> Chuck wrote: > But the law was written after the fact, because the gov't had no legal > recourse. That's why it's scary. It's scary because they'd hit a legal > wall and had to circumvent it. Gov't shouldn't be circumventing legal > walls. That's... y'know... bad. >
So first off, I'm not disagreeing with you, just playing DA. That said ... As to "they shoulda thought a that" ... That's a criticism on execution which assumes a defined engagement model which, in this case, I don't think exists. (that was Bush's core problem - he was a horribly untalented executive thus nothing he did had defined models, goals, or metrics) As to "circumventing legal walls" ... That's called lobbying and companies do it all of the time. I used to work for/with a lobbying org that was a stones throw from the Whitehouse. Place was chock full o lawyers trying to circumvent legal walls all of the time. I mean think about tax breaks for large SUVs. There's a piece of tax legislation targeted towards a specific population to incent auto purchases. Think cigarette tax. There's a piece of specific legislation that's target towards a specific population to stop smoking. This stuff happens all of the time. So the question is ... how is this in principle - not execution - different from any other lobby ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:293086 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
