Trump II

[Alan Goldhammer]

Jeff, perhaps if, instead of huffing and puffing and stomping his feet around, Obama worked with congress in the last 6 years, laws, instead of just orders, would have gotten passed.   You know, sort of like George W Bush and Bill Clinton did. 

Joe, the Republicans were not willing to work with Obama one bit but rather adopted "just say no" to anything that was proposed.  Does it not bother you that Obama's Supreme Court justice selection was never accorded a hearing or a vote.  If the cowardly Republicans wanted to wait until after the election they should have just had a floor vote on it.

This is the problem with our current situation, not that we have strong opinions on either side, but that the executive office has over reached in the past couple of presidencies, especially with Obama.  Trump is just putting the natural order of things back in place. 

The Presidency has reached this powerful state because Congress has totally abdicated its responsibilities.  Can you remember the last time they brought a budget in on time for all executive agencies?  This is due on October 1 but never happens.  they just careen from one Continuing Resolution to the next.

Congress is suppose to create laws through compromise; we are not suppose to be force feed executive orders from a president voted into office by one side.  This does nothing but create dissidents, and puts us ever closer to another 1861.

There is no way that we are even close to what was happening in the pre-1861 era.  Trump, as poor a President as he might be, will never approach Fillmore, Pierce or Buchannan.

  This is why I am also for states rights, not because I support the crazy ideas coming out of some of them, but because it is impossible to run a country with such a large geography and peoples under a strong federal government in the long run.

We need to have a lot of standards in all kinds of areas that are enforced on a national level in order to promote interstate commerce.  I can remember in the early 1970s when interstate banking was prohibited and there were even some intrastate regulations that kept banks from competing.  this was not a good thing. 

Insofar as the equal pay argument, it has been debunked several times.  As someone with mathematics degrees and significantly higher understanding of statistics then the average person, I consider the left's argument here to be a great example of "liars figure and figures lies." 

If you look at a sample of men and women, with the sample of men stratified to the sample of women according to job title and years experience, not all men vs. all women, which is statistically inequivalent according to the merits of the study, the wage gap all but disappears. 

Not to the mention the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (passed by congress I should mention, not executive order) already grants equal pay for equal work and qualifications regardless of sex.   [/qutoe]
And there is a lot of litigation when it turns out that women are getting paid less than men.  Walmart is a prime example here

[JoeKitchen]

Joe, please point out to me how Congress encouraged the housing bubble that began in 2000.  Do not use the Community Reinvestment Act which has been thoroughly debunked.  Tell me how Congress interacted with WaMu, IndyMac, Wachovia, and Countrywide (the four largest subprime lenders).  There is nothing there.

This a false equivalency and red herring.  Of course congress did not interact with those banks, ethically they can not, and I put most blame on the banks and both class of idiots who both gave out loans who could afford them and who took out loans who couldn't afford them. 

It more has to do with how congress encouraged quotas for low income individuals. 

[Alan Goldhammer]

Here's an article from the  liberal The Atlantic, not exactly a magazine that favors banks.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/hey-barney-frank-the-government-did-cause-the-housing-crisis/249903/

Alan,, that's not an article but rather an op-ed from Peter Wallinson of the American Enterprise Institute.  His views have been debunked so many times it's not even funny. His only claim to fame was that he authored a minority report on the issue. The trouble is one really has to do a lot of reading to understand what transpired with the melt down.  Short magazine pieces won't do it.

EDIT:  Good piece on Peter Wallison and the Big Lie:  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/24/opinion/nocera-the-big-lie.html

[Alan Goldhammer]

This a false equivalency and red herring.  Of course congress did not interact with those banks, ethically they can not, and I put most blame on the banks and both class of idiots who both gave out loans who could afford them and who took out loans who couldn't afford them. 

It more has to do with how congress encouraged quotas for low income individuals.

You might profit from reading this short piece from Barry Ritholtz:  http://ritholtz.com/2009/06/cra-thought-experiment/   there are a lot of other good sources that debunk this but they are much longer and in some cases in books that I've got sitting on the bookshelf.

