This past Wednesday (23 Jun), President Obama accepted the resignation of General McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan. The President had recalled the General from the Middle East to discuss comments which appeared in the most recent issue of Rolling Stone magazine. On one of the talking-head programs (I'm stealing this from the President because I like the phrase), the conversation turned to whether the military will allow the press to be involved with the military anymore on missions.
This would be an affront to the principles of the Constitution. Granted, the First Amendment prohibits Congress from making a law which would abridge the freedom of the press; it does not prohibit the military from disallowing the press from accompanying military units on missions or other events. The principle remains the same. Forbidding the press to accompany the military out of fear of what the press will report is along the same line as passing a law to limit what the press will report. This is a freedom and a principle we must never infringe upon – no matter what the situation.
Barbara Starr (2010, P5), the CNN Pentagon correspondent, reported on Saturday that one of General McChrystal's aides said most of what was reported in the article was said "off the record" while Hastings was tagging along with the general. Stealing from the Ally bank commercial, "What does that even mean?" How often have we heard the off-the-record comment from people who said things they didn't want others to hear? My answer: don't say anything you wouldn't want others to hear! Why say one thing for the record, if you will counter it off the record? Why be nice on the record, if you're going to be mean off the record? Ridiculous!
Michael Hastings, the article's author, was on Larry King Live this past week (see the transcript ). He was originally granted two interviews with the general for the purpose of the article; however, after the volcano eruption in Iceland impacted flights, he was able to spend a month with the general and his aides. The aides held their everyday conversations with Mr. Hastings present. I'm sure they (Mr. Hastings and the aides) were all chummy after the month-long hang-out session. The aides might have believed things were said "off the record"; however, if they had performed their background checks they might have realized otherwise, or at least had some sensibilities about talking in front of a reporter.
Mr. Hastings has spent the last several years in the region. He used to report for Newsweek magazine on the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns. He even wrote a book, "I Lost My Love in Baghdad" chronicling his life in the war-torn capital, including the death of his girlfriend (ASME). This journalist will write about everything he sees and hears - as he should as a journalist.
As far as the article is concerned, I did not read anything which would've led me to fire McChrystal. Hastings paints McChrystal as a rogue, much like Maverick in “Top Gun” – competent and extremely good at what he does, except he pushes the envelope of what he can get away with. The general is at odds not necessarily with the President; he's at odds with the Obama administration in Afghanistan. Hastings reports "Team McChrystal likes to talk s*&! about many of Obama's top people on the diplomatic side." (Hastings, pg 94). It seems McChrystal is not only running the military side of the house in Afghanistan, he is also the main man on the diplomatic side. (Hastings believes this is because the DOD's budget is over 10 times the budget of the State Department. This is where Hastings's logic runs thin, very thin. He equates a mis-match in budget to a weak State Department vice investigating that maybe, the diplomats are weak and incompetent, which is why the State Department is weak in Afghanistan.) I have a feeling the general was attempting to run the diplomatic aspect of the mission because he viewed the diplomats as not doing their job, or at the minimum, unable to perform their job.
Hastings also shows how much McChrystal believes in what he is doing and how much he also believes in his men. Hastings tells the story of a soldier who sent the general an email discussing dissent in the ranks. The general then showed up at the platoon's outpost and spent time on foot-patrol with the soldiers (Hastings, pg97). This is a leader going on a mission in a dangerous area with his men. Those who've served in the military will understand the affect this has on morale! Hastings also reports the general has spent little time with his own family over the last five years. The article is not as damning as some of the talking-heads have made it out to be. I believe, as others have, General McChrystal took the sword for his people. His soldiers made the comments on his watch so the honorable action would be to go down for them. I believe it says a lot about the general.
With that said, there were two items pointed out in the article which make me question General McChrystal's appointment. The general was one of those involved in the Pat Tillman cover-up and he was also involved with one of the prisons which had prisoner abuses. These two items make me doubt the initial appointment decision. What was said by his aides do not.
I believe Michael Hastings wrote a fair article which paints an accurate picture of the general and his posse. I hope Mr. Hastings's article does not change the DOD's journalist policy. It would be shameful that a military of a free people would exclude the press from access to military personnel because of what might be told to the very people the military are entrusted to defend.
Freedom of the press is essential to a free nation. If you don't want the press to report your words, don't say them.
Mike
Note: Rolling Stone is a very liberal magazine. This article, though written in the typical style of RS (profanity laced with innuendos), is not what I would term a typically slanted article. I recommend reading the article; I'm just warning of RS style especially for those who have never read RS. For the record, I have a subscription to RS. Yes, I read their liberal articles. Even though slanted, their reporting brings a different light on many issues. Everyone should listen to boths sides of an issue. Unlike a recent episode of the "Joy Behar Show" on CNN in which, from all who could be interviewed, Joy interviewed Janeane Garfalo on the critism to the President's response to the oil spill (if someone could tell me what qualifications make Ms. Garfalo a person to bring on a show to discuss politics or the oil spill response or the President's speech, I'd like to hear them), Ms. Garfalo states, "there are two sides to every story is untrue. We all know there is only one." Don't be short-sighted in your views such that you ignore human psychology in the fact that everyone sees a different perspective of an event based on who they are. Listen to all sides of a story not just your side's!
References:
Hastings, M. (2010, July 8-22). The runaway general. Rolling Stone, 1108/1109, 90-97 and 120-121.
