Update from the Heartland
No.475
17.1.11 – 23.1.11
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- On Tuesday, the House held their ballyhooed vote on and passage of the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act [HR 2; House: 245-189-0-1(0)] {to wit: repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) [PL 111-148] [432]; restore provisions of law amended by PPACA; and repeal the health care provisions of the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 [PL 111-152]}. I hope they feel better now, so they can get down to real legislative work. The bill has virtually no chance in the Senate, and even if passed by Congress, certainly would have been vetoed by President Obama. There are insufficient votes to override a presidential veto.
-- An interesting opinion of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [558 U.S. ____ (2010)] [424] that deserves reading and thinking.
“How the Citizens United ruling freed political speech”
by David N. Bossie and Theodore B. Olson
Washington Post
Published: Friday, January 21, 2011
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/20/AR2011012005149.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
My opinion has not changed. Corporations are NOT citizens despite what the Supremes have done with Citizens United. They do not have the rights of citizenship; they are constructions by citizens for the purpose of doing business. Now, I suspect this will take a long time to correct. And so it goes.
-- The drama continues:
“Next up for Obama: Marriage equality for gay Americans”
by Kerry EleveldWashington Post
Published: Friday, January 21, 2011
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/20/AR2011012005148.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
The Obama administration has filed its brief to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) [PL 104-199] and against the pair of district court decisions from the State of Massachusetts.
== Massachusetts v. United States [USDC MA 1:09-cv-11156-JLT (2010)]
== Gill v. OPM [USDC MA 1:09-cv-10309-JLT (2010)] [449]
The 174-page Justice Department brief is an excellent compendium of Federal and State law regarding DOMA, the marriage rights question, and the various legal challenges to the law.
“Parenting question: Be a tiger mother, or cheer the B-minus?”
by Ruth Marcus
Washington Post
Published: Wednesday, January 19, 2011
http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/E5QODK/9Z4KD9/EWKFHH/HBWDOA/YXU03/QR/h
Marcus concluded, “The key to good parenting lies somewhere between these two approaches, between demanding too much and accepting too little. The difficulty of good parenting lies in the fact that this sweet spot is elusive, individual and constantly changing. You may be the lucky parent who hits it, but you will not know for years.” On a related note, Mark Kelly’s very gracious and magnanimous absolution of Loughner’s parents regarding their son’s dastardly deed is both unsupported and I must respectfully say wrong. I acknowledge that Mark probably sought the diplomatic, politically correct response to such a foolish question, but the reality is, his response ignores reality. Children do not become homicidal sociopaths on their own, and for a young adult like Loughner to grow up through childhood as disturbed and unbalanced as he did, his parents were at least complacent if not complicit. The Loughner parents are not innocent collateral victims in this tragedy. The point Ruth Marcus implied is precisely my point . . . good parents care about the health, welfare and maturation of their children. They love their children and ensure they have professional help when they need it. Good parents do what must be done to ensure their children grow up to be peaceful, law-abiding, productive citizens.
“New Yorker’s Hersh sparks anger, puzzlement with remarks on military ‘crusaders’”
by Paul Farhi
Washington Post
Published: Friday, January 21, 2011; 12:00 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/20/AR2011012006090.html?wpisrc=nl_headline
Seymour Hersh has a reputation as a rather caustic assessor of the military that serves the United States of America [151, 343, 346]. Since I have been aware of Seymour Hersh (circa 1968), I have wondered what is it that irritates me so bloody much about his words and opinions? This episode helped me; I finally understand why. Hersh does not just offer his criticism or illumination of some wrong-doing, or issue, or difference of opinion; he seeks to inflict injury on those he disagrees with. While I respect his right to speak his mind, I find purposefully injurious opinion to be despicable and contemptuous. Hersh did not seek to expose evangelical generals who stray from national policy. He sought to damage the national security of this Grand Republic. I now see him for what he is. Thank goodness for Freedom of the Press. I join Tom Ricks in waiting for the fact-checking of his inflammatory accusations.