[JoeKitchen]

Joe, the Republicans were not willing to work with Obama one bit but rather adopted "just say no" to anything that was proposed.  Does it not bother you that Obama's Supreme Court justice selection was never accorded a hearing or a vote.  If the cowardly Republicans wanted to wait until after the election they should have just had a floor vote on it.
The Presidency has reached this powerful state because Congress has totally abdicated its responsibilities.  Can you remember the last time they brought a budget in on time for all executive agencies?  This is due on October 1 but never happens.  they just careen from one Continuing Resolution to the next.
There is no way that we are even close to what was happening in the pre-1861 era.  Trump, as poor a President as he might be, will never approach Fillmore, Pierce or Buchannan.
We need to have a lot of standards in all kinds of areas that are enforced on a national level in order to promote interstate commerce.  I can remember in the early 1970s when interstate banking was prohibited and there were even some intrastate regulations that kept banks from competing.  this was not a good thing. 

Insofar as the equal pay argument, it has been debunked several times.  As someone with mathematics degrees and significantly higher understanding of statistics then the average person, I consider the left's argument here to be a great example of "liars figure and figures lies." 

If you look at a sample of men and women, with the sample of men stratified to the sample of women according to job title and years experience, not all men vs. all women, which is statistically inequivalent according to the merits of the study, the wage gap all but disappears. 

Not to the mention the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (passed by congress I should mention, not executive order) already grants equal pay for equal work and qualifications regardless of sex.   [/qutoe]
And there is a lot of litigation when it turns out that women are getting paid less than men. 

Walmart is a prime example here

Okay, mostly good points.

On the supreme court nomination, both parties are equally guilty of it, but that does make it right.  Obama tried to filibuster GW Bush's nomination at the end of his presidency for the same reason.  Biden approved of the same idea too as did Schumer under similar circumstances.  Really, since the 60s, the supreme court has become too much of a political tool by both sides. 

I do agree that congress has abdicated it responsibilities and this adding to the problem of the executive office over reach.  Maybe this would be a great reason for term limits, since that would dampen this a bit.  Never going to happen though; no one would vote to reduce the length of their employment. 

However, that does not mean a president should force feed his agenda down the throats of the other half if he can not compromise and get it through congress.  Nor should those on the left, or the right, be upset with the undoing of temporary orders when their president failed at governing. 

Also, I do agree our current leadership will not reach the lows of the pre-civil war era, but that was not my point.  As wrong as the reasons where (slavery), the dissidents in the South was created by an over reach of the growing political power of the North.  This is sort of happening again, just with conservatives vs liberals.  (My primary concern is with fiscal issues and the size of government, so someone else, lets not turn this statement to social issues.) 

National standards are needed in some areas, but not others.  Of course, if we want to encourage interstate commerce, like in banking, having a national standard would be good, but it should not become a Frankenstein of regulations.  On other things though, like education, it makes no sense since we do not trade education over state lines. 

The litigation currently happening with inappropriate wage for women, if it turns out to be true, will be settled under the Far Pay Act, not any of Obama's executive orders.  Trumps undoing will not effect this. 

However, liked I mentioned before, with this issue, everyone on the left always points out the averages of every man vs every woman, which is not statistically appropriate.  I have yet to see anyone on the left use a stratified study on the issue, which is what is appropriate, probably because it would not prove their point. 

Liars figure and figures lies, and unfortunately its become cool to say, "well, I'm really bad at math" without being embarrassed by saying it.  If you're bad at math, you should be just as embarrassed by it as if you couldn't read.  Maybe if we reverse this, less people would be fooled by the liars that figure. 

[Alan Klein]

Alan,, that's not an article but rather an op-ed from Peter Wallinson of the American Enterprise Institute.  His views have been debunked so many times it's not even funny. His only claim to fame was that he authored a minority report on the issue. The trouble is one really has to do a lot of reading to understand what transpired with the melt down.  Short magazine pieces won't do it.

You can believe what you want.  But the fact is quotas for banks to give money to people who could not afford mortgages caused banks to lower their underwriting standards.  I personally witnessed it in 2003/2004 when my wife an I were looking for a home.  When I asked our mortgage broker if we should supply pay stubs and other asset papers, he said that the bank doesn't need them.  I was stunned that the standards had so decreased from the way it use to be.  So naturally, the banks, being stuck with bad mortgages to people who couldn't afford them, unloaded them in the form of securitization conspiring with rating agencies to lie about their lousy value.  But the whole mess wouldn't have happened if Congress didn't set up these quotas to loan money to poor people.