Starr, B. (2010). Military official disputes Rolling Stone article. Retrieved 27 Jun 2010 from http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/25/mcchrystal.interview/index.html?iref=allsearch
ASME. (2010). Michael Hastings, the journalist behind the Rolling Stone article, "The runaway general". Retrieved 27 Jun 2010 from http://www.asme.magazine.org/asme/michael-hastings.aspx
Larry King Live. (2010). Interview with "Rolling Stone" writer Michael Hastings. Retrieved 27 Jun 2010 from http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/06/23/interview_with_rolling_stone_writer_michael_hastings_106089.html
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Friday, June 25, 2010
An Important Thing in Life: Hard Work
I started out writing my blog every weekday. Then I went to four days a week thus giving me time to go enjoy one of my vices - poker - on Fridays. However, this past week I have not written a single blog until today. The reason being, I started a law class this past Monday.
The law school I will attend in August offers a program they dub "The Summer Enrichment Program." The purpose behind this class is to give first year law students an introduction not only to an aspect of the law: crimes, civil wrongs and the constitution, but also to aspects of the first year of law study to better prepare students for that arduous first year. The course is intended to instill habits which will benefit first year students to give the students a better chance of succeeding.
Courses are actually offered by some preparatory businesses (I've received advertisement of one of these). The courses offer to instill the habits necessary for first year law students. The courses only concentrate on those habits nothing else. The cost of these courses can be over $1000. The course advertised to me lasted one week.
The class I'm taking from California Western not only instills these same habits, also, the law school will award me three credits toward my law degree; assuming of course, I pass the class. Additionally, the class will actually put those habits (skills) to use in an actual law scenario vice just lecturing on what good study habits are necessary for success in law school. The benefits offered by the Cal-Western class far exceed the course offered by others. And this benefit analysis did not even take into account the cost for the Cal-Western class - which I should add is much less than the other courses.
So what does all of this have to do with my blog. Well, I must prepare for class everyday. The classes are Monday through Thursday, and to account for some who may still have jobs, are held in the evening. The preparation necessary for each class takes up a lot of my time - time that I cannot waste by spending an hour or two, sometimes three, researching and writing a blog - especially when you consider my blog is my blog and the only payment I get is when I open my blog page to see my written words.
I want to do well in my class. Additionally, I want to ensure I have the necessary study habits and time management skills needed for the first year of law school, which is not like some under-graduate program. The first year's worth of law classes is set by the American Bar Association (ABA) and consists of five classes each semester. The amount of work to be done in each class exceeds the amount of time you have in each day for the work. In other words, they give you more work than you can conceivably handle. Then on top of this, your grade for each course is dependant on the only exam given for each course - the three to four-hour long final exam. That's right. You do not get credit for class participation. You do not get credit for homework. You do not get quizzes or a mid-term. Your entire semester's grade is dependent on one exam and one exam only. I should also point out, the exam is not open book nor is it mulitple choice. The exam is several scenarios with the expectation the student discusses the applicable law and outcome from the scenarios (in other words, you have to know the law and how to apply the law). This is how law school separates the wheat from the chaff. Handle the pressure, handle the school, handle the profession.
So unlike some undergraduate degrees where one can do the minimal work and still pass with a somewhat high grade, law school requires hard work. And when the first year law student feels like he or she has had too much law, the cure, as stated by Karl Llewellyn, a law professor from Columbia who wrote a book on law school titled "The Bramble Bush", is to study more law (Llewellyn, pg x). To get through law school, one must have commitment and one must have drive and one must perform hard labor. A law degree is not a degree that is just handed out. If a law degree is handed out, which one can assume might happen, especially from a law school which is not accredited by the ABA, the law degree is not actually worth much; neither is the person with said degree, which is why the ABA puts very stringent controls on law school. A law degree needs to be earned. Earned through hard work. Earned through intellectual sweat and tears. Earned through law and more law on top of it. And when I speak of law, I do not speak of mere rules, but also the application and the meaning of those rules and how they shape behavior and society - no small feat for those who think rote memorization will get them through law school.
I do not expect law school to give me a law degree. I expect to earn my degree. I do not desire hand outs - I only expect just reward for just hard work. There are some people in this world, correction, in this country, who expect hand outs. They expect something in return just for showing up - as if gracing someone with their presence is actually worth something. Participation is not justification enough for a reward. You should get out of anything you do what you put into it. If you put little into something, you should get little out of it - expecting anything more should be viewed as thievery.
I want to succeed. I will put forth the effort to get through not only the class I'm currently attending, but, also law school. This means I have to sacrifice some of the little things in life to get the reward for which I am aiming. A reward I do not assume I will get nor expect to get. The reward will come my way if I stick to my plan of hard work. The important thing in life for me right now is hard work. Thus I have cut back on my blog and, if you haven't noticed, I have cut back on my vice. Today is Friday. Instead of playing poker at the casino, I wrote this blog. Now I will get back to studying.....
Mike
Llewellyn, K. (2008). The Bramble Bush: The classic lectures on the law and law school. Eleventh printing with new introduction and notes by Steve Sheppard. NY: Oxford University Press.
The law school I will attend in August offers a program they dub "The Summer Enrichment Program." The purpose behind this class is to give first year law students an introduction not only to an aspect of the law: crimes, civil wrongs and the constitution, but also to aspects of the first year of law study to better prepare students for that arduous first year. The course is intended to instill habits which will benefit first year students to give the students a better chance of succeeding.
Courses are actually offered by some preparatory businesses (I've received advertisement of one of these). The courses offer to instill the habits necessary for first year law students. The courses only concentrate on those habits nothing else. The cost of these courses can be over $1000. The course advertised to me lasted one week.
