0 credits)
Lawyers & Ethics (1 credit, 1/2 semester)
Research, Writing, and Analysis (2 credits)
Torts I (4 credits)
Spring Semester (14 credits total)
Advocacy (2 credits)
Constitutional Law I (2 credits)
Contract Negotiation (1 credit)
Criminal Law (3 credits)
Property (4 credits)
Regulatory State (2 credits)
Students begin their legal education at MSU Law during Immersion Week, a mandatory component of the 1L program. Students take their first required 1L course, Foundations of Law, during the week. Lawyers & Ethics recently was added to the first-year curriculum to ease the transition to law school by allowing 1Ls to experience their first exam and learn useful test preparation strategies midway through the semester. To complement students' emerging knowledge of the substantive law, all first-year schedules include Research, Writing, and Analysis and Advocacy—intensive courses that develop some of the most critical skill areas for beginning lawyers.
Upper-level course requirements include successful completion of Professional Responsibility (3 credits); an upper-level writing requirement (ULWR), which ensures that every Law College graduate has experience researching, analyzing, and writing about legal issues on an in-depth level; and at least one professional skills course in trial and appellate advocacy, alternative dispute resolution, counseling, interviewing, negotiating, problem solving, factual investigation, organization and management of legal work, or drafting.
Skip to main content, skip to search, or skip to the top of the page.


text:
Stores »
I think this scarf is wonderful and would make a great gift.
We are a community of shoppers sharing our best finds from across the web.
© 2015 ThisNext, Inc. ThisNext is a member of BUZZMEDIA Entertainment, a division of BUZZMEDIA.
Create your own free digital magazine at our new site Glossi.com


text:
No properties found
- News feed
- Find us on Facebook
Droitwich Advertiser
Like us on Facebook
No properties found
Property for sale
Sorry, we couldn't find any properties in Park Farm Industrial Estate, Redditch, Worcestershire matching your criteria. See all 21 properties in this area, search again, or use one of the links below.
Local Advertisers


text: as for as giving a proper review for shows- i just have not had the time. And that includes reviews for all the efeds show i read. But will say i really enjoyed the show, as always, the matches and promos were well done and i was glad to see another Tamina promo as she really has not had many. The only thing i can find as a negative- some of the colors used for text- but thats about all. Grade- A


text:
In 2010, the first thing that Darksiders did was to destroy the world. It brought on the Apocalypse reserving players a front row seat as one of the Four Horsemen. Humanity was dead, and War was on the march.
Fueled by the vision of comics industry veteran, Joe Madureira, and his team at Vigil Games, it took the charred building blocks of a Biblical end and gleefully twisted them into a vast adventure battling through the aftermath as angels and demons fought over the bones of what was left. But like any good story, there's always more to tell. And like any good sequel, there's always more than one way to improve on the original.
Continue reading


text:
Boutique Luxury Inns
See Blog or Facebook
for Details
Enter to Win
ASPIRING INNKEEPER WORKSHOP - JULY 17 - 19, 2014, WEST PALM BEACH, FL See Details: REGISTER HERE
Choose Your Own Path.(Video) Plan your escape to one of Florida's Finest Bed and Breakfast Inns, here at florida-inns.com, your source for B&B travel information in the Sunshine State!
Whether you're searching for a historic bed and breakfast nestled beneath the moss-draped boughs of an ancient live oak, or a romantic inn just steps from the beach, you'll find it here. Representing more than 100 Bed and Breakfast Inns throughout Florida, FBBI insures each one meets or exceeds the highest standards for quality, cleanliness and service in the industry.
Florida Wedding LocationsBed and Breakfasts make a great location for an intimate wedding or reception. View B&Bs in Florida that have on-site wedding facilities.
From Tampa to Tallahassee, the Keys to the Panhandle, St. Augustine to the Everglades or Disney World to Duval Street, Florida Bed & Breakfast Inns offer you the best of Florida, and the best of Florida hospitality. Travelers who choose bed and breakfast inns know the secret... visiting B&B Inns offers unmatched hospitality paired with today's modern conveniences in a welcoming environment. Florida's Bed and Breakfast Inns are unlike any hotel in the world.
"FBBI CARES" How to submit your story
Florida Bed and Breakfast Inns (FBBI) has lots of heart give-a-way. FBBI will award a two-night stay for two, including a complimentary Breakfast for two, at a participating Florida Bed and Breakfast Inn to someone who you feel is deserving. Nominate someone who is near and dear to you (Not Yourself) and tell us their story. Tell us why this person is deserving and special to you in 200 words or less. When you feel a heart connection, it's a very special thing.
Beginning: February 22, 2015
Ending: April 22, 2015
1. Like us on Facebook
2. Winner must give permission to Florida Bed and Breakfast Inns to Tell Your Story
Fine Print:
No Cash Value – not redeemable for cash
Two Night Stay must be consecutive two nights
Based on Availability at participating Inns
Not all Member Inns are participating. See list below for participating Inns.
Cannot be used during Black Out periods and Special Events according to participating Inns.
Must guarantee reservation with credit card and give date of award.
Award Reservation will be coordinated through FBBI Office
Must be used within 1 year from date of award.
All policies of participating Inn apply.
Valid ID required at Check In
Award cannot be transferred to another.
Participating Inns:
Victorian House, St. Augustine
St. Francis Inn, St. Augustine
Hampton Lake, Starke
1872 John Denham House, Monticello
Florida Bed and Breakfast Inns is pleased to announce the first winner of the FBBI CARES Two Night Give-A-Way to Cara Rodden. Cara's heartwarming story was submitted by her friend, Melissa McCormick. The winner was chosen at the Florida Bed and Breakfast Inns 2014 Innkeeping Conference in Orlando, Florida on September 28, 2014 and Cara has accepted this award of a two-night stay for two, including a complimentary Breakfast for two, at one of the participating Florida Bed and Breakfast Inns, listed below. Cara has chosen the lovely Casa Grandview Bed and Breakfast, AAA 4 Diamond & part of the BedandBreakfast.com Diamond Collection rated Bed and Breakfast in West Palm Beach, Florida for her stay.