[Alan Klein]

Okay, mostly good points.

On the supreme court nomination, both parties are equally guilty of it, but that does make it right.  Obama tried to filibuster GW Bush's nomination at the end of his presidency for the same reason.  Biden approved of the same idea too as did Schumer under similar circumstances.  Really, since the 60s, the supreme court has become too much of a political tool by both sides. 

I do agree that congress has abdicated it responsibilities and this adding to the problem of the executive office over reach....

...Also, I do agree our current leadership will not reach the lows of the pre-civil war era, but that was not my point.  As wrong as the reasons where (slavery), the dissidents in the South was created by an over reach of the growing political power of the North.  This is sort of happening again, just with conservatives vs liberals.  (My primary concern is with fiscal issues and the size of government, so someone else, lets not turn this statement to social issues.) 

National standards are needed in some areas, but not others.  Of course, if we want to encourage interstate commerce, like in banking, having a national standard would be good, but it should not become a Frankenstein of regulations.  On other things though, like education, it makes no sense since we do not trade education over state lines....

Beside Congress abdicating its power to the President, the Supreme Court has added to the overall power of the federal government reducing State's rights.  The court has expanded the Federal government right to Regulate Interstate Commerce, privacy and "human rights" to mean practically anything they want it to mean.  So states can no longer run their communities as the people democratically wish to live.  Your education is a perfect example.  It has nothing to do with interstate commerce.  I remember one time the Supreme Court overruled Congress.  Based on Interstate Commerce, Congress passed a law outlawing guns within a near distance of schools to make them safer for kids, a noble idea.  Even the Supreme Court couldn't figure out how that had anything to do with commerce and declared it unconstitutional.  Let the states decide how they want to educate and protect their kids.  Parents will demand their local officials do their jobs.  We don't need congressman and senators from other states who don't understand our local situation to decide how we should live.  And the Constitution, as written, didn't intend to give that power to D.C.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Okay, mostly good points.

On the supreme court nomination, both parties are equally guilty of it, but that does make it right.  Obama tried to filibuster GW Bush's nomination at the end of his presidency for the same reason.  Biden approved of the same idea too as did Schumer under similar circumstances.  Really, since the 60s, the supreme court has become too much of a political tool by both sides.

Biden mentioned the possibility of doing this but it never came to pass.  We will never know if his suggestion would have been followed but that's what the Republicans have held up.

I do agree that congress has abdicated it responsibilities and this adding to the problem of the executive office over reach.  Maybe this would be a great reason for term limits, since that would dampen this a bit.  Never going to happen though; no one would vote to reduce the length of their employment. 

However, that does not mean a president should force feed his agenda down the throats of the other half if he can not compromise and get it through congress.  Nor should those on the left, or the right, be upset with the undoing of temporary orders when their president failed at governing. 

Also, I do agree our current leadership will not reach the lows of the pre-civil war era, but that was not my point.  As wrong as the reasons where (slavery), the dissidents in the South was created by an over reach of the growing political power of the North.  This is sort of happening again, just with conservatives vs liberals.  (My primary concern is with fiscal issues and the size of government, so someone else, lets not turn this statement to social issues.) 

I go back a lot longer than you do and can remember when there was actually bi-partisanship in Congress and when Congress worked well with the President.  Things took a turn for the worse following the 1994 mid-terms when the Gingrich team took over the house.  There was no willingness of the House to work with President Clinton and of course there was the impeachment attempt.  I remember when Orrin Hatch used to boast of working with Ted Kennedy on issues.   I doubt we will see this return any time soon.  the well is poisoned and Congressional districts are way to partisan these days (only a small number of seats are really Gerrymandered; most of it is a result of self selection in terms of where people want to live.).

National standards are needed in some areas, but not others.  Of course, if we want to encourage interstate commerce, like in banking, having a national standard would be good, but it should not become a Frankenstein of regulations.  On other things though, like education, it makes no sense since we do not trade education over state lines. 

there is a lot of regulation at the state and local level that is just stupid.  My late father was a civil engineer and he had to be licensed in all that states that his architectural & engineering firm worked.  fortunately it was a small number but he used to always say what a nuisance it was.