The class I'm taking from California Western not only instills these same habits, also, the law school will award me three credits toward my law degree; assuming of course, I pass the class. Additionally, the class will actually put those habits (skills) to use in an actual law scenario vice just lecturing on what good study habits are necessary for success in law school. The benefits offered by the Cal-Western class far exceed the course offered by others. And this benefit analysis did not even take into account the cost for the Cal-Western class - which I should add is much less than the other courses.
So what does all of this have to do with my blog. Well, I must prepare for class everyday. The classes are Monday through Thursday, and to account for some who may still have jobs, are held in the evening. The preparation necessary for each class takes up a lot of my time - time that I cannot waste by spending an hour or two, sometimes three, researching and writing a blog - especially when you consider my blog is my blog and the only payment I get is when I open my blog page to see my written words.
I want to do well in my class. Additionally, I want to ensure I have the necessary study habits and time management skills needed for the first year of law school, which is not like some under-graduate program. The first year's worth of law classes is set by the American Bar Association (ABA) and consists of five classes each semester. The amount of work to be done in each class exceeds the amount of time you have in each day for the work. In other words, they give you more work than you can conceivably handle. Then on top of this, your grade for each course is dependant on the only exam given for each course - the three to four-hour long final exam. That's right. You do not get credit for class participation. You do not get credit for homework. You do not get quizzes or a mid-term. Your entire semester's grade is dependent on one exam and one exam only. I should also point out, the exam is not open book nor is it mulitple choice. The exam is several scenarios with the expectation the student discusses the applicable law and outcome from the scenarios (in other words, you have to know the law and how to apply the law). This is how law school separates the wheat from the chaff. Handle the pressure, handle the school, handle the profession.
So unlike some undergraduate degrees where one can do the minimal work and still pass with a somewhat high grade, law school requires hard work. And when the first year law student feels like he or she has had too much law, the cure, as stated by Karl Llewellyn, a law professor from Columbia who wrote a book on law school titled "The Bramble Bush", is to study more law (Llewellyn, pg x). To get through law school, one must have commitment and one must have drive and one must perform hard labor. A law degree is not a degree that is just handed out. If a law degree is handed out, which one can assume might happen, especially from a law school which is not accredited by the ABA, the law degree is not actually worth much; neither is the person with said degree, which is why the ABA puts very stringent controls on law school. A law degree needs to be earned. Earned through hard work. Earned through intellectual sweat and tears. Earned through law and more law on top of it. And when I speak of law, I do not speak of mere rules, but also the application and the meaning of those rules and how they shape behavior and society - no small feat for those who think rote memorization will get them through law school.
I do not expect law school to give me a law degree. I expect to earn my degree. I do not desire hand outs - I only expect just reward for just hard work. There are some people in this world, correction, in this country, who expect hand outs. They expect something in return just for showing up - as if gracing someone with their presence is actually worth something. Participation is not justification enough for a reward. You should get out of anything you do what you put into it. If you put little into something, you should get little out of it - expecting anything more should be viewed as thievery.
I want to succeed. I will put forth the effort to get through not only the class I'm currently attending, but, also law school. This means I have to sacrifice some of the little things in life to get the reward for which I am aiming. A reward I do not assume I will get nor expect to get. The reward will come my way if I stick to my plan of hard work. The important thing in life for me right now is hard work. Thus I have cut back on my blog and, if you haven't noticed, I have cut back on my vice. Today is Friday. Instead of playing poker at the casino, I wrote this blog. Now I will get back to studying.....
Mike
Llewellyn, K. (2008). The Bramble Bush: The classic lectures on the law and law school. Eleventh printing with new introduction and notes by Steve Sheppard. NY: Oxford University Press.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Banking Regulations Paving the Road to Serfdom
Today the Wall Street Journal reported Bank of America may end "free checking" accounts due to Congress's new regulations set to take effect this summer (Sidel and Fitzpatrick, 2010). The reason for ending free checking is the loss of revenue that was generated by overdraft and other fees charged to people who cannot manage their money properly. My bank is currently asking its customers to write their Congressmen and Congresswomen to stop the Druckenberg Amendment. This is an amendment which will limit the amount of money banks and credit unions can charge merchants for credit purchases. The government is sticking their noses into the relationship between my bank and me and trying to cost me money.
One of the new regulations is banks cannot charge a fee for non-use of a credit card. This is absurd. It is also a violation of the agreement my credit card company and I agreed to. When I signed up for the credit card, I was given a disclosure notice which stated the fees I would be charged for various events associated with my credit card. I accepted those fees when I accepted the credit card. I rotate my credit cards to ensure I don't get charged for non-use. Now a third-party is telling my credit card company it cannot charge me for non-use.
Who is the third-party to tell my credit card company and I how to do business? Why do they think they know better? So for those of you who might applaud such a rule, let me enlighten you. I have the credit card. It does not have a balance. I enjoy the benefit of having that credit without a balance as seen in my credit rating. If I was not to use that credit card, where is the equal exchange of benefit to the bank for the use of the credit they bestowed upon me? In other words, I get something in exchange for having possession of the credit, why should not the bank? By utilizing the credit card, even if I pay the balance off immediately, the bank gets revenue associated with the merchant fee charge.
Now according to the government, the bank not only loses the fee associated with non-use, but they will might soon have the fee charged to the merchant limited! So I get the credit card for free? What's in it for the bank?