Here is Cara's Story:
I nominate my dear friend Cara Rodden. At age 32 she was diagnosed with breast cancer, already a diabetic and had many complications from diabetes. She was going partially blind and then suffered this devastating blow. It ruined her self esteem and confidence in life. We all stood behind her and supported her through her chemo and surgery. At 34 she had a double mastectomy, shortly after her wedding. She wanted to give up but she fought, every year we get together for the breast cancer walk. When she underwent surgery and couldn't make it I walked for her with my kids. She is cancer free and every year is a huge milestone that she remains cancer free. Cara is officially disabled but volunteers part time with elementary school kids because it brings her such joy since she cannot have kids of her own. Recently she has feeling not well and very down. Her husband works to support them and her medical visits still. I wish nothing more than her and her husband to be able to have a wonderful relaxing time away from it all. To give back to such a strong amazing woman!
Melissa McCormick
My husband and I won a 2 night stay at Casa Grandview. When we arrived we were welcomed with open arms by the owner Cheryl. (She hugged me!) The ambiance and decore of this bed and breakfast is breath taking. It is cozy and warm, open and comfortable. We were lucky to go this time of year as everything was decorated for the holidays and it was just beautiful. When checking in we were offered an upgrade which we did not choose because our room was gorgeous. The bed was so comfy we stayed in it for hours. Cheryl and her husband were kind, engaging and generous people. The breakfast was delicous and we just enjoyed everything. Friday night be sat by the pool and had dinner while listening to music and enjoying our time together. This bed and breakfast is not to be missed, it was a delicous slice of happiness and we highly recommend anyone staying in the West Palm Beach area to check them out. Such a wonderful weekend.


text:
The No. 16 Mississippi State Bulldogs dropped their Southeastern Conference opener 41-34 to Auburn, but they were still able to take positives back to Starkville with them.
By scoring 34 points, the Bulldogs have now scored at least 30 points in their last five games, which is a school record. Another record set on Saturday is a combination record as over their first two games, they had 1,176 total offensive yards.
Quarterback Chris Relf didn't set a record but did complete at least one pass to 10 different receivers in Saturday's loss. A feat that hasn't happened since October 25, 2008 win over Middle Tennessee State.
"I thought (Relf) played well with a lot of confidence," MSU coach Dan Mullen said about his senior signal caller. "I liked the confidence in Chris."
Good, bad defense
The Bulldogs stopped Auburn 11 of 20 times on third down which is 55 percent. That 55 percent combined with the 33.3 percent from week one's win over Memphis, the Bulldogs have an average of .353 on third down conversions on the year.
A problem that arose in Saturday's loss, was the defense being able to stop the run. In week one, Auburn ran for only 78 yards against Utah State, but were able to put up 235 against the Bulldogs.
"A lot of (the yards given up) were on missed tackles," Mullen said. "We have to make sure that we have guys in the right position to make plays on the field."
Two 100-yard rusher
Since 1996, MSU has only had one other time where two players rushed for over 100 yards, but on Saturday, Vick Ballard and Relf made it the second time.
Having a player with 100 yards rushing is something the Bulldogs have become accustomed to since Mullen's arrival.
After Saturday, there is still only one game in Mullen's 27 at MSU where a player didn't rush for 100 yards.
Defensive numbers
Johnthan Banks and Cameron Lawrence were high points in the Bulldog defense as Banks returned an interception 27 yards and Lawrence had 14 tackles which is a career high.
Other Dog bits
Kicker Derek DePasquale moved up to a tie for ninth place in the school's record books for field goals made, and is sixth in extra points made. ... Brandon Heavens' touchdown catch from 15 yards out was his first since MSU's opener against Memphis in 2010. ... The Bulldogs out-gained the Tigers 531-381 in total offense and had 10 more first downs. Penalties was also won by the Bulldogs has they were penalized 10 times, but for 75 yards compared to Auburn's 85 yards on seven penalties.View more articles in:


text:
- News
- Magazine
- Forum
- Online Exclusives
- Directory
- Products
- Resources
- Contact Us
- Store
Buyer's Guide
Cleanfax Directory
Welcome to the Cleanfax magazine Directory. This directory includes the names, addresses, contact information, products and services of manufacturers and suppliers in the industry. You will find all you need in regards to equipment, tools, products and services.


text:
Did the Founding Fathers Screw Up?
The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent experimentation," Franklin Roosevelt declared as he campaigned for the presidency in the spring of 1932. "It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something."
Most of the experiments Roosevelt tried to rebuild the economy once he took office encountered fierce opposition. But his closing admonition -- try something -- transcends our political particularities. It's an affirmation of a specifically American common sense, a statement of our national inclination to action, an affirmation of the pragmatism that remains the country's signal contribution to philosophy. In times of trouble, try something. Who could be against that?
Yet, three years into the worst recession since Roosevelt's time, a countercurrent, every bit as American as our bias for action, has swept over us. Twenty-five million Americans are either unemployed or underemployed, and the average duration of joblessness stands at record highs. Consumers are too deep in debt to consume; our producers produce and our investors invest abroad. To remedy all this, the federal government today tries ... nothing.
Washington has ground to a halt, paralyzed by a political division deeper than any we have seen since the days when Abraham Lincoln warned that a house divided against itself cannot stand. "Nothing" also isn't doing much to commend the American way to other countries. Much of the developing world now sees China and its model of capitalist authoritarianism as more efficient than the creaky workings of democracy. Nations still marvel at the United States, but today, it's our gridlock that draws the world's wonder.
It shouldn't. The current impasse between the Republican House and the Democratic president and Senate has only highlighted what is a chronic -- indeed, constitutional -- condition: Just as the American people have a bias for action, the American government has a bias for stasis. Governmental gridlock is as American as apple pie.
Those who defend our system concede -- indeed, exult -- that it places roadblocks in the path of major policy shifts. When the nation faces a genuine crisis, they argue, our government invariably rises to the occasion, as it did in Roosevelt's time. Unfortunately, that's a selective reading of our history. One hundred and fifty years ago, our government was not up to the task of holding the union together. Today, as the Great Recession grinds on, the different branches of government cannot agree on a course of action.
The root cause of all this inactivity is our peculiar form of democracy. While most democracies are governed by parliamentary systems, our Founders opted for a presidential system, which they consciously booby-trapped with multiple veto points to impede decisive legislative action and sweeping social change.
In America, for instance, presidents take office, but they don't form a government, as prime ministers do in virtually every other democracy. Presidents can form no more than an executive branch. They appoint cabinet members, sub-cabinet officials, military commanders, ambassadors, and the heads of regulatory agencies. They don't appoint congressional leaders; often as not, their party may not control either or both houses of Congress. Indeed, the White House, the Senate, and the House have been controlled by the same party during just 8 of the past 30 years. Even when the same party holds Congress and the presidency, the system still fragments power.