Last week [474], I shared an eMail thread about the assassination of Aslan T. Soobzokov’s father and the legal effort for justice. Aslan reminded me that I had not included his Letter to the Editor regarding an article about his father in a local newspaper. The original article:
http://www.northjersey.com/news/opinions/109604589_Nothing_obscure_about_this_man_s_disturbing_past.html
As you read Aslan’s response to the newspaper, imagine, if you will, being in Aslan’s position. Here is Aslan’s rebuttal Letter to the Editor.
“This letter is in response to an article written by Mike Kelly regarding my late honorable father, Tscherim Soobzokov. The article appeared in your publication on November 21, 2010.
“Conclusions were made by Kelly that are factually inaccurate and are not supported by any objective evidence. Therefore I can only conclude that the article was maliciously written.
“Kelly is using a misinformed source who stated that Soobzokov was an ‘Incorrigible fabricator.’ Kelly does not provide your readers with the basis to support the conclusion, and does not advise them what the basis was for that statement. He states categorically that Soobzokov murdered Jews during the Second World War. There is no evidence whatsoever that Soobzokov murdered Jews or anyone. Nazi hunters including the respected Berlin Document Center, founded by the late Simon Wiesenthal, have never, ever claimed that Soobzokov was wanted for Nazi atrocities. The Nazi connection in Circassia relative to Soobzokov is misplaced and exaggerated by irresponsible journalists. There is no evidence that Soobzokov was involved with the German forces in hurting anyone, or being a ‘Nazi.’ Should you define the term Nazi, you will see that Soobzokov was never a Nazi.
“Reference was made by Kelly about a polygraph examination implicating Soobzokov as having admitted to being in an “execution commando” unit is a complete fabrication. Does he know anything about polygraph examinations, the protocols, and how they should be conducted? Clearly he does not. Did he have an expert review the polygraph charts? Kelly admitted the examination was conducted under pressure which negates the validity of such an examination. Did he review the actual documents or does he rely on what an individual purports to have concluded.
“Kelly states that ‘it’s a safe bet that Soobzokov was a killer’ referring to an alleged prior association with the German Army that invaded the Caucasus. Further, by way of innuendo, Kelly calls my deceased father a Killer. It is appalling that a journalist of his stature would make such an assertion without proof. Soobzokov did not ‘blend’ in with 200 Circassians that immigrated to Jordan. Soobzokov lead his fellow Circassians into Jordan. It was by Soobzokov’s efforts that Circassians found refugee in Jordan. Clearly Kelly does not have relevant facts and evidence to support his assertions and conclusions.
“He relied on selective and inaccurate information and patched it together to make Soobzokov appear as someone who was evil. He called Soobzokov a ‘lying Killer.’ In conclusion he wrote Soobzokov was a Nazi and Con man.
“Tscherim Soobzokov is my beloved and honorable father. I have read all the documents given to me via the freedom information Act from C.I.A., F.B.I., and the National Archives. I went to Circassia and interviewed nearly two dozen Circassians. My father is known there as a man who saved the lives of many Circassians and other nationalities of the Caucasus during the war. Not one of the journalists who wrote about my father did that. They never took the time to investigate the truth. Not even Kelly. Kelly cryptically reads selective and biased information about my father, and he quickly concluded that my father is a ‘killer,’ a ‘Nazi,’ and a ‘con man.’ Shame on him. If he was a fair unbiased journalist he would have contacted neutral sources to clear up the confusion he has. I have read and researched much on my late father and would have answered any questions Kelly could not find answers to.
“Tscherim Soobzokov was never a Nazi as the term is commonly defined. He was in the German army because they invaded the Caucasus region, which was under the control of the Russians. My father was 17 years old when you people contend that he was a ranking Nazi who killed Jews. Our people have never been accused of war crimes. Do your research.
“I am my father’s son, as such; I demand retractions to this article. You tarnished my father’s memory, and as his son, you bring dishonor and harm to me and my family. Tell me; was it necessary to show the picture of my father’s car fire bombed in the article? Do you know what it does to my family to see that?
“I ask for your retraction forthwith as a responsible man. I will not permit a lie to be published about my innocent and honorable father. I ask you to act accordingly.