I like listening to the liberals scream about bad big banks and their unfair practices. Any time a unfair practice is mentioned the unfair practice is associated with someone who is not managing their credit properly. For example, someone couldn't understand why their interest rate was raised. They had been paying on their $12,000 balance on time. That's an outrageous balance. Now I don't know what the agreement the two parties had but if the interest rate hike was not in accordance with the policy, then the customer has a legitimate claim against the bank. However, that shouldn't be made into law to prevent this from happening to others when it might just be justified. Realize some accounts have a fixed APR and others, like some mortgages, have a variable rate which is set by the Prime Rate (just read you cardmember agreement). If the above mentioned person had a variable APR, then too bad, so sad. Except now those of us with good money management skills will have to pay.
More regulation from the government is not going to fix mis-managed credit. The cost of those who can't handle credit will now be passed onto everyone else, good and bad. This means everyone now pays for the bad money managers. This is a socialist ideal. These new regulations take us closer to socialist banking. The road to serfdom is being paved....
Mike
(The title from today's blog comes from "The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents. The Definite Edition" by F.A. Hayek edited by Bruce Campbell. (2007). London: The University of Chicago Press. This is a highly recommended work. It will open you eyes to free-trade versus managed-trade.)
It is also recommended you check out the comments posted on the below articles.
References:
Sidel, R and Dan Fitzpatrick. (2010). End is seen to free checking. NY: Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 17 Jun 2010 from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703513604575311093932315142.html
Gibson, C. (2009). House passes significant credit card regulation in bipartisan vote. The Huffington Post. Retrieved 17 Jun 2010 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/01/house-passes-significant_n_194473.html
Bader, H. (2009). New credit card regulations wipe out cash back and rewards programs, punish responsible people. Open Market.org. Retrieved 17 Jun 2010 from http://www.openmarket.org/2009/08/21/credit-card-regulations-wipe-out-cash-back-on-credit-cards-destroy-rewards-programs-punish-responsible-cardholders/
ABCNews.com. (2010). Free checking could soon disappear -- would that be an unfair decision by banks?. Retrieved 17 Jun 2010 from http://abcnews.go.com/WN/end-free-checking-banks-wrong-cutting-free-program/story?id=10939591
One of the new regulations is banks cannot charge a fee for non-use of a credit card. This is absurd. It is also a violation of the agreement my credit card company and I agreed to. When I signed up for the credit card, I was given a disclosure notice which stated the fees I would be charged for various events associated with my credit card. I accepted those fees when I accepted the credit card. I rotate my credit cards to ensure I don't get charged for non-use. Now a third-party is telling my credit card company it cannot charge me for non-use.
Who is the third-party to tell my credit card company and I how to do business? Why do they think they know better? So for those of you who might applaud such a rule, let me enlighten you. I have the credit card. It does not have a balance. I enjoy the benefit of having that credit without a balance as seen in my credit rating. If I was not to use that credit card, where is the equal exchange of benefit to the bank for the use of the credit they bestowed upon me? In other words, I get something in exchange for having possession of the credit, why should not the bank? By utilizing the credit card, even if I pay the balance off immediately, the bank gets revenue associated with the merchant fee charge.
Now according to the government, the bank not only loses the fee associated with non-use, but they will might soon have the fee charged to the merchant limited! So I get the credit card for free? What's in it for the bank?
I like listening to the liberals scream about bad big banks and their unfair practices. Any time a unfair practice is mentioned the unfair practice is associated with someone who is not managing their credit properly. For example, someone couldn't understand why their interest rate was raised. They had been paying on their $12,000 balance on time. That's an outrageous balance. Now I don't know what the agreement the two parties had but if the interest rate hike was not in accordance with the policy, then the customer has a legitimate claim against the bank. However, that shouldn't be made into law to prevent this from happening to others when it might just be justified. Realize some accounts have a fixed APR and others, like some mortgages, have a variable rate which is set by the Prime Rate (just read you cardmember agreement). If the above mentioned person had a variable APR, then too bad, so sad. Except now those of us with good money management skills will have to pay.
More regulation from the government is not going to fix mis-managed credit. The cost of those who can't handle credit will now be passed onto everyone else, good and bad. This means everyone now pays for the bad money managers. This is a socialist ideal. These new regulations take us closer to socialist banking. The road to serfdom is being paved....
Mike
(The title from today's blog comes from "The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents. The Definite Edition" by F.A. Hayek edited by Bruce Campbell. (2007). London: The University of Chicago Press. This is a highly recommended work. It will open you eyes to free-trade versus managed-trade.)
It is also recommended you check out the comments posted on the below articles.
References:
Sidel, R and Dan Fitzpatrick. (2010). End is seen to free checking. NY: Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 17 Jun 2010 from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703513604575311093932315142.html
Gibson, C. (2009). House passes significant credit card regulation in bipartisan vote. The Huffington Post. Retrieved 17 Jun 2010 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/01/house-passes-significant_n_194473.html
Bader, H. (2009). New credit card regulations wipe out cash back and rewards programs, punish responsible people. Open Market.org. Retrieved 17 Jun 2010 from http://www.openmarket.org/2009/08/21/credit-card-regulations-wipe-out-cash-back-on-credit-cards-destroy-rewards-programs-punish-responsible-cardholders/
ABCNews.com. (2010). Free checking could soon disappear -- would that be an unfair decision by banks?. Retrieved 17 Jun 2010 from http://abcnews.go.com/WN/end-free-checking-banks-wrong-cutting-free-program/story?id=10939591
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Oh, Good For You
As I watched the President give his update on his BP summit (of note, there wasn't any beer shared at this summit), I could hear Homer Simpson saying, "Oh, good for you." The President got what he wanted. BP is going to give the United States government $20 Billion dollars to be administered by a third party. I liked it when I heard the President state emphatically, "the account will not be administered by BP nor by the government." Of course, the account is going to be administered by someone appointed by the President. I'm sorry, an appointee of the President is the same thing as the President.