Presidents and congresses are elected not merely independently but at different times and by different electorates. After a midterm election in the United States, no members of the House and only one-third of the senators hold their seats by virtue of having won them in the same election that brought the president to power. The president and the Congress each have separate but equal claims to power and legitimacy. Thus a government divided between a president of one party and a Congress of another, political scientist Juan Linz observes, can reach an impasse for which "there is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved."
That's why nations with presidential systems, not parliamentary ones, Linz continues, have been more prone to military takeovers, which occur most frequently when civilian governments have reached just such an impasse. The United States is the sole presidential-system nation to have avoided this, Linz concludes, chiefly due to "the uniquely diffuse character of American political parties." Were our parties not so diffuse, were they ideological and uncompromising, our normal bouts of gridlock could escalate into a crisis -- which is precisely what's happened since the Republican Party was captured by the Tea Party. In a parliamentary system, though, the Tea Party would likely be a separate party, just one among many, like Le Pen's ultra-nationalists in France, that could be excluded from the governing coalition.
What makes parliamentary democracy more responsive, and more efficient, than presidential democracy is that its executive and legislative branches are unified. A party's legislative candidates all seek office in the same election on the same platform. The winning party's leader becomes prime minister, either because his party has won a majority of the parliamentary seats or because his party forms a bloc with another party or parties that together make up the majority. All power to both pass and administer laws under this system resides with the parliamentary majority.
To be sure, this unification of power can come at a cost. In a presidential system, it's easier for the branches of government to check the misdeeds of other branches, as Congress did during Watergate. In parliamentary systems, the capacity for swift and sweeping mistakes is every bit as great as the ability to do good -- something that the austerity budget of Britain's current Tory-led government demonstrates with each passing day. Parliamentary systems can fragment power, too, especially if, like Israel's Knesset, they are filled with small, factional parties that win seats because the minimum vote threshold for legislative representation is so low. But for all the imperfections of parliamentary democracy, it is the system that nearly all democracies have chosen, including the nations of Eastern Europe that could and did comparison shop once the Soviet empire collapsed.
The reason for such near unanimity becomes clear when we look at America's difficulties in achieving universal health insurance. Writing shortly after President Bill Clinton's failure to secure passage of a national health system, political scientists Sven Steinmo and Jon Watts argued that what made national health insurance so much more difficult to enact in the U.S. than in other democracies wasn't a greater level of opposition but our form of democracy. "Doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, business interests and conservative political forces generally fought bitterly to prevent national health care insurance in every country in which national health care policies eventually emerged," they wrote. But control of the legislature by parties committed to national health guaranteed that the plans were enacted nonetheless. Britain's national health program, Steinmo and Watts noted, emerged from negotiations among the bill's supporters -- cabinet ministers of the Labour Party government, which had been swept into power in 1945. That's a far cry from Harry Reid's agreeing to strip the public option from the 2010 health-reform bill to win Joe Lieberman's vote.
While Labour needed only a majority of Parliament to enact national health insurance, progressive reform in our system requires the alignment of both houses of Congress with the president, the appeasement of committee chairs, and, since the Republicans began insisting upon it, a 60-vote supermajority in the Senate. Roosevelt took office with a huge popular mandate and a massive congressional majority. His plan, though, to include national health insurance within Social Security -- a position that commanded widespread support -- fell victim to powerful Southern Democratic congressional committee chairs, who threatened to derail Social Security itself if he insisted on it.
By the time Barack Obama became president, the Dixiecrats had migrated to the Republican Party. Even though Obama's Democrats, purged of Southern reactionaries, had large majorities in both houses of Congress, the Southernized Republican Party invoked the demand for a 60-vote supermajority at every turn, a hurdle that neither the public option in Obama's health-care reform nor stricter bank regulation in the Dodd-Frank bill were able to clear.
Other reform presidents with popular mandates and control of Congress didn't get nearly as far as Roosevelt and Obama. In 1949, Southern Democrats, angered by Harry Truman's desegregation of the armed forces and other moves toward racial egalitarianism, killed his plan for national health insurance, though Truman had just won election -- and the Democrats had retaken both houses of Congress -- running on that issue. During Jimmy Carter's presidency, the Democrats' multiple plans for health insurance were thwarted by the ongoing struggles between Carter and leading congressional Democrats. Bill Clinton's campaign for universal health coverage also fell victim to internal Democratic disputes and the Senate's 60-vote threshold.
Absent a near national consensus on a broad program, wrote Lloyd Cutler, who served as White House counsel for both Carter and Clinton, "it has not been possible for any modern president to 'form a government' that could legislate and carry out his overall program. Yet modern government has to respond promptly to a wide range of new challenges. Its responses cannot be limited to those for which there is a large consensus induced by some great crisis."
The problem, Cutler concluded, was the Constitution. More bluntly, the Founding Fathers got it wrong.
The men who drafted our governing document came to Philadelphia in 1787 to establish an effective national government, something that the Articles of Confederation had plainly failed to do. However, they brought with them two distinct but interconnected fears, which ultimately kept them from achieving their goal. Disproportionately drawn from the de facto aristocracy of pre-Revolutionary America, they feared that a new class of leaders -- the farmers and artisans who were increasingly represented in state and local governments -- was elevating parochial concerns over the general good in the business of lawmaking. Among the delegates, writes historian Sean Wilentz, "fears of a tyrannical demos were pervasive." By entrusting the election of the new Senate to state legislatures and that of the president to an electoral college, they meant to populate the new national government with (and by) men like themselves.
The other fear that suffused the drafters' deliberations was that of faction. By "faction," James Madison, the Constitution's primary author, wrote in Federalist No. 10, "I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed [sic] to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."
In England, nearly to the end of the 17th century, factions had risen and been put down generally by force. By 1787, however, the factions in England were peaceable, if still embryonic, political parties, whose nonviolent nature had not yet rendered them respectable, and most certainly not to the Constitution's drafters.
Factions naturally arise, Madison wrote, and cannot in a democratic republic rightly be suppressed. The task of government thus became "controlling [their] effects." A minority faction could simply be defeated by majority vote. But when the faction was a majority? That was trickier. For that, Madison and his fellow drafters turned to Montesquieu, the French political philosopher (the "oracle," as Madison termed him in Federalist No. 47).