“Truly yours,
“Aslan T. Soobzokov”
I would like to add to Aslan’s admonition of Kelly’s ill-advised, ill-informed and rather myopic opinion. Kelly misses the whole point. Vigilantism cannot be tolerated, end of story . . . regardless of the guilt or innocence of the accused. The U.S. Government must prosecute the perpetrators of the crime against Tscherim Soobzokov and the Soobzokov family.
In the wake of reading the government’s Nazi report [472], I read a relevant and cited Supreme Court decision – United States v. Balsys [524 U.S. 666 (1998); no. 97-873]. The process of understanding and absorbing the meaning of the decision instigated a broader scope of contemplation for me. Aloyzas Balsys, a Lithuanian by birth (1913), applied for and received an immigrant visa and alien registration in 1961, at the American Consulate in Liverpool, England, under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 [PL 82-414; 8 U.S.C. §1201]. In his application, Balsys stated that he had served in the Lithuanian army between 1934 and 1940, and had lived in hiding in Plateliai, Lithuania, between 1940 and 1944. Balsys lived as a peaceful, law-abiding, productive, legal resident alien in Woodhaven, New York, until 1993, when the Justice Department’s Office of Special Investigations (OSI) opened an investigation about him, based on collateral wartime documents obtained in other unrelated cases. The OSI documents indicate that Balsys had been a member of the Saugumas (Lithuanian Security Police) from 1940-1944. The Saugumas were infamous for their collaboration with the Nazis in persecuting communists, Jews and other civilians; he was implicated by association alone. Balsys invoked his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. The government argued that his deportation proceeding was not a criminal action; self-incrimination did not apply; and thus, he was compelled by subpoena to answer the OSI’s interrogation queries regardless of any potential foreign consequences. Balsys cited his fear of foreign prosecution to sustain his 5th Amendment protection. The Supreme Court rejected his argument, based on their assessment that the 5th Amendment did not extend to foreign jurisdictions. Thus, Balsys was required to testify, but he still refused and chose to leave the United States (his home for 36 years) for Lithuania on 29.May.1999. There is no readily available information regarding the condition or location of Aloyzas Balsys since he left the United States. The Balsys ruling is disturbing on many levels. We can rationalize this judgment since he was likely a Nazi sympathizer and probably a persecutor of Jews and others during World War II. We can view such cases as “What me worry,” since we will never face deportation or denaturalization proceedings, therefore the Balsys decision will never apply to us. Au contraire, mon ami! This is a statement of Federal power and authority over the common citizen like so many other recent SCOTUS opinions. I believe Associate Justice Breyer rang the bell with his dissenting opinion (only Justice Ginsburg joined), when he observed, “If the policies and purposes which this Court has said underlie the Fifth Amendment – respect for individual dignity and privacy, prevention of governmental overreaching, preservation of an accusatorial system of criminal justice – would all be well served by applying the privilege when a witness legitimately fears foreign prosecution, then what reason could there be for reinterpreting the privilege so as not to recognize it here?” He went on to note, “This is a price that the [5th] Amendment extracts where government wishes to compel incriminating testimony; and it is difficult to see why that price should not be paid where there is a real threat of prosecution, but it is foreign.” The Framers never intended the Federal government to be omnipotent in the lives of free citizens. We can argue that our Liberty began to be carved off sliver by slice with the Supreme Court’s pivotal McCulloch v. Maryland [17 U.S. 316 (1819); 4 Wheat. 316] [416] decision. The supremacy and dominance of the Federal government solidified in the carnage of the Civil War (or War Between the States, depending upon what side our ancestors took) and specifically with the ratification of the 14th Amendment [9.July.1868]. I understand, appreciate and accept our need for a strong Federal government. The government has done good things for We, the People. Unfortunately, despite good intentions, the USG has also done some truly egregious things in the name of protecting the People, safeguarding the moral values they deem appropriate. Just the presumption of such intrusion into our freedom of choice to Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness is repulsive and offensive. The Balsys court was wrong; Aloyzas Balsys was in this country legally and properly, and thus protected by the Constitution . . . to compel him to testify against himself was wrong.