I was also amazed the President enticed BP to set aside money to pay to the out-of-work oil rig workers. The last time I checked, the President was directly responsible for oil drilling in the Gulf in hiatus. BP is not responsible for that action. A fear-based knee jerk reaction should not result in a foreign company (or even a local company) paying the salaries of workers who don't work for the company. The workers aren't at work because the President said they can't go do the work they normally perform.
During the last season of "24", the President of the United States, Alison Taylor, coerces the new leader of the IRK nation to sign a peace treaty. The treaty was to be signed by the IRK, the US, and the Russians. The problem was the Russian leader ordered the assassination of the the new leader's husband. President Taylor threatens the IRK leader with annihilation if she doesn't sign the peace treaty. I wonder what was said in that meeting with BP to get them to agree to all of the President's demands?
For the record, BP is liable for all the damages in the Gulf of Mexico and should be held responsible for those damages. If the President ordered or coerced BP to accept his demands, a violation of the Constitution occurred. We cannot afford to have the Constitution ignored for the "greater good."
If BP accepted the President's terms because they felt obligated to do so is a different story. BP knows they are responsible and will have to pay for the damages to the coastline of the United States; maybe by acquiescing to the President's demands they believe they can save some face and at the same time minimize the attorney fees.
I still would like to know definitively what transpired in the closed room. Then I could know who to say "oh, good for you" to...
Mike
I was also amazed the President enticed BP to set aside money to pay to the out-of-work oil rig workers. The last time I checked, the President was directly responsible for oil drilling in the Gulf in hiatus. BP is not responsible for that action. A fear-based knee jerk reaction should not result in a foreign company (or even a local company) paying the salaries of workers who don't work for the company. The workers aren't at work because the President said they can't go do the work they normally perform.
During the last season of "24", the President of the United States, Alison Taylor, coerces the new leader of the IRK nation to sign a peace treaty. The treaty was to be signed by the IRK, the US, and the Russians. The problem was the Russian leader ordered the assassination of the the new leader's husband. President Taylor threatens the IRK leader with annihilation if she doesn't sign the peace treaty. I wonder what was said in that meeting with BP to get them to agree to all of the President's demands?
For the record, BP is liable for all the damages in the Gulf of Mexico and should be held responsible for those damages. If the President ordered or coerced BP to accept his demands, a violation of the Constitution occurred. We cannot afford to have the Constitution ignored for the "greater good."
If BP accepted the President's terms because they felt obligated to do so is a different story. BP knows they are responsible and will have to pay for the damages to the coastline of the United States; maybe by acquiescing to the President's demands they believe they can save some face and at the same time minimize the attorney fees.
I still would like to know definitively what transpired in the closed room. Then I could know who to say "oh, good for you" to...
Mike
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Critique of the President's Speech
I know I said I was not going to watch the speech, but, the speech was broadcast on numerous television stations. Additionally, I was a little curious if he was going to talk cap and trade, or cap and tax as some people call the policy. I've decided to discuss his three main points (the cleanup, new regulations, and renewable energy) in tonight's blog.
First, I'll start with something I already discussed yesterday. The President finally said he was going to meet with BP's CEO, Tony Hayward. The meeting, though, is not going to be some beer summit at the White House. Instead, the President is going to order BP to put money into an escrow account that will be controlled by a "third party" (read "the all powerful US government I lead"). I reiterate this is a direct violation of the Constitution of the United States. I will admit up front, I have not read the mineral right document signed by the Mine Management Service (MMS) and BP so this aspect might actually be covered under that agreement - for now, I am going to assume the mineral rights agreement does not address this specific point.
The Constitution states the government cannot take property without due process of law. Due process, as defined in an earlier blog entry, is a course of formal proceedings (as judicial proceedings) carried out regularly, fairly, and in accordance with established rules and principles. The President of the United States "ordering" a citizen of another country who is the head of a company based in another country to set aside money for the US government to do with as they (the government) sees fit is a violation of due process. The President does not have the right nor the legal precedent to do what he said he was going to do. To take another's property, even if they feel it is justified and for a good cause, without due process violates the very foundation upon which our country was founded. While I am angry with BP over the oil spill, I cannot stand by quietly while the Constitution is blatantly violated. If I was the BP CEO, I would give the President the bird and tell him where he can stick his "order." This reaction would obviously result in the bankruptcy of BP. Once BP is bankrupt, there won't be any funds left to pay for the spill cleanup, the hundreds of thousands of innocent families who were employed by BP would now be out of work causing a huge rise in the unemployment rate, and the numerous retirement funds which owned stock in BP would find their assets severely reduced in value. For every action, there is a reaction and subsequently, consequences. A violation of the Constitution has dire costs. Instead, the President can offer the assistance of the government in ensuring a fair payout of funds for the cost of the cleanup and for reimbursing those with monetary losses from the oil spill. Or the President can go to court and get his "ordering" action via legal channels.
When it comes to the President's cleanup plan, all I can say is, where was this plan a month ago? Earlier Robert Gibbs, the White House Press Secretary, had said the Obama Administration had been assisting the Louisana government with approving and building berms off the coast to help keep the oil from the coast. The Corps of Engineers would not allow the building of the berms at first because of the environmental impact the berms would have on local habitats. This is current legislation. So we don't build the berms because of the environmental impact? Which is worse, the environmental impact of the berms or the environmental impact of the oil? The President's plan is late in the game. Why did he not do this earlier? Of course, most of the blame game participants are saying what has been accomplished so far has been mis-managed by both BP and the federal government. What program isn't mis-managed by the feds? Astute leadership is needed in the Gulf of Mexico. Astute leadership at the top and astute leadership of the individual efforts. I'm not confident the President has put the right people in the right places.