Liars figure and figures lies, and unfortunately its become cool to say, "well, I'm really bad at math" without being embarrassed by saying it.  If you're bad at math, you should be just as embarrassed by it as if you couldn't read.  Maybe if we reverse this, less people would be fooled by the liars that figure.

Quite true!!!

[Alan Goldhammer]

You can believe what you want.  But the fact is quotas for banks to give money to people who could not afford mortgages caused banks to lower their underwriting standards.  I personally witnessed it in 2003/2004 when my wife an I were looking for a home.  When I asked our mortgage broker if we should supply pay stubs and other asset papers, he said that the bank doesn't need them.  I was stunned that the standards had so decreased from the way it use to be.  So naturally, the banks, being stuck with bad mortgages to people who couldn't afford them, unloaded them in the form of securitization conspiring with rating agencies to lie about their lousy value.  But the whole mess wouldn't have happened if Congress didn't set up these quotas to loan money to poor people.

Alan, look at the areas where the mortgage meltdowns took place (Arizona, Nevada, south Florida, parts of California).  these were not areas where the Community Reinvestment Act was generally applicable.  As you found out mortgage brokers were just as complicit as the banks and other lending organizations were.  Underwriting standards were non-existent and there was blame enough to go around to everyone.  Your final statement is just wrong.  Here is a rejoinder to Senator Rubio when he was essentially saying something similar to what you have written following an Obama state of the union speech:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/02/13/no-marco-rubio-government-did-not-cause-the-housing-crisis/?utm_term=.4b9c0ced2694 

You may continue to believe what you wrote but my point is that this has been debunked numerous times including by the Federal Reserve itself.

[JoeKitchen]

there is a lot of regulation at the state and local level that is just stupid.  My late father was a civil engineer and he had to be licensed in all that states that his architectural & engineering firm worked.  fortunately it was a small number but he used to always say what a nuisance it was.

Once again, you see federal responsibility and I see state responsibility here. 

I work with architects a lot and they need to be licensed in each state they work in.  To get licensure, you need to pass 9 exams, and gain credits every 5 years to continue your education, plus a degree in Architecture, which takes 5 years, and so many hours as an apprentice (intern architect, which is not a very accurate title).  8 of those of exams for all states are the same, and each state has a specific score you need to obtain.  The 9th exam though is usually state regulated and covers items pertinent to that state; many neighboring states do share the same 9th exam.   

For instance, NY is going to be more interested in making sure architects understand the building of skyscrapers.  FL will want people to know about flood plains.  CA will want architects to understand designing for earthquakes.  I see no reason why all architects should need to know all of these geographically specific needs.  Doing so would only make becoming an architect even more difficult, which is already too cumbersome in my opinion. 

A friend of mine is an architect, but use to be a lawyer.  She said the exams for architecture where much more difficult then taking the Bar. 

[Alan Goldhammer]

For instance, NY is going to be more interested in making sure architects understand the building of skyscrapers.  FL will want people to know about flood plains.  CA will want architects to understand designing for earthquakes.  I see no reason why all architects should need to know all of these geographically specific needs.  Doing so would only make becoming an architect even more difficult, which is already too cumbersome in my opinion. 

Actually it is the civil engineers that are responsible for what you write.  Architectural course work doesn't go into that kind of stuff.  My dad was co-equal partner with the architect in his firm (them met during WW-II working at Consolidated Aircraft in San Diego where B-24s and PBY-Catalinas were manufactured).  My dad was expert in earthquake stuff.  they didn't do much in terms of tall buildings as there was not much demand in San Diego for those.

[JoeKitchen]

Actually it is the civil engineers that are responsible for what you write.  Architectural course work doesn't go into that kind of stuff.  My dad was co-equal partner with the architect in his firm (them met during WW-II working at Consolidated Aircraft in San Diego where B-24s and PBY-Catalinas were manufactured).  My dad was expert in earthquake stuff.  they didn't do much in terms of tall buildings as there was not much demand in San Diego for those.

If that was the case, there would be no need for differing 9th exams from state to state. 