Montesquieu's remedy for the scourge of majority sovereignty was a separation of governmental powers into competing entities that could check one another. Were the executive power to be chosen by the legislature, he wrote, "there would be an end then of liberty." This was a curious assessment, since in England, which Montesquieu claimed as his model, the emerging executive power, the prime minister, was already a creature of Parliament. (Montesquieu was more interested in reporting on what he thought should be rather than what actually was.) In Montesquieu's vision, the checks were everything, while action was a sometime thing at best. The triumvirate of king, lords, and commons, he wrote, "would naturally form a state of repose or inaction. But as there is a necessity for movement in the course of human affairs, they are forced to move, but still in concert."
But suppose they are forced to move -- say, by the necessity of raising the debt ceiling -- and can't get themselves in concert? What then? Repose? Recriminations?
To the Founders, writing in the shadow of Montesquieu, power -- no matter how democratically won and exercised -- had to be fragmented. "In republican government," Madison wrote in Federalist No. 51, "the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions ... will admit." If that slows down the legislative process, so much the better. "In the legislature," wrote Alexander Hamilton, the most important drafter of and advocate for the Constitution after Madison, "promptitude of decision is oftener an evil than a benefit."
Mr. Hamilton, meet Max Baucus.
Just four years after they had co-authored the Federalist Papers, Hamilton and Madison had become leaders of the new nation's two rival parties -- respectively, the Federalists and the Republicans. From denouncing the evils of faction, they had moved on to heading up America's factions. They had, however, left in their wake a government with so many divisions of and checks to power that they came close to stifling majority rule.
America has paid a price for going first -- for drafting its Constitution a half-century before the commitment to majority rule and the idea of universal suffrage (which meant universal white-male suffrage) became widely accepted. Institutions established to protect both the aristocratic phobias and the slave-holding interests of late 18th-century America -- the Electoral College, the state-based Senate -- have outlived purposes that have long since been forgotten. Yet they govern us still.
No region has been more defined by a fear of majority rule than the South. As the interests of the increasingly industrial North and the Southern slavocracy grew more divergent in the 1830s, the South's political and intellectual leader, John C. Calhoun, put forth the theory of nullification. According to Calhoun, national legislation could not take effect unless it cleared an insuperable hurdle: ratification by legislatures in every one of the states. Majority-rule governments, Calhoun insisted, are inherently oppressive -- a viewpoint that the aged Madison indignantly rejected, writing that it would "overturn the first principle of free Govt."
Calhoun's immediate concern was tariffs that would disadvantage the South, but his deeper concern was slavery, which he feared a Northern majority would one day try to abolish. Anti-majoritarianism came naturally in Calhoun's South Carolina, one of only two states (the other was Mississippi) in which slaves outnumbered the white population. Repressing majorities has long been the linchpin of the white South's politics -- obstructing majority rule through the claim of states' rights, suppression of black (and now Latino) voting, control of congressional committee chairmanships, and the filibuster. It's worth noting that the filibuster emerged as the Republicans' favored tactic only when the Republican Party became centered in the white South. In their efforts to use all the tools of divided government to negate first Bill Clinton's and then Barack Obama's majorities, Republicans have inherited the spirit, if not the theories, of Calhoun.
So what to do? A constitutional convention to rewrite our governing document would unleash every bat in America's political belfry. More modest changes, though, remain in the realm of the possible, and others, while not on anyone's agenda now, might be put there with some proselytizing.
The two reforms with the most support -- ending the filibuster and abolishing the Electoral College -- would do nothing to curtail the fragmentation of power within the federal government, but both would limit minorities' ability to reduce the sway of majorities. Another reform that would create a more representative government would be to change the timing of elections and the terms of congressional office. Presidential contests draw far more votes than midterm congressional ones: From 1984 through 2008, turnout in presidential elections has ranged from 53 percent of eligible adults to 62 percent, while turnout in midterm elections from 1986 through 2010 has ranged from 39 percent to 42 percent. If House members were given four-year terms coterminous with the president's, they would be answerable to the same larger electorate. This, of course, would also be true of senators. These wouldn't be parliamentary elections -- the candidates for president, senator, and representative would still be elected separately -- but at least our elected officials would all derive their power from the identical and most broadly representative electorate.
Although the federal government can't go parliamentary, why can't the states? Maintaining two legislative bodies at the state level has been pointless for the past 50 years, ever since the Supreme Court's one-person, one-vote decisions; those rulings required state Senate districts, once apportioned by geographical unit (such as counties), to be apportioned by population, just as lower-house districts are. Talk about duplication and waste in government! Nebraska has long had a unicameral legislature. There's no good reason why 49 other states shouldn't follow suit. Nor is there a reason why at least a few more compact and homogenous states -- Vermont? Oregon? Utah? -- can't go one step further to a parliamentary system. Two and a quarter centuries after the Philadelphia convention, America should be ready for some small-scale experiments in majority rule.
In the age of globalization, governmental systems are pitted, inescapably and willy-nilly, against one another. Over the past decade, it's grown harder to argue that American democracy has been delivering for its people as well as China's Leninist capitalism has for the Chinese. By the measure of economic growth, a smart authoritarian elite beats a self-negating democratic republic four days out of five. The world looks at us and sees only contentious repose.
Americans angered by the failures of our political system should be angered at the failures of our governmental system as well. The problem isn't that we're too democratic. It's that we're not democratic enough.
Jeremy Putley (not verified)
Mon, 2011-09-26 12:41
So what to do?
The usual suggestion for making the US system of government less dysfunctional is to re-engineer the Constitution so that the US becomes more like a parliamentary democracy. The consensus appears to be that this is impossible. However, there is one change which would be likely to produce a movement in that direction: a constitutional amendment to remove the US President's power to veto bills sent to him for ratification by Congress. Power would immediately transfer to Congress and away from the President.
Seriously worth considering? In The Federalist number 73 Hamilton wrote that without the veto the Executive "might gradually be stripped of his authorities …. the legislative and executive powers might speedily come to be blended in the same hands." If Hamilton was right in this, he was pointing the way for the evolution of the US system into an effective parliamentary democracy.