(For the record, seeing the people in white suits picking up small tar balls on the beach is a poor plan. Those people need to be in boats where currents have congregated large pools of oil. These people then can mop up this oil. Leave the beaches to the tractors which dredge the beach to remove the tar balls. But who am I to say what needs to be done?)
As usual in any crisis, the first words from every politician is that we need more regulation. The flawed assumption is that this accident would not have happened if more regulations had been placed. Until the investigation is complete, we don't know the answer. What if the current regulation was adequate but the enforcement of the regulation was defective which led to the accident? Let's not jump to conclusions and knee-jerk more regulations into law. What if the accident was not caused by mis-management or any other defective part? What if the accident was a deliberate event? What would those who want more regulation say if the accident was actually sabotage by an angry individual or group? We must first investigate the actual cause and then evaluate current regulations with the intended outcome we desire. Of course, we should also clean house at the MMS. Sound regulations enforced by corrupt or inept regulators are just as bad poor regulations. Realize, more regulations cause more taxes and more liabilities. YOU, THE TAXPAYER, PAYS FOR REGULATIONS. (For those who desire to argue the oil is spilling because BP wasn't prepared for the accident, realize, 20-20 hindsight is a wonderful thing. And realize, the flow preventer failed. The flow preventer is supposed to stop the oil in case of what happened happening. So we make it regulation that the relief wells need to be drilled before we mine oil. What happens when the relief wells don't do their job? Be careful of your what-ifs. At some point, your what-ifs will be cost prohibitive.)
The third leg of the President's speech was about clean energy. I mentioned earlier that I wanted to see if he mentioned cap and trade. He did not. For me, the jury is still out on this program as I have not researched it enough to make a judgment for or against the policy. What he did do was show his lack of science knowledge. He also showed a lack of economic or social knowledge. Our society depends on automobiles which run on gasoline. Our very communities depend on them. Think about where you live in relation to your job. Most people live in the suburbs and work somewhere else. Our lives revolve around the transportation we utilize to move about in our daily lives. Our daily lives are based on convenience. Is there a clean energy source which can replicate the advantages of gasoline? I hope so but I don't think so. It will take years, no decades, to replace gasoline after the "new" clean energy is discovered. I would also like to point out, with any energy, there is a risk involved with that energy. Would it really be clean if that energy led to an accident of unintended release? Are we trading an unclean energy source for an unsafe energy source? Those are the questions that must be answered.
I hope the President's goal of clean energy comes true, but, I don't want that goal at the expense of the United States. This goal cannot bankrupt our economy which is already heavily in debt. At what point will this government show some fiscal restraint?
In the end, the President made some good points; however, he's a politician with big ideas. Can this country survive his leadership and his big ideas? I hope so.
Mike
First, I'll start with something I already discussed yesterday. The President finally said he was going to meet with BP's CEO, Tony Hayward. The meeting, though, is not going to be some beer summit at the White House. Instead, the President is going to order BP to put money into an escrow account that will be controlled by a "third party" (read "the all powerful US government I lead"). I reiterate this is a direct violation of the Constitution of the United States. I will admit up front, I have not read the mineral right document signed by the Mine Management Service (MMS) and BP so this aspect might actually be covered under that agreement - for now, I am going to assume the mineral rights agreement does not address this specific point.
The Constitution states the government cannot take property without due process of law. Due process, as defined in an earlier blog entry, is a course of formal proceedings (as judicial proceedings) carried out regularly, fairly, and in accordance with established rules and principles. The President of the United States "ordering" a citizen of another country who is the head of a company based in another country to set aside money for the US government to do with as they (the government) sees fit is a violation of due process. The President does not have the right nor the legal precedent to do what he said he was going to do. To take another's property, even if they feel it is justified and for a good cause, without due process violates the very foundation upon which our country was founded. While I am angry with BP over the oil spill, I cannot stand by quietly while the Constitution is blatantly violated. If I was the BP CEO, I would give the President the bird and tell him where he can stick his "order." This reaction would obviously result in the bankruptcy of BP. Once BP is bankrupt, there won't be any funds left to pay for the spill cleanup, the hundreds of thousands of innocent families who were employed by BP would now be out of work causing a huge rise in the unemployment rate, and the numerous retirement funds which owned stock in BP would find their assets severely reduced in value. For every action, there is a reaction and subsequently, consequences. A violation of the Constitution has dire costs. Instead, the President can offer the assistance of the government in ensuring a fair payout of funds for the cost of the cleanup and for reimbursing those with monetary losses from the oil spill. Or the President can go to court and get his "ordering" action via legal channels.
When it comes to the President's cleanup plan, all I can say is, where was this plan a month ago? Earlier Robert Gibbs, the White House Press Secretary, had said the Obama Administration had been assisting the Louisana government with approving and building berms off the coast to help keep the oil from the coast. The Corps of Engineers would not allow the building of the berms at first because of the environmental impact the berms would have on local habitats. This is current legislation. So we don't build the berms because of the environmental impact? Which is worse, the environmental impact of the berms or the environmental impact of the oil? The President's plan is late in the game. Why did he not do this earlier? Of course, most of the blame game participants are saying what has been accomplished so far has been mis-managed by both BP and the federal government. What program isn't mis-managed by the feds? Astute leadership is needed in the Gulf of Mexico. Astute leadership at the top and astute leadership of the individual efforts. I'm not confident the President has put the right people in the right places.