The engineers are responsible for the engineering; the architects are responsible for the architecture.  The design, not just the engineering, of a building and its use changes based on conditions.  Architects do more then just draw creative designs all day.  Not to mention, the architectural drawings, what the architect, not the engineer, is responsible for producing, are the legal document of how the building is built.  On top of that, it is usually the architectural firm that over sees the project during construction. 

Both professionals are responsible for changing conditions. 

Not that you would ever need to, but if you ever happen into the main office of SOM in NYC (the leading skyscraper architectural firm in the world), page through their yearly reports.  You would be amazed at the innovations they had to come up with to help make their building more efficient.  Design changes significantly when buildings get taller. 

Not to mention, it is the architectural firm that becomes certified to produce LEED designs.  The methods to get a skyscraper LEED certified comes down to more design, not engineering. 

[Schewe]

He promised in 2008 he was going to remove the troops.  So that's what he did.

So, he pulled troops out because he promised to do so in his platform and that's a lie?

Not keeping troops in /Iraq...

Obama said in 2014:

“So let’s just be clear: The reason that we did not have a follow-on force in Iraq was because the Iraqis were--a majority of Iraqis did not want U.S. troops there, and politically they could not pass the kind of laws that would be required to protect our troops in Iraq,” said Obama.

Obama went on to say that he does not believe it would not have made any difference if he had decided to keep troops in Iraq.

“The only difference would be we’d have a bunch of troops on the ground that would be vulnerable,” said Obama. “And however many troops we had, we would have to now be reinforcing, I’d have to be protecting them, and we’d have a much bigger job. And probably, we would end up having to go up again in terms of the number of grounds troops to make sure that those forces were not vulnerable.

“So that entire analysis is bogus and is wrong,” said Obama. “But it gets frequently peddled around here by folks who oftentimes are trying to defend previous policies that they themselves made.”

And that's a lie? I suppose Obama could have gone against Iraqi wishes and kept troops in-country by force, but that's what he was trying to avoid in the 1st place by pulling troops out.

So, you claim he lied about Benghazi (even though in his first comments he mentioned "terror"), but even if his admin misstated the truth after the fact (point in fact the hearings proved nobody knew the truth for about 36 hrs), how is a lie after the fact the cause of any deaths?

Yes, the situation in Syria sucked...it sucked before Obama was elected, it sucked after he was elected and it sucks now "bigly". Yes, he said "red line" and had every intention to adhering to that. The realities of the struggles precluded doing much of anything without committing ground troops which the country had no stomach for...Assad is still in power and now the Russians are killing even more people–maybe because they feel emboldened because of Trump?

In the meantime, Trump lies at about a 70% clip when he opens his mouth (via Politifact). I see Trump's lies being far worse for the country than the previous admin was. We'll have to see how many lives Trump's lies will end up costing...

[Alan Goldhammer]

If that was the case, there would be no need for differing 9th exams from state to state. 

The engineers are responsible for the engineering; the architects are responsible for the architecture.  The design, not just the engineering, of a building and its use changes based on conditions.  Architects do more then just draw creative designs all day.  Not to mention, the architectural drawings, what the architect, not the engineer, is responsible for producing, are the legal document of how the building is built.  On top of that, it is usually the architectural firm that over sees the project during construction. 

Both professionals are responsible for changing conditions.

Well, I can't ask my dad about this any more.  I do know his partner did not have expertise with reinforced concrete, my father did.  I don't how much time is spent on structural issues in an architecture curriculum but that's almost the whole thing that civil engineers study.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Yes, the situation in Syria sucked...it sucked before Obama was elected, it sucked after he was elected and it sucks now "bigly". Yes, he said "red line" and had every intention to adhering to that. The realities of the struggles precluded doing much of anything without committing ground troops which the country had no stomach for...Assad is still in power and now the Russians are killing even more people–maybe because they feel emboldened because of Trump?

We have had another poison gas attack by the Syrian air force along with some stories over the weekend about torture in Syrian jails yet there is no outcry from the Trump administration about this.  We have soldiers risking their lives to wipe out ISIS bases in Syria, yet no plan for dealing with Syria in the long run.  At least Obama said he didn't want to see Assad in power; do we know what the position of the Trump administration is?

[JoeKitchen]

Well, I can't ask my dad about this any more.  I do know his partner did not have expertise with reinforced concrete, my father did.  I don't how much time is spent on structural issues in an architecture curriculum but that's almost the whole thing that civil engineers study.

Design needs and engineering needs are not necessarily the same; both play into building a building. 

With your dad's example, the architect would have most likely known that an area needed to be designed to withstand a certain amount of constant weight, would have determined that weight based on interviews with the client, and would have designed the floor with structure concrete in mind.  The exact make-up of the concrete and how much rebar would be needed based on the foreseen weight would have been your father's responsibility to determine.

For skyscrapers, the way in which an interior in designed, whether or not atriums are used, what type of glass is in place, how the HVAC/plumbing/transport systems are routed, whether or not a green roof is used, all play into how efficient a design is.  All engineering problems, sort of, but of all different engineering practices, and the architect is in charge of bringing this all together. 

A skyscraper could be employing 5 or 6 different engineering firms, civil, foundation, structural, material, HVAC, etc.  This is why the architectural drawings, not the engineering drawings, are the legal document since no one engineering firm would have the entire design documented. 

Architects are not necessarily doing all the math, but they are incorporating it all into the design.  Plus, one of the architectural exams covers just engineering, to an extent. 

[Schewe]

Part Three from the LA Times OpEd...

Part Three: Trump’s Authoritarian Vision

Standing before the cheering throngs at the Republican National Convention last summer, Donald Trump bemoaned how special interests had rigged the country’s politics and its economy, leaving Americans victimized by unfair trade deals, incompetent bureaucrats and spineless leaders.

He swooped into politics, he declared, to subvert the powerful and rescue those who cannot defend themselves. “Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it.”

To Trump’s faithful, those words were a rallying cry. But his critics heard something far more menacing in them: a dangerously authoritarian vision of the presidency — one that would crop up time and again as he talked about overruling generals, disregarding international law, ordering soldiers to commit war crimes, jailing his opponent.

Trump has no experience in politics; he’s never previously run for office or held a government position. So perhaps he was unaware that one of the hallmarks of the American system of government is that the president’s power to “fix” things unilaterally is constrained by an array of strong institutions — including the courts, the media, the permanent federal bureaucracy and Congress. Combined, they provide an essential defense against an imperial presidency.

Yet in his first weeks at the White House, President Trump has already sought to undermine many of those institutions. Those that have displayed the temerity to throw some hurdle in the way of a Trump objective have quickly felt the heat.

So far he's attacked the electoral process, the intelligence community, the media, the court system, the federal agencies, our foreign allies and most recently, the conservative members in his own party. He has no clue about building a consensus or the process of governing...

Trump betrays no sense for the president’s place among the myriad of institutions in the continuum of governance. He seems willing to violate long-established political norms without a second thought, and he cavalierly rejects the civility and deference that allow the system to run smoothly. He sees himself as not merely a force for change, but as a wrecking ball.

This is not good for our country....

[Alan Klein]

We have had another poison gas attack by the Syrian air force along with some stories over the weekend about torture in Syrian jails yet there is no outcry from the Trump administration about this.  We have soldiers risking their lives to wipe out ISIS bases in Syria, yet no plan for dealing with Syria in the long run.  At least Obama said he didn't want to see Assad in power; do we know what the position of the Trump administration is?

We should just kill ISIS and go home. We have to stop playing policeman and making the world safe for democracy.   Let Assad deal with his country. Didn't we learn a lesson by overthrowing Saddam and releasing the bats out of hell?  Let other Muslim countries deal with Assad, Russia and Iran if they think it's so important.  Saudi Arabia comes to mind.  We can sell them tanks and planes and let them do the fighting.  It's their neighborhood.

[Alan Klein]

If that was the case, there would be no need for differing 9th exams from state to state. 

The engineers are responsible for the engineering; the architects are responsible for the architecture.  The design, not just the engineering, of a building and its use changes based on conditions.  Architects do more then just draw creative designs all day.  Not to mention, the architectural drawings, what the architect, not the engineer, is responsible for producing, are the legal document of how the building is built.  On top of that, it is usually the architectural firm that over sees the project during construction. 