Caroline H. (not verified)
Mon, 2011-09-26 22:25
Jeremy Putley (not verified)
Tue, 2011-09-27 02:56
I don't want to be accused of monopolizing the conversation, and will say only this:It's interesting, to me, that the influence of Montesquieu was based on a mistake of fact! Referring to the separation of powers as the supposed basis of the British constitution, Isaiah Berlin wrote of "the famous misjudgement of Montesquieu". The presidential veto was inserted into the Constitution as an acknowledged – though modified – version of the power of the veto which was represented as supposedly belonging to the British monarch. "The disuse of that power [by the British crown] for a considerable time past does not affect the reality of its existence" - Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist number 69.At the time when he wrote those words, in 1778, there had been no instance of a British king or queen having exercised the veto prerogative for 70 years, from which it might reasonably have been deduced that the veto had in reality fallen into permanent disuse in the British model. Hamilton wrote that it had been replaced by the crown's exercise of "influence" or political "art". Hamilton was plausibly yet speciously arguing for the merits of what was a decision already agreed by the Framers: to install a "qualified negative" to allow the Executive the power of veto over the two houses of Congress.Taking away the power to veto Congress (a measure relatively easy to achieve, in that it has obvious attractions to members of Congress generally, and can be done without requiring presidential consent) immediately removes the President's ability to affect legislation. That is now the British monarch's position as it has evolved in the last 300 years - without once exercising the veto.
mitchellvii (not verified)
Tue, 2011-09-27 17:55
JeannieBinVA (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 07:54
What Meyerson describes as a screw-up I see as enduring proof of the Founders' genius.
The Constitution established a government of limited, enumerated powers, operating within a system of divided authority, not only laterally among the branches of the federal government, but vertically as well, in the relationship of the federal government to the states. Among many other positives, this has made possible the enormous diversity, richness and individuality of organic cultures, communities and states across an entire continent and beyond.
For a group of people who had just fought for and secured their own independence from an all-powerful, faraway monolith capable of controlling every aspect of their lives, it would have been quite anomalous for the Constitutional Congress to institute an all-powerful centralized monolith capable of controlling every aspect of American citizens' lives because a simple majority so decrees. Because they chose not to, the American people and polity have, in the main -- and certainly with fits and starts along the way -- grown and prospered with the ingrained expectation of personal freedom and regional independence.
The problem is not that the federal government today is incapable of doing anything; it is that the federal government continually tries to do too much, and invariably, of late (certainly since the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1998), does a miserable job of it.
Mr. Meyerson may believe that simple majority rule would solve all our current problems speedily and without fuss. It would also mean, however, that the citizens of New York City's 5 boroughs alone -- numbering 8.2 million -- would essentially be in charge of deciding how citizens in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, both Dakotas, and Alaska, with Vermont and Delaware thrown in for good measure (altogether numbering 7 million), should live their lives and run their communities. Perhaps some New Yorkers believe that should be their prerogative; the citizens of those other 8, mostly farflung states certainly disagree. I, for one, stand with the latter.
Ffats (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 12:50
I'm afraid you misunderstand how Congress works. If the new Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, continues to support the filibuster, only 41 Democratic Senators will be able to continue the gridlock. Given McConnell's principled and enthusiastic support for and use of the filibuster over the past Congresses, I wouldn't get my hopes up.
Gunthr (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 13:30
ObamaDubya2Elec... (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 16:27
I figured it was only a matter of time when the Obamabots, instead of looking at the failure of their president and his policies, would start blaming the constitution and it's "failings". I mean, if Obama can't fix it, they reason, then it must mean the system can't be fixed, thus a new Constitutional Convention needs to be convened and a new government formed.
Sorry, I'll take the old government of Washington, Jefferson and Adams, thank you.
Merc300kls (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 16:28
Totally misdiagnoses the problem. The problem here is that Obama's policies are totally wrong and making things worse. His solutions are the same policies that landed us where we are today.... only more of it. I will stay on the side of the 'party of no' as long as they do precisely that- keep saying 'no' to the terrible, backwards policies the Dems just keep pushing... and pushing.
And anyone who truly understands the US Constitution and our history knows that so-called 'grid lock' is basically by design. It was meant to make sure we did not replace an all-powerful king with an all-powerful federal government.
JB13 (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 16:31
Sat, 2011-12-31 20:44
As if conservatives have no desire to change the rules? Eliminate birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment? Eliminate federal income tax? Senators selected by state legislatures? Prohibit same sex marriage?
There are so many issues in play right now, it really doesn't seem right to paint progressives as the only ones wanting to impose sweeping changes.
Hypernonpartisan (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 16:32
Rockville guy (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 16:34
You are spot on with your observation. In fact, this is a problem in Canada where Ontario can basically rule the rest of the country, and in the UK, London's population elects a substantial number of MPs. In addition, I think that another issue that worses the problem you note is our government's failure to enforce our borders--in effect, were we in a parlimentary system, the influx of illegal aliens from one part of the country into a few states, in effect would give CA, NY, IL, TX, and a few other states absolute control of the nation's government nearly forever--do Americans want Mexico and the rest of Latin America dictating to American citizens via the unregulated influx of their nationals into our nation who controls our Federal Government?
Hypernonpartisan (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 16:36
Xasprtr (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 16:40
"Over the past decade, it's grown harder to argue that American democracy
has been delivering for its people as well as China's Leninist
capitalism has for the Chinese."
Please, make it stop! I hardly know what to say anymore ... the left used to love the Soviet Union, too. I do not want what China is "delivering."
There is a disease with progressive thinkers going back to Plato - they seem to prefer systems of government in which they themselves could not exist.
LibertyGuy (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 16:41
Amen to JeannieBinVA's post a few posts below! What a wonderfully concise rebuttal to the author's argue. She is spot on here.
We WANT our Federal Gov't to be slow and inefficient, taking action only when there's a general agreement among a substantial number of 'factions'. You want nimble, responsive gov't? Go build it at the STATE level. The needs (and desired solutions) for the folks in Indiana are different from those in Georgia, which in turn are different from those in Vermont, or Nevada, or Texas. Let each State build solutions to its own problems in a way that is tailored to the people in each State. There is no reason for the federal gov't to be involved in areas (education, public safety, retirement planning to name a few) where the States have the power to act. The Federal Gov't has enough to do managing it Article I, Section 8 duties.
HenryC (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 16:42
UniBlab5000 (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 16:44
So basically your problem with our system is that a lot of people don't agree with you (i.e. the majority of Americans) and you can't steamroll the opposition under your leftist agenda as easily as you could in the UK or France?
