<p>Mallomar gets to keep his name and driver wins the
Acta Non Verba award for figuring out the most obvious answer.</p>
<p>The United States Merchant Marine Academy, Kings Point, was the first federal academy to admit women in 1974. Two years before the other four academies.</p>
<p>Kinda changed the game a bit in between the question and the answer. A federal academy is not necessarily the same thing as a service academy. The Merchant Marine is part of the Department of Commerce, not the Department of Defense.</p>
<p>The Coast Guard is somewhere in between. It’s more military in nature than is the Merchant Marine, but it’s not part of the Defense Department either. It’s part of the Department of Homeland Security. And before that it was part of the Department of Transportation.</p>
<p>Actually, USMMA is part of the Department of Transportation. </p>
<p>All federal academies are service academies. I should have said “federal service academies” because that is what they are all referred to as. Sorry for the confusion.</p>
<p>Midshipmen at Kings Point are commissioned in the United States Naval Reserve as are Midshipmen at the US Naval Academy and participate in a military regimen the same as the other federal service academies.</p>
<p>Kings Point graduates have the option of taking active duty commissions in any service or receiving a reserve commission in the Navy and serving at sea in the maritime industry.</p>
<p>However, unlike their counterparts at other service Academies, the students of the USMMA receive an integral part of their training at sea, and are sent into combat theaters. No other academy has ever sent its students in harms way as students. In the Second World War Kings Pointers often found their lives in peril as they sailed through enemy-controlled waters or unloaded precious cargo in overseas combat areas. In all, 142 such midshipmen never returned to home port. For that reason, the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy is privileged among the nation’s five federal service academies to be the only institution authorized to carry a battle standard as part of its color guard. </p>
<p>Kings Point Midshipmen have served in every conflict since WW II and today over 200 Midshipman have participated in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. As I write this, my son is on his second trip to Iraq bringing reconstruction supplies to the Port of Umm Qasr.</p>
<p>Service to the nation is what each of the Academies are all about.</p>
<p>She denied flat out that US has no secret prisons on her trip to Europe, now it’s been confirmed unabashfully by our president. She is pretty to look at, but she is so self-conscious that she loves to show off her coquettish smile at very inappropriate moments when being interviewed on very serious subject and that really turns me off. Her lack of knowledge and insight on the middle east really compliments President Bush’s meat-chop cowboy approach.</p>
<p>tennisDad, if you are referring to the statement that I think you are, what she was denying was that we were torturing prisoners in secret prisons. That is very different than denying having secret prisons.</p>
<p>Yeah, since the President seems to feel he can define things like “torture” or “illegal” it’s all meaningless. We’re in Wonderland: I mean a word to mean what I mean it to mean, nothing more and nothing less.</p>
<p>I would not vote for anyone associated with the Bush administration in any way, shape or form. The only Republican I currently have any respect for is John McCain and to be completely honest with you I would have to look at the Democratic candidate before voting for McCain.</p>
<p>If the so-called ‘secret prisons’ are actually classified, she’s sworn an oath not to disclose them. To do so would be a serious violation of the law.</p>
<p>You just don’t get it both ways. If a person, especially one as important as Secretary of State were to make such disclosures without proper authority, frankly, you would not want that person in Government. They could not be trusted and would thus be unworthy of the position of trust.</p>
<p>To suggest otherwise is, frankly, stupid. (My apologies to any offended who suffer from such a condition - there is help available :)) When you are responsible for the lives and welfare of others - possibly millions of people - seemingly simple choices suddenly take on enormous weight. It’s not a game. </p>
<p>As a result, second-guessing by those not privy to facts or those with an agenda should be far more circumspect than they are. </p>
<p>But hey, it’s FRIDAY! Isn’t that ‘Miller’ time? The weekend is upon us! College football!</p>
<p>“Yeah, since the President seems to feel he can define things like “torture” or “illegal” it’s all meaningless. We’re in Wonderland: I mean a word to mean what I mean it to mean, nothing more and nothing less.”</p>
<p>I hate to badmouth Bill Clinton since there are so many Republicans to do it for me, but I feel like he started it. I feel like I’m living in 1984. All the words have been redefined.</p>
<p>Plenty politicians before Clinton used language creatively, beginning in the US with the Founding Fathers and their “all men created equal” line which of course did NOT mean what it means.</p>
<p>“If a person, especially one as important as Secretary of State were to make such disclosures without proper authority, frankly, you would not want that person in Government. They could not be trusted and would thus be unworthy of the position of trust.”</p>
<p>And then when it is found out they are “mendacious”, they lose credibility.</p>
<p>Accusing Dr. Rice of telling lies habitually (being mendacious) is just a demonstration of extreme partisanship. She does not do that. One could accuse Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, CA) of being mendacious because, from the Republican point of view, she radically distorts the truth. However, this is not really correct, to be fair. She expresses her views of situations that come across to some as untrue, but really are full of her party’s policy interpretations that are disputed by the other side. In our government, this gets settled generally through the processes of Congress.</p>
<p>Telling the media half-truths or even full lies to protect extremely sensitive classified information that directly deals with our national security is sometimes warranted. It may be uncomfortable to realize this, but it is true. </p>
<p>The media, especially the New York Times, may seriously damage the national security because they don’t like the Administration’s policies or personnel. In effect, the editors of the NYT then circumvent our elected officials’ policies - paid for with taxpayers’ monies - and perhaps get Americans killed. Who voted for them? Who elected them Politburo? Why would they expose such policies as opposed to perhaps alerting Members of Congress? As a result, I offer that protecting hideously expensive classified information that protects us by whatever means is ethical and lawful, is fine. Checks and balances are in place to curb abuse by the Executive Branch already. The Fourth Estate is essential, but they have exceeded any moral authority in this area by these recent acts of a few.</p>
<p>CHecks and balances <em>used</em> to curb executive abuse. Those were the olden days, before the great expansion of executive power exercised by President Bush.</p>
<p>Bush challenges hundreds of laws
President cites powers of his office
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 30, 2006</p>
<p>WASHINGTON – President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.</p>
<p>Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.</p>
<p>Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush’s assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.</p>
<p>If, after the inevitable and detailed review of all this alleged seizure of power, the President retains any of these recently claimed ‘rights’ then they were likely powers of the Executive Branch to start with.</p>
<p>This is why we have three co-equal branches of government. If one pushes the limts of authority the other branches will check that exercise of power.</p>
<p>If the President were to ignore the explicit directives of Congress, for example, Congress could de-fund the Executive Branch. Not likely, but you get the picture.</p>
<p>Don’t lose any sleep over it. Be happy you live in America. :)</p>
<p>LOL at those being “powers of the Executive Branch to start with”! </p>
<p>That might be true if we had a reasonable balance of powers, but we don’t. We have a complicit Republican congress,a nd an increasingly powerful SCOTUS. This extension of executive power, which is illegal, is well documented.</p>
<p>And don’t worry too much about my sleep; it’s crappy due to menopause anyway. ;)</p>