Both professionals are responsible for changing conditions. 

Not that you would ever need to, but if you ever happen into the main office of SOM in NYC (the leading skyscraper architectural firm in the world), page through their yearly reports.  You would be amazed at the innovations they had to come up with to help make their building more efficient.  Design changes significantly when buildings get taller. 

Not to mention, it is the architectural firm that becomes certified to produce LEED designs.  The methods to get a skyscraper LEED certified comes down to more design, not engineering. 

Electrical, mechanical and other engineers are also LEEDS certified.  Not just the Architect.  Producing energy and environmentally sound bldgs. come down to their electrical and mechanical systems as well as the structure.   LEEDs certification I think are national unlike architectural licenses which are by state.  You don't need LEED to be an engineer, but it makes you more valuable to a firm if you are.   

Note: LEED is an acronym for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System™ certification.  Buildings can be certified as are engineers and architects and others who provide design input.

[Schewe]

We have had another poison gas attack by the Syrian air force along with some stories over the weekend about torture in Syrian jails yet there is no outcry from the Trump administration about this.  We have soldiers risking their lives to wipe out ISIS bases in Syria, yet no plan for dealing with Syria in the long run.  At least Obama said he didn't want to see Assad in power; do we know what the position of the Trump administration is?

Well, McCain isn't happy...

McCain rips Trump administration over Syria policy

(CNN)Sen. John McCain said Tuesday the Trump administration's decision to no longer prioritize ending the Syrian civil war is "another disgraceful chapter in American history."

"(Syrian President) Bashar Assad and his friends, the Russians, take note of what Americans say," the Arizona Republican told CNN's Alisyn Camerota on "New Day." "I'm sure they took note of what our Secretary of State (Rex Tillerson) said just the other day that the Syrian people would be determining their own future themselves -- one of the more incredible statements I've ever heard."

"I'm sure they are encouraged to know the United States is withdrawing and seeking a new arrangement with the Russians," he added. "It is another disgraceful chapter in American history and it was predictable."

The Trump administration doubled down last week on prioritizing the fight against ISIS over ending the Syrian civil war and getting rid of Assad, the policy under the Obama administration.

Trump said today: ‘I Don’t Want to Be the President of the World’

President Trump speaking at an conference for the National Association of Business Trade Unions (NTABU) in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday said that his priority is “America first.”

"I'm not, and I don't want to be, the president of the world,” said Trump. “I'm the president of the United States."

So, between Trump and Tillerson, what happens in Syria should just stay in Syria I guess. But sooner or later, Rex has start doing his job...

The Silence of Rex Tillerson

Sooner or later, someone needs to explain what Trump’s foreign policy is. But the secretary of state does not seem to understand his job.

During his short tenure the following has happened: His top pick for deputy secretary of state was shot down at the last minute in a bit of palace intrigue; his boss has proposed slashing his department’s budget by 29 percent; his press operation at the State Department went dark for several weeks, after which the interim spokesman made a (good) statement in support of Russian demonstrators and was promptly moved; he decided to get rid of the usual press entourage on his inaugural overseas trip to Asia; he nearly skipped a meeting of NATO foreign ministers, pulling back in the nick of time to spend only a few hours on the ground in Brussels; he has been preceded on a visit to Iraq by the princeling of the Trump administration, Jared Kushner, whose remit includes China and Middle East peace, among other things. And on the great issues of American foreign policy—nothing.

It is the conceit of professors that the world could easily be run by academics; of soldiers that generals can sort most things out; of business people that what one most needs is someone who has had to meet a payroll. In the case of the Trump administration the bias seems to be towards military people who the president thinks look like killers or are supposed to have monikers like “mad dog,” and for really wealthy folks from the private sector, with an apparent fondness for New York money people.

This is nonsense. The higher offices of state require all kinds of qualities rarely assembled in one individual, among them, yes, basic management skills, but also sensitivity to domestic politics, intellectual depth, a certain degree of vision, substantive knowledge of often recondite issues, interpersonal skills at wheedling, coaxing, intimidating and persuading, and a public persona. Running Exxon Mobil is good preparation for only some of the things a secretary of state must do. And so far, Secretary Tillerson is doing poorly.

#MAGA

Any day now...