I hate to break it to all you statists in the audience but you were wiped out in the House last November, it was because the American people wanted your agenda stopped. All of the current polling data points to an ever bigger wipeout for you in next year's election. Your agenda is not happening because the majority does not want it.
The American people don't want your agenda, they voted a congress in to stop it, and it has been stopped. The system works.
Perhaps instead of constantly bitching about the rules you should rethink your gameplan?
JKPinHalifax (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 16:44
I disagree with the assertion that parliamentary systems are functionally superior to the the US system.
Living in Canada, the influence of 300+ individual parliamentarians is almost nil unless they are in cabinet. The Prime Minister cow-tows all MPs to tow the PMs policy and vote as directed by the Prime Minister's Office or they are kicked out of the party and thus kicked out of the governing majority.
The US system empowers the individual legislators by making them collectively equal to the executive. This is a superior approach as it provides each riding / district with a voice that is not beholden to the executive in how it votes and their voting is more in line to what their constituents want vs. the party leader (else they are not re-elected).
In our province, we had an MP that disagreed with a government bill and chose, based on his riding's intense feedback, to dissent on the vote. His reward for doing what his constituents wanted was the PM kicked him out of the caucus and out of the party, forcing him to sit as a powerless, mute independent for the remainder of their term.
The US system has its flaws, but it is much more balanced and responsive to its voters by better empowering the individual legislators as opposed to giving all the power to the Prime Minister.
Spartanfan (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 16:44
cogsys (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 16:45
I am at a loss as to why Mr. Meyerson things the Founders may have made a mistake, after all, for better or worse our Constitution is the oldest written one in the world, clearly our founders knew something.
So let us then turn our attention to what they may have known. Is it possible, just possible that they knew how easy the Congress would be to deadlock and they believed that doing nothing might actually be better than doing something posthaste and without thought?
Mr. Meyerson quotes FDR as if he were a wellspring of knowledge, but let us consider of the issues that are draining our economy, how many of them had their roots in Roosevelt's great experiments? Further, when he implies that Chinese communism delivers better than our republican democracy, all I can suggest is that if it does, then it would certainly be in Mr. Meyerson's best interests to immediately pack his bags and go there.
I believe that our founders understood the darkness of a politician's soul, and realized that anytime a politician can buy a vote he or she will. So perhaps, in the fullness of time, we should all just take a deep breath and realize that the only things we need to roll back is the federal role being taken in our daily lives.
AtlasRocked (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 16:46
Totally moronic - all the European parliamentary governments are in deeper deficits than we are, and are proposing the same bail-out-the-banker problems we are.
Plato got it right: Pure Democracy is a failure. We created a Senate with APPOINTED senators just to avoid the problems of democracies. Then the Wilson era started electing senators. Poof, pure Democracy.
SteveThomas39 (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 16:46
Typical. Liberals always complain about gridlock and Constitutional restraints on government when their policies prove toxic and repellent to the public. How many times over the past 31 months have we heard luminaries such as Tom Friedman and even President Zero wish we could have a system more like China's, to make it easier to "get things done". Progressives pretend to call for power to the people to make gullible fools vote for them. Their real aims, as amply demonstrated by their actions, and increasingly their words, are quite the opposite.
Sharon (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 16:48
I could not disagree with you more sir. What you term as a "screw up" by our forefathers was their "intuition" about certain factions having complete control (perhaps for a great deal of time and thereby deal such a blow to democracy that we could NEVER recover). Please let me explain-You have disdain for the Tea Party; this is evident even though I had to cut through all of your other bulls---. The reason our system was set up like this is precisely to PREVENT what just happened to our country--ELECTING THE FIRST COMMUNIST EVER!! yes sir, Obama is that communist. The Tea Party rose to take him down and hopefully this will be done next year. We have to ensure that never again will someone like Obama who wants to FUNDAMENTALLY change the very best system in the world, get the power to begin to do just that. I say, "God Bless" the Tea Party. From the UNCONSTITUTIONALITY of the "Individual Mandate" which even Obama KNEW was unconstitutional as he drafted and included a clause wherein the IRS has no power (either to criminally or civilly) go after ANYONE WHO DOESN'T HAVE INSURANCE. Did you know that??? Well, it's true. If someone were to tell the IRS or Obama or Sebellius to "go to hell" I'm not paying any fee, the IRS HAS NO POWER TO GET THAT MONEY FROM THEM. IT IS BURIED IN THIS LAW (OBAMACARE).
James Goswick (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 16:49
Andrew (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 16:49
These conversations bring out such powerful prejudices. I applaud Mr. Meyerson for the wisdom to treat the founders as something other than a monolith. While people have always used their shallow and shockingly presentist conceptions of history to make their point (See commenter JeannieBin), it's important to remember that there were no "founding fathers." There were a group of very complex, argumentative, disparate, and varied men who agreed on very little (both in letter and spirit). To claim to understand them as a unit is nonsense.
Sgtmcc (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 16:52
Glenn (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 16:54
The Founders designed a system of governance (federalism, dividing power between the national government and the states, and checks and balances between the legislative, the executive and the judicial branches of the national government) to impede the inevitable tendency of all in power to aggregate power increasingly to the determent of individual liberty. The article is quite right that the result of this design often is governmental gridlock, and I say God bless the Founders for their wisdom in their creation of a structure of government that protects individual liberty through countervailing governmental institutions. Before we curse the inaction of government, it is wise, I think, to recall that in Hitler's Germany and in Stalin's Soviet Union there was no governmental gridlock. Governmental gridlock is the price we pay to defeat totalitarianism and to secure individual liberty.
lucky (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 17:01
There is a good reason for having the inefficiencies in the US system. It keeps a temporary electoral minority from enacting major, structural changes to our government and our society.
Progressives don't like this. They see change as a ratchet....once you make a change, you can never go back. So they just want to keep the change coming.
"Above all, try something." That is a prescription for disaster. Try solution one. If that does not work, try solution two. Politicians will promote potential solutions and assert that once the law is past, the problem is solved. Then they can go home and campaign about their success. But their solutions don't always work and we end up stuck with the consequences (and the cost).
Oh_bama_sux (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 17:04
Our founding fathers fought and died to liberate themselves and us from oppressive central government and wrote a Constitution in such a way as to impede the resurrection of that form of central government. What we are faced with today is the same kind of oppressive taxation without representation that we felt as a set of colonies under king George. Today we have Congress and pharaoh obama in place of the former. But the oppression and tyranny are just as bad.