‘Tis the season . . . for judicial pronouncements. On Wednesday, the Supremes issued several decisions, one of which was NASA v. Nelson [563 U.S. ___ (2010); no. 09-530]. Nelson will not directly affect the vast majority of We, the People; however, and more significantly, this decision will probably be listed in future Court renderings that will obliterate any of the last vestiges of the notion that a citizen possesses any sovereignty or protection under his fundamental right to privacy. In Nelson, a group of NASA JPL contract employees claimed their “informational privacy” rights were violated in 2004, when President Bush ordered all Federal employees and contractors with access to Federal facilities to undergo a routine background security evaluation. Upon a recommendation by the 9/11 Commission, President Bush issued Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-12 – Policy for a Common Identification Standard for Federal Employees and Contractors on 27.August.2004. To avoid descending into the details, let it suffice to say the JPL contractors, many of whom had been continuously employed at JPL for decades, objected to such intimate questions about treatment or counseling for recent illegal-drug use, or psychiatric or behavioral problems. The Supremes decided the questions and the HSPD-12 order were reasonable and constitutional. Of course, Antonin the Impaler and his trusty side-kick Clarence could not pass up writing concurring opinions to punctuate their enduring judicial contention that “A federal constitutional right to ‘informational privacy’ does not exist.” The vote on this case was unanimous (Justice Kagan did not participate). While I agree with the end decision, the implications of this glimpse into the judicial thinking of the Supremes leaves me chilled and worried about what lies ahead.
The Judiciary has struggled with what privacy is – how it is defined; what is the scope; how does the law deal with the concept of individual privacy? We can argue the 4th and 5th Amendments protect our privacy – property under the former, thought under the latter. Most privacy jurisprudence can be traced back at least to Entick v. Carrington [19 Howell’s State Trials 1029 (1765)]; Chief Justice of the Common Pleas Charles Pratt, 1st Earl of Camden, wrote, “By the laws of England, every invasion of private property, be it ever so minute, is a trespass.” The difficulty for the law and judges is what constitutes a citizen’s private domain. The U.S. Supreme Court first articulated a citizen's right to privacy in Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford [141 U.S. 250 (1891)] in a 4th Amendment decision regarding unreasonable search without authority of a warrant. Associate Justice Brandeis wrote in his dissenting opinion in Olmstead v. United States [277 U.S. 438 (1928)] [296] that American citizens have “the right to be let alone — the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment.” The landmark case that articulated a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and still sticks sharply in the craw of strict constructionists like Antonin the Impaler and trusty sidekick Clarence is Griswold v. Connecticut [381 U.S. 479 (1965)] [166, 189, 323]. Associate Justice Goldberg wrote in his concurring opinion, “In a long series of cases this Court has held that where fundamental personal liberties are involved, they may not be abridged by the States simply on a showing that a regulatory statute has some rational relationship to the effectuation of a proper state purpose.” Goldberg’s words imply that “fundamental personal liberties” exist beyond the Constitution; the strict constructionists contend there is no such concept. The Supremes have been reticent to define or articulate those fundamental rights.
I am reminded of the old aviator’s dilemma; if it is not written in the flight manual, does that mean it is prohibited (not allowed) or allowable (must be OK because it is not prohibited). If we see the Constitution as the wholly encompassing document of law, then only that which is written is allowable. On the other hand, if we see the Constitution as a framework, a guideline, a roadmap, of how the Federal government is to conduct its business on behalf of We, the People, then that which is not written must remain unenumerated to the Federal government and thus remains in the domain of We, the People.