(For the record, seeing the people in white suits picking up small tar balls on the beach is a poor plan. Those people need to be in boats where currents have congregated large pools of oil. These people then can mop up this oil. Leave the beaches to the tractors which dredge the beach to remove the tar balls. But who am I to say what needs to be done?)
As usual in any crisis, the first words from every politician is that we need more regulation. The flawed assumption is that this accident would not have happened if more regulations had been placed. Until the investigation is complete, we don't know the answer. What if the current regulation was adequate but the enforcement of the regulation was defective which led to the accident? Let's not jump to conclusions and knee-jerk more regulations into law. What if the accident was not caused by mis-management or any other defective part? What if the accident was a deliberate event? What would those who want more regulation say if the accident was actually sabotage by an angry individual or group? We must first investigate the actual cause and then evaluate current regulations with the intended outcome we desire. Of course, we should also clean house at the MMS. Sound regulations enforced by corrupt or inept regulators are just as bad poor regulations. Realize, more regulations cause more taxes and more liabilities. YOU, THE TAXPAYER, PAYS FOR REGULATIONS. (For those who desire to argue the oil is spilling because BP wasn't prepared for the accident, realize, 20-20 hindsight is a wonderful thing. And realize, the flow preventer failed. The flow preventer is supposed to stop the oil in case of what happened happening. So we make it regulation that the relief wells need to be drilled before we mine oil. What happens when the relief wells don't do their job? Be careful of your what-ifs. At some point, your what-ifs will be cost prohibitive.)
The third leg of the President's speech was about clean energy. I mentioned earlier that I wanted to see if he mentioned cap and trade. He did not. For me, the jury is still out on this program as I have not researched it enough to make a judgment for or against the policy. What he did do was show his lack of science knowledge. He also showed a lack of economic or social knowledge. Our society depends on automobiles which run on gasoline. Our very communities depend on them. Think about where you live in relation to your job. Most people live in the suburbs and work somewhere else. Our lives revolve around the transportation we utilize to move about in our daily lives. Our daily lives are based on convenience. Is there a clean energy source which can replicate the advantages of gasoline? I hope so but I don't think so. It will take years, no decades, to replace gasoline after the "new" clean energy is discovered. I would also like to point out, with any energy, there is a risk involved with that energy. Would it really be clean if that energy led to an accident of unintended release? Are we trading an unclean energy source for an unsafe energy source? Those are the questions that must be answered.
I hope the President's goal of clean energy comes true, but, I don't want that goal at the expense of the United States. This goal cannot bankrupt our economy which is already heavily in debt. At what point will this government show some fiscal restraint?
In the end, the President made some good points; however, he's a politician with big ideas. Can this country survive his leadership and his big ideas? I hope so.
Mike
Monday, June 14, 2010
I Don't Care What You Have to Say Mr. President
The President of the United States is slated to address the nation tomorrow evening. His specific aim is to talk about the oil leak crisis in the Gulf of Mexico. Do we really need for him to speak again? Has he not had enough tonal discharges on television already? I, for one, will not be sitting in front of the boob tube to listen to his shameless rhetoric.
First let's look at some of his past. Last year, after a police officer arrested a man breaking into his own home, the President admitted to not having all the facts. He then, in the same breath, said the police had acted "stupidly" (McPhee and Just, 2009). The President admits to not knowing all the facts, yet, states his opinion on the matter anyway.
Second, during his campaign, the President said he would sit down with dictators like the idiot in charge of Iran and negotiate with them without preconditions. Yet, the other day on his favorite television station, he said he would not sit down with the CEO of BP. Excuse me? He would sit down with someone who fails to recognize the Holocaust and wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, but, he won't sit down with someone who is trying to abate a leak that the CEO did not personally create? He said the CEO would only tell the President things the President would want to hear. The maniacal leader won't do the same?
Third, the President in the same interview said he wants action and to know the names of the people whose "asses" he would kick. This may be rhetoric some might want to hear, but not me. This is dangerous talk coming from the Executive branch of our Government. Our President can feel free to hold people accountable for their actions or inactions; he does not have the right kick their butts. He might have been using a metaphor - if he did, then it was not wisely chosen. Our Government should not be threatening its citizens - or the citizens of another country - with physical violence.
Fourth, the President said this crisis will go down as a defining moment in our history as 9/11 did. He said "In the same way that our view of our vulnerabilities and our foreign policy was shaped profoundly by 9/11, I think this disaster is going to shape how we think about the environment and energy for many years to come." This is dangerous talk. The Bush Administration eroded rights guaranteed under the Constitution with the passage of the Patriot Act. Are we to expect the same from the Obama Administration? His kick butt comment gives the answer. Don't forget about his White House Chief of Staff's position: "Don't let a good crisis go to waste."
Fifth, the Obama Administration is trying to tell a company (BP) what to do with its own money. Specifically, they do not want the company to pay out dividends already declared. Of course, the fear is that the company then won't have the money to pay for the clean-up if they pay the dividends. This company is not a U.S. company. Yet the Obama crowd thinks they have some right to tell them what to do within the workings of the company. This is dangerous. How far will this administration go with telling companies, or you or me for that matter, what to do with their money?
Lastly, he opened his mouth about the Arizona immigration law saying what could be the result of that law without even reading the law. He spread misnomers through his own innocent ignorance. Another fine example of misplaced rhetoric.
This President has shown a lack of leadership abilities while he's been in office. Of course, what do you expect when you look at his past? He was a community organizer, while that might have some aspect of leadership, a community organizer is not a leader. (Reading up on community organizer does not paint a very nice picture of the term coined by Saul Alinsky.) Other than that, he served in the Illinois state senate and only three years as a member of the Congress before the country elected him to lead this nation. He's good at campaigning. He's good at reading a prompter. Do these necessarily mean he's a good leader? His actions speak for themselves.