CHAS (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 17:04
Before you knock the founding fathers' approach to government, you must admit that we really haven't tried it in the past 100 years. It is true that our system of government is much more prone to grid-lock than is the British system, but that does not mean that our founding fathers baked our present breakdown into our constitutional cake. In fact, the authors of our Constitution were very concerned about the rise of special interests, which is what they meant by "faction." They designed a many layered government to thwart special interests. It is because their design has been allowed to unravel over the years that our government no longer works. In 1788, the Congress chose the President through a caucus of the Senate and the House; thus there was no ingrained conflict between the Congress and the Presidency. The Senate was indirectly elected and therefore the Senators, at least, did not have to go hat in hand to special interests for funding for their political campaigns. Congressmen represented districts of only 30,000 constituents, well below a number requiring an expensive advertising campaign to reach their voters. They were limited to only two years because it was thought that they would be ordinary citizens and not permanent professional politicians as they are today. Therefore they would find it necessary to return to their careers after two years. The debate during ratification of the Constitution was that perhaps two years was too long a term of office, not too short.
We have made our elected representatives even more dependent on special interests by destroying every mechanism upon which parliamentary discipline might be established. The President has no power to impound funds or to veto line items in bills. The parties are limited in their power to make contributions to political campaigns, driving candidates to create their own coalitions, i.e., to sell out to special interests. The parties must hold primaries and thus have lost control over their nominees. We have created this mess ourselves. Don't blame the founding fathers.
Goed zo (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 17:11
Excellent post. America delivered a filibuster proof Senate and a strong majority in the House to the Obama administration. Gridlock between the parties did not stopped the government from acting to salvage the economy.
Instead of working on the economy the administration concentrated on dubious or secondary goals such as green jobs, protecting the UAW, and increasing government control of the health care and financial sectors. Maybe those were worthy tasks (though I doubt it). Either way, the failure to address more pressing needs at the time of crises cannot be blamed on gridlock.
John Galt (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 17:12
It's funny how we're now seeing such a panic among the left as Obama's prospects for remaining in power diminish. The consternation has reached such a fever pitch that dems are openly calling for suspension of elections and dismantling the greatest system of governance ever created. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. We've seen that played out with the dems and now as a people we are dissolving that power...deservedly so.
afvet262 (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 17:13
Very well written, Jeannie! You eloquently and succinctly summarized the intent of the Founders and the real genius of the Constitution. Well done!
Your final paragraph, while a general discussion of majority rule, also talks directly to the reason the Electoral College was created; to, as Madison, de Toqueville, and others professed, protect the people from "the tyranny of the majority." The EC was, in my opinion, the most brilliant inclusion by the Founders into the Constitution. Those who wish to eliminate it for a simple "popular vote" would bring on that tyranny Madison feared so much.
OCapitalista (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 17:14
Everything you hate about the American system of government is what makes it great. Every time the government has "risen to the occasion" and trampled the limited powers enumerated in the constitution we have ended up worse off. Yes, some bills take a long time to come due... but they always come due (hello Social Security, hello Medicare, hello phony money, hello ultra regulatory state).
Fact is that "do something" should NOT be the philosophy of government, and it is a brilliant testament to the genius of the founding fathers that this country has lasted this long with some semblance of freedom - after a century in the hands of well meaning but misguided people who think like you do.
We have, however, come to the end of that rope. Either we restore our founding principles and put the government back into it's enumerated powers box, or we become just another stagnant and fading western power.
Khadijah BintMu... (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 17:19
RobertE (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 17:20
andrewp111 (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 17:22
Maybe the Founders constructed the system the way it is to prevent the enactment of sweeping socialist legislation like national health insurance. They were learned men who studied history and knew all about socialism in the Roman Empire. It is a feature not a bug.
And abolishing the Electoral College would be a practical disaster. The problem is that vote counting and election management is a State function. If an extra 10000 votes in Philadelphia or Chicago can throw the whole presidential election and not just the electoral votes of their States, the temptation for city machines to engage in organized fraud will be monumental. Yet the power to count the votes and order recounts must constitutionally remain with the States. There is no way Mississippi can order a recount in Illinois. Since city machines are invariably Democratic, it is not surprising that the Democrats want to abolish the Electoral College.
Robert Ferris (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 17:22
"Above all, try something"
Ironic, since this the exact thing that extreme leftists are trying to stop. Harold Meyerson tries to make the claim the system was set up to NOT be able to try something. That is simply untrue. In our system, it's the states that are supposed to do the experimentation.
Limited Federal powers are the very reason why we survived so long. We are simply the longest lived Presidential system in the world. We are the longest lasting form of government in all of recorded history.
The fairly significant amendments he is calling for would change the system to a point that everything else we have would have to be adjusted to fit it. This is essentially a complete rewrite of the Constitution, even though he is trying to deny that's what he wants.
" before the commitment to majority rule "
There is no such commitment. Majority rule is very , very bad thing. This has been proven over and over again history. many of these examples are the military takeovers he refers to in this article.
The North Carolina governor just gave a speech where she suggested suspending elections (and No, it wasn't a "joke.") Now we have this article right on the heels of that, calling for the abolition of the Constitution. Two is a coincendence. I'll now be keeping my eye out for the third.
Pronghorn (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 17:25
"It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something."
Exactly right, and our Constitution gives almost 100% authority to the government to do just that...the State governments, that is. Which is absolutely brilliant. IF the Federal govt would decide to respect the Constitution's limits on its power.
Every State can try something a trifle different...or hugely different...from the next State. We can observe how these experiments work and duplicate the successful ones in our State. Citizens can vote two ways, at the ballot box and with their feet, for governments that rule the way that makes sense to them. If their State is too liberal, or too conservative, or too moderate, they can just move to another.
Right now, the combat between big-tax-big-govt and small-tax-small-govt is tearing the Union apart. This battle could be ended with a little bit of respect on both sides. Agree to disagree. Agree to let some States be big govt and some be small govt. Let's see which works best, which results in the most prosperity, the most happiness. See which States people flock to. We might actually find out which is best, rather than just having an ideological opinion about it.