Another perspective rests on the Constitution being the all-knowing, all-doing, all-encompassing, foundational document. The Federal government is supreme, and thus only the Federal government can grant rights not other specifically and literally defined in the Constitution. If we view the Federal government in such a fashion, then there are NO rights beyond those defined by the Constitution or established by Federal legislation. If on the other hand, we view the Constitution as a limit on Federal authority and power, then rights not defined by the Constitution must remain with We, the People. So goes this critical debate regarding privacy. If a citizen’s right to privacy is not fundamental, i.e., beyond the Constitution, then such rights lie at the whim of Congress or the Executive until told otherwise. I respectfully submit to an inquisitive, discerning audience, there is NO issue more important to the future existence of this Grand Republic than a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy . . . to determine for himself by his choices how he shall live his Life, exercise his Liberty, and pursue his unique Happiness. If as Antonin the Impaler contends “A federal constitutional right to ‘informational privacy’ does not exist,” then only Congress can create and codify such a right. Conversely, there is NO protection for an individual citizen against the power of the Federal State (well, except those limited protections defined in the Bill of Rights), or unless a beneficent Congress bestows such a right on those of us among the lowly masses. I will argue that a citizen’s right to privacy is fundamental – one of those unalienable rights endowed by our Creator – and only reasonable and proper public interest can infringe upon that right.
News from the economic front:
-- I avoid reporting corporate performance data since most folks have no interest in such data. Every once in a while, something comes along that seems relevant in the larger context; so it is this week. Goldman Sachs reported 4Q2010 profit decreased by 52% to US$2.39B billion, down from US$4.95B a year earlier. On a per-share basis, it dropped to $3.79 from $8.20. Revenue dropped 10% to US$8.64B; hardly poverty, but indicative of the trouble economic times.
-- The Wall Street Journal reported the Industrial & Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), the PRC’s largest lender, signed an agreement to acquire a majority stake in Bank of East Asia’s U.S. subsidiary, becoming the first Chinese bank to make an acquisition of a U.S. deposit-taking institution – an interesting punctuation to PRC President Hu Jintao’s state visit to the United States.
Comments and contributions from Update no.474:
“Governor Palin has a talent for taking credit for anything people like and evading responsibility of anything else. That makes her a typical politician. What she does not have is integrity, any understanding of governance, or good sense. Those deficits make her a poor choice.
“If a calming of our political rhetoric results from the Tucson shootings, the calming will be a good thing.
“I find Aslan Soobzokov's correspondence interesting. The idea that the US government would allow misinformed vigilantes to commit murder is ugly but not surprising. Even more likely, a person writing a report for the CIA might make the convenient but incorrect assumption that anyone who worked with the Germans would be part of the German military. This assumption is obviously rash to students of the war even on my own casual level, but the assumption saves the report-writer the time and effort of actually researching his information. For Tscherim Soobzokov's son, convenience is not an issue. He has done his homework. I hope Aslan wins his case and gets plenty of publicity in doing it.
“I thank you for the numbers on offshore drilling safety. Dramatic images and personal stories bring interest to a given issue, but statistics tell the story. In this case, your numbers mean that the Deepwater Horizon/Macondo Well disaster, rather than being an isolated incident, is the continuation of a trend. Perhaps one result of all this will be exposure of the fallacy of self-policing. I rarely quote Biblical things, but "no man can serve two masters." The responsibility of corporate officers and employees, ultimately, is to protect and increase the investments of shareholders. Protecting the employees, the environment, and the national economy is the responsibility of government, not corporations.
“I also would like to put in a plug for my field, communication. The wildcatter approach that we both decry includes cursory communication, part of which is poorly-written instructions. One of the many detailed issues will be the instruction manuals given to the operators actually working in the control room. I have read a report that the instruction manual for the blowout preventer gave no specific criteria for taking action or refraining from action. While I see myself as quite intelligent, I would not know when to act based on that. I hope that among the recommendations are some for training and other communication.
“The numbers on the economy continue to produce a wide variety of expert predictions. Maybe some new theory will better predict reality; the old ones are not working.”
My response:
Re: Palin. My comment was not related to her viability as a political candidate or public servant. It was limited to the content of her video statement.
Re: rhetoric. Amen, brother! I am all in favor of moderation and civility in our public dialogue.