Mr. President, I have no desire to listen to your speech tomorrow.
Mike
McPhee, M and Sara Just. (2009). Obama: Police acted 'stupidly' in Gates case. Retrieved 14 Jun 2010 from http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=8148986&page=1
Collinson, S. (2010). Obama hopes for deal soon with BP on disaster claims. Retrieved 14 Jun 2010 from http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100614/wl_afp/usoilpollutionenvironment
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Barrack Obama. Retrieved 14 Jun 2010 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Community organizing. Retrieved 14 Jun 2010 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_organizing
First let's look at some of his past. Last year, after a police officer arrested a man breaking into his own home, the President admitted to not having all the facts. He then, in the same breath, said the police had acted "stupidly" (McPhee and Just, 2009). The President admits to not knowing all the facts, yet, states his opinion on the matter anyway.
Second, during his campaign, the President said he would sit down with dictators like the idiot in charge of Iran and negotiate with them without preconditions. Yet, the other day on his favorite television station, he said he would not sit down with the CEO of BP. Excuse me? He would sit down with someone who fails to recognize the Holocaust and wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, but, he won't sit down with someone who is trying to abate a leak that the CEO did not personally create? He said the CEO would only tell the President things the President would want to hear. The maniacal leader won't do the same?
Third, the President in the same interview said he wants action and to know the names of the people whose "asses" he would kick. This may be rhetoric some might want to hear, but not me. This is dangerous talk coming from the Executive branch of our Government. Our President can feel free to hold people accountable for their actions or inactions; he does not have the right kick their butts. He might have been using a metaphor - if he did, then it was not wisely chosen. Our Government should not be threatening its citizens - or the citizens of another country - with physical violence.
Fourth, the President said this crisis will go down as a defining moment in our history as 9/11 did. He said "In the same way that our view of our vulnerabilities and our foreign policy was shaped profoundly by 9/11, I think this disaster is going to shape how we think about the environment and energy for many years to come." This is dangerous talk. The Bush Administration eroded rights guaranteed under the Constitution with the passage of the Patriot Act. Are we to expect the same from the Obama Administration? His kick butt comment gives the answer. Don't forget about his White House Chief of Staff's position: "Don't let a good crisis go to waste."
Fifth, the Obama Administration is trying to tell a company (BP) what to do with its own money. Specifically, they do not want the company to pay out dividends already declared. Of course, the fear is that the company then won't have the money to pay for the clean-up if they pay the dividends. This company is not a U.S. company. Yet the Obama crowd thinks they have some right to tell them what to do within the workings of the company. This is dangerous. How far will this administration go with telling companies, or you or me for that matter, what to do with their money?
Lastly, he opened his mouth about the Arizona immigration law saying what could be the result of that law without even reading the law. He spread misnomers through his own innocent ignorance. Another fine example of misplaced rhetoric.
This President has shown a lack of leadership abilities while he's been in office. Of course, what do you expect when you look at his past? He was a community organizer, while that might have some aspect of leadership, a community organizer is not a leader. (Reading up on community organizer does not paint a very nice picture of the term coined by Saul Alinsky.) Other than that, he served in the Illinois state senate and only three years as a member of the Congress before the country elected him to lead this nation. He's good at campaigning. He's good at reading a prompter. Do these necessarily mean he's a good leader? His actions speak for themselves.
Mr. President, I have no desire to listen to your speech tomorrow.
Mike
McPhee, M and Sara Just. (2009). Obama: Police acted 'stupidly' in Gates case. Retrieved 14 Jun 2010 from http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=8148986&page=1
Collinson, S. (2010). Obama hopes for deal soon with BP on disaster claims. Retrieved 14 Jun 2010 from http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100614/wl_afp/usoilpollutionenvironment
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Barrack Obama. Retrieved 14 Jun 2010 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Community organizing. Retrieved 14 Jun 2010 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_organizing
Thursday, June 10, 2010
To Spite or Not to Spite
On June 6, 2010, The Catholic League was denied a very reasonable request. It's unfathomable that such a simplistic request would be denied. So what's the request? The request is to light the Empire State Building up in the colors of blue and white in honor of the 100th birthday of Mother Theresa.
The Empire State Building (ESB) has been illuminated in multi-colors since 1976 (ESB site). For many years, groups have been allowed to request the ESB be lit in a certain array of color to commemorate groups, people, or events. The first colors utilized in 1976 were red, white, and blue to celebrate our Nation's 200's anniversary. Last year, the ESB was lit in all red to commemorate the 60th anniversary of communist China.
So the question is, why would the ESB deny Mother Theresa but not communist China? Kimberly Brown of ABC reported that Anthony Malkin, CEO and president of Malkin Holdings, the owners of the ESB, stated "ESB has a specific policy against any other lighting for religious figures or requests by religions and religious organizations." The snake in the grass reveals his bias in his remarks.
The ABC article points out that Mr. Malkin supports pro-choice organizations. Obviously, the Catholic League is pro-life. Why would Mr. Malkin want to show support for the Catholic League when they do not adhere to his beliefs? Yet did he not allow lighting of the ESB for communist China?
Let's evaluate this from a logical standpoint. Mr. Malkin does not support the ideals of the Catholic League; therefore, he does not allow the lighting of the ESB. The sufficient condition of this logic argument is the lack of support. The necessary condition is the denying of lighting the ESB. So anytime