[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Strickland's Thoughts


<< In a message dated 97-03-04 18:16:16 EST, Strickland writes:
 
 << 
  Michael Bryant writes:
   >Rodger, you've never explained to me why the CEDA President should
  >have full authority and full discretion over CEDA Nats format.
  
  Rodger Biles Responds
  Ultimately every tournament has to have some _one_ who is the bottom
  line, last straw, decision maker.  This organization chooses to vest that
  power in the President.  Ultimately you make the decisions about how to
  run the Weber RR.  
  
  Strickland observes: 
  
  Harry Truman sums it up:  (After all is said and done...after all the
  cursing, bashing, inciteful observing, whinning, offering, constructive
  sharing, debating, arguing, necessary policing, etc is finished)
  
  "THE BUCK STOPS HERE!"
  
  In other words, someone (elected, appointed or otherwise chosen)  has
  to take responsibility
  
 Bear's Response to  Strickland:
 
 I guess I just have to assume that you missed my last post, Glen, because
 this post continues to seem non-responsive. I granted in my last post the
 need, perhaps, for someone to make at-tournament decisions, though I'm still
 waiting for someone to explain why those last-second decisions shouldn't
 require a tabroom consensus/majority. Even if the exigency of on-going
 tabbing justifies someone making a buckstopping spur of the moment decision,
 why does that justify their total discretion on which format is used? Why
 should we risk year-to-year changes based on the whims of the particular
CEDA
 President? Since the call on format isn't a last-minute emergency call, why
 shouldn't it be the call of the members of CEDA?
 
 Even Truman had to be constrained by the Supreme Court when he overstepped
 his authority and attempted to nationalize industries with labor problems.
 Some might make the argument that Truman's buck-stops-here mentality
 emboldened his rationalization for dropping nuclear weapons the only time
 they ever been used on this planet. Perhaps we should reflect long and hard
 on Harry Truman as we consider the needs for limits on executive authority
in
 our own organization. Remember, CEDA doesn't have a Supreme Court. The call
 for authoritative safeguards on Presidential format discretion is a call for
 democracy. Why shouldn't formats be determined by the people debating them? 
 
 
 
  Glen Strickland
  "I'm beginning to reconsider the validity of Rights Malthus"  :)
   >>
 Two comments:
 
 1. I'd like to believe that even if the demise of democracy is inevitable,
 that in the end you'd still be joining me in fighting the uphill battle.
 2. This isn't what Ophuls argues for, at all. Ophuls says that while some
 rights (e.g., property rights) may have to be constrained, other freedoms
 (like participatory democracy, checks and balances, atc.) may actually need
 to be expanded in the transition to his conception of a steady-state,
because
 these freedoms involve critical "safety valve" needs for the citizenry. Read
 Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity. And think of me as the dangerous force
 that you need the safety valve for.
 
 Bear
  >>
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page