Re: Soobzokov. The Nazi report was produced by the Justice Department; the CIA had no contribution; in fact, the DoJ notes the persistent resistance of the CIA to provide relevant or associated information. I agree; I find the Soobzokov case disturbing and troubling, which makes me suspect far stronger, covert forces at play in his case. Like you, I wish Aslan swift and ultimate success; however, I doubt it will be an easy or short path.
Re: Macondo Well Disaster. The extent of fatalities and injuries affected my opinion more than any other elements of any report. Like you, I had no idea the offshore oil business had that level of injury. The aviation industry practically goes into convulsions with an injury rate that is a fraction of one percent of the oil business. If Macondo serves only one purpose to brightly illuminate the appalling performance of the oil business, then the disaster will have served a noble purpose. There is no justifiable reason anyone should tolerate that level of injury. Further, I respectfully submit, technologies and methodologies exist today that could dramatically improve the performance of oil exploration including the unique challenges of deepwater work. I also agree; self-policing in this instance failed demonstrably and is no longer acceptable.
Re: training & communications. The various manuals that were the standard at the time of the Macondo blowout were not addressed in either the BP or Commission reports. Nonetheless, the Commission pointed strongly at the breakdown in communications as well as the paucity of critical communications between the companies and even among same-company employees. The Commission noted the control simulator available to operators; yet, from what I was able the glean from the Commission report, the Deepwater Horizon simulator was more akin to a home computer video game compared to a Part 121-class, Level D, commercial flight simulator. This element among many others led me to the opinion that the oil companies did not take the task seriously – to protect their employees, to protect the environment, or to protect the society they serve. I should note that I was impressed by the Commission’s approach to the recommendations. While there are obviously areas for improvement within the DH companies and within the industry at large, the Commission took a far broader, more encompassing, total view of the situation; they focused on the government’s failure, inability and impotence. Well done, I’d say.
Re: economic prediction. I suspect we are a very long way from reliable economic predictive tools, mainly due to the myriad of variant functions that control individual behavior as part of the greater economy . . . kind of like predicting the weather at the molecular level. There are simply too many variables to reliably predict economic performance or the weather.
. . . a follow-up contribution:
“Your understanding of the oil industry safety situation via figures is a useful reminder that research counts for much in rational discourse. As an Organizational Communication major, I need to remember that.
“The homework I did this morning included discussions of various types of communication networks. (Zaremba, 2010). I suspect that the oil industry could benefit from examining communication issues, as could other industries. In particular, communication among BP, Transocean, and Halliburton likely set up some of the conditions leading to the explosion Chapter 6 of Zaremba discusses the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster in related terms. NASA apparently still had the same issues during the 2003 Columbia tragedy. It takes actual work to change these conditions; even the best study and report change nothing in themselves. One aspect of the "wildcatter" approach you mentioned is that people using that approach tend to see many levels of communication as unnecessary. As part of the aircraft industry, your viewpoint may be very different. I recall a temporary assignment in which I posted files from the FAA into a website that made every bit of FAA advice and guidance available to the industry. I doubt very much that such operations are common in many other industries. That, of course, is only one communication issue, and the government's unwillingness or inability to properly regulate the petroleum industry is probably the key point because only the government is large enough to catalyze the other changes.”
Reference: Zaremba, Alan J. (2010). Organizational communication. Foundations for business and collaboration. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
. . . my follow-up response:
Re: Macondo communications. Your comparison to NASA’s internal communications issues relative to the Challenger and Columbia accidents is quite apropos. However, beyond those elements, commercial proprietary competitive posturing amplifies any flaws that may exist as the ebb and flow of various teaming arrangements come to play in any specific instance. Such was the case with Deepwater Horizon / Macondo. Employees made unilateral decisions on “need to know” that affected critical communications leading up to the loss of well control, the blowout, and subsequent explosion, fire and loss of the rig. Those were very expensive decisions.
Re: government regulation. As the Commission noted in mountainous detail, the government possessed authority it chose not to exercise for one reason or another – not least of which was congressional refusal or neglect to fund certain Executive roles, e.g., if there are only 20 inspectors to cover several thousand complex oil platforms, it is not difficult to forecast the paucity of regulatory oversight. Of course, as was illuminated by the Press, an incestuous and corrupt relationship existed between the industry and the few supervisory regulators actually on duty, which in turn points directly at the government’s own supervision and oversight. The Commission did in fact identify areas that lacked regulatory definition and/or authority, which will need new legislation. Yes, you are spot on; only the Federal government is capable of satisfactorily regulating the oil business.
Re: wildcatter mentality. As a modest further explanation, I use that term specifically with respect to the oil drilling business as it implies a rough-n-ready, devil-may-care, success-at-any-cost, mind set that feeds risk-taking and yields associated rewards. In the flying business, we could refer to such a mental approach as flying by the seat of your pants, i.e., feel, intuition, sixth sense, hunch, et cetera; those attributes are important but they are no substitute for instrumentation, modern display technology and methodology, or procedural discipline. For a complex, risky operation like the Macondo Well, operations were far too loosey-goosey, and 11 good men paid the ultimate price.
Another contribution:
“As someone living in Arizona, it has certainly been a time of shock and grief. It is definitely a miracle that Representative Giffords survived this shooting and her chances for recovery are good. I also think we cannot praise enough the efforts of those senior citizens, one of whom is a retired colonel, who stopped the gunman's rampage despite being injured themselves.
“The most unfortunate aspect of this shooting was the rush to place blame on anything and everything remotely conservative, i.e. the TEA Party, Sarah Palin, FOX News, Talk Radio, etc. In the hours after the shooting, our priorities must be tending to the victims and their families and gathering all the evidence we can against the gunman to make sure he is prosecuted to the fullest extend of the law. Those who pointed fingers of blame before the bodies of the dead could even be delivered to the morgue in order to further their own political agenda demonstrated they have no compassion for the fellow human beings or an ounce of shame. I think from everything we have seen of the shooter, it is clear this man was completely unhinged and just plain evil, and did not appear to be affiliated with the TEA Party or any conservative group. In fact, an acquaintance of his said that the shooter did not watch TV and hated news programs. Therefore, how could he be influenced by FOX News, Sarah Palin and talk radio as some have suggested?
“Heated political rhetoric was in no way responsible for the tragedy in Tucson. The blame solely rests on the shoulders of a crazed, evil man. Heated political rhetoric is nothing new. It has probably existed since the beginning of politics. Still, it would be nice if our political discourse could be more civil, and both sides must amenable to that.”
My reply:
I appreciated Sarah Palin’s citation of President Reagan, “We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”
While I agree with Ronnie and Sarah on this point, I would be remiss if I did not add the qualifier for such a young person as Loughner, I seek to hold the parents accountable for what they have wrought – by neglect, by complacency or outright abuse. Mental illness is sometimes hereditary, in which case the parents are absolved to an extent; however, it is my opinion that either the parents induced the aberration, or they ignored or condoned such aberrant behavior; either way, they are culpable.
One of these days, we shall learn to care enough about our society and environment to raise our intolerance of potential injurious or unstable people. In hindsight, as is so often the case, we see the signs. Some folks even tried to intervene. Unfortunately, our facilities for dealing with such people like Loughner short of the law are virtually non-existent.
A different contribution:
“This is the part of the filibuster rules that concerns me. As far as I know, this is relatively new; filibusters used to require actually speaking. This quote comes from a Senator's response to my email:
“‘The ability of an individual Senator to block the consideration of legislation is controversial. So long as a single Senator objects, the Senate Majority Leader must secure a majority vote in order to begin to consider a bill on the Senate floor. And even this action can be filibustered, so the Majority Leader may need to round up 60 votes to end debate.’
“I understand that the minority party needs to have a say in what laws are passed. I do not understand why one single Senator should have veto power.”
My response:
I think this is the essence of the filibuster, e.g., “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” [19.10.1939]. As you note, after Rule XXII was adopted on 8.March.1917, a 2/3-super-majority vote can override any filibuster or even a hold by a single senator. This process demands compromise or a substantial majority. A senator may have a practical veto if the Majority Leader does not want to call a cloture vote. The political dynamics of the Senate create rather bizarre conditions and negotiations.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