John (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 17:33
No Harold, governemnts are not pitted against each other. Only if you leave out our private sector. I will pit our private sector (uninhibbited by our own governemnt) against ANY government in the world. WE WILL WIN! It is you, and the current government, that are holding us back. It may be trite...but...please...get a clue! It is the private sector that made this Country Great....NOT THE GOVERNMENT! The Founding Fathers gave us the means to be great...and fair...it is the government that has been hacking away at this for years.
wisconsin_swag (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 17:34
what's missing from the piece is that the american system has never been a democracy. we've become marginally more democratic over the years (e.g. senators are now elected by popular vote) but we're still a republic. else, we wouldn't have a senate, the electoral college, the supreme court; i'm glad this is so... i am not glad, though, that the term 'democracy' has become such a misnomer. our system is a republican one. just because the dems managed to get BHO into office doesn't mean all, or any, of his policies should be put in place. and thank god they haven't
BlakeSDavis (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 17:34
The undercurrent here is that the only changes wanted are those that favor Democrats - since Gore won the popular vote the electoral college is bad, since Republicans have been able to filibuster, the filibuster is bad.
In short, the frustration here is because it is Republicans who are frustrating Democratic plans.
You sure didn't see articles like this when the Republicans held the reins - back then it wasn't gridlock, it was the "loyal opposition." Now that the shoe is on the other foot the hypocrites are in full swing.
Be careful what you wish for though - the Republicans may end up with it all in 2012. If that happens we won't see many articles like this!
Fredster_usa (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 17:35
What Mr. Meyerson proposes is a banana republic democracy replace the US Government. Our government is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy, and it should stay that way.
Our government is designed for gridlock, so that ideas and changes come from reasoned debate rather than and ideological takeover by a mob.
The first mistake was changing the constitution to move from State appointed Senators to elected candidates. That moved the republic from a republic to a democracy. That should be reversed. The House is supposed to represent the PEOPLE, and the Senate was designed to represent the STATES. The entire character of the government was changed for the worse when this happened.
The article presents healthcare as a "good" idea. Austerity as a "bad" idea in the UK, etc.
I chuckled when I read '"Doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, business interests and
conservative political forces generally fought bitterly to prevent
national health care insurance in every country in which national health
care policies eventually emerged,"'
Yes, they won the debate! That's the way it is supposed to work. Instead the author says we should make wide sweeping changes without great debate.
I wonder what would happen if someone that you didn't approve of was in charge and we we decided to just change the Constitution the same way Hugo Chavez has.
Let's keep the government the way it is, thanks.
Kurt (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 17:39
He mentions in the article that if the parliamentary threshold is too low (Israel) that you get a fragmented parliament incapable of action, however Turkey sets the threshold at 10% and consequently AKP was able to win almost 60% of the seats with only 40% of the vote. So they had a strong majority despite receiving a minority of the vote. Our system is designed to ensure that a party wins 2 elections in a row to have a large enough majority to make major changes. this has produced a more stable environment than many parliaments (see Italy). Most of the angst expressed in this article could be relieved by reforming the filibuster, it doesn't require ditching the constitution. If the republicans win the presidency next year I am willing to bet Mr Meyerson will appreciate the checks and balances of our form of democracy better.
stefanstackhouse (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 17:43
By design, and unlike parliamentary systems, the Constitutional Convention gave us an exceptionally strong head of state, an exceptionally weak head of government, and gave just one person both roles. It is the head of government part that seems to be the problem. Unless the president and both houses of congress are all of the same party, very little can be accomplished, and even then it is like herding cats.
A big part of the problem is that the other two people who are members of the triumvirate that effectively functions as our head of government - i.e., the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House - are not really accountable to the general public, and thus have little incentive to pursue what is in the general public interest. Maybe the answer is not to further strengthen the presidency, but instead to modify these offices so they are both more powerful and also more answerable to the general public.
Concerned-citizen (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 17:43
The founders of our nation created a governing system resulting in the most dynamic, wealthy, powerful nation in the history of mankind. All the while giving great freedoms and opportunity to the most common amongst us. I know, I am one of them. We now have academics and pundits, many, if not most, who are cuddled by our current entitlement mentality based system, wanting to change to a new approach. Could anything be more ridiculous than taking these folks seriously?
Jaq (not verified)
Wed, 2011-09-28 17:46
Couldn't agree more. The current state of the American Government is "working as intended." We have a ponderous, inertial, and inefficient government by design. Consequently, we have the most stable government - and free and open society - in the history of the world.
It's tempting to imagine an efficient, speedy, and resolute government - but the danger is self-evident: such a government could efficiently, speedily, and resolutely impose its will upon every aspect of our lives. As we've seen throughout the world, other such governments do exactly this with frightening - and too often brutal - frequency.
You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)


text:
Marketing Assistance
Analyzing your current marketing strategy and assist in developing it or creating a new one.
Help track conversions
We will evaluate your current conversions and optimize for better results.
Social media management
Optimize your social media campaigns to assist your business with all of your digital marketing needs.
Dominate Google for local search
Professional search engine optimization services that help clients increase organic search dramatically and get 1st page rankings of highly competitive keywords.
We will get your business new per-qualified customers
We will free up your time so you can make more money
We have the expertise for any project
Full Service Digital Marketing Assistent
Search Engine Optimization & Social Media Marketing Experts
Local Google Search
Proven results for local search that will help you get found.
Google Map Search
Google Maps is intricate part of any successful local search marketing strategy.
Link Building & Content
Link building is a extremely important component of Search Engine Optimization, along with content.
Paid Search Advertising
Paid listings on Google AdWords can get your site immediately visible to searchers within days.
Custom Website Design
Our web designers specialize in affordable web design anywhere including e-commerce.
Custom Email Design
Custom email templates are designed by our designer according to your needs.


text:
Adidas 'Space Diver launch' by Creature London
Creature London has launched its first work for Adidas since winning a place on the brand's roster earlier this year.
The pan-European campaign to launch the Adidas Originals Space Diver shoe (sold exclusively in Foot Locker) includes a TV spot that is running in the UK, Spain, France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands.
It is supported by a Facebook app, digital activity and a campaign website.


text:
Grid List
Fabulous Faux Shearling CapeITEM: 8018 Just throw on this fabulous faux shearling zippered cape over anything, and you're good to go—in style. It looks great on any body type. With faux fur hood trim featuring pompoms for pulls. Soft and plush, it looks and feels like the real thing. Imported. Dry clean.Learn More
Regular Price: $218.75
Special Price $87.50
1 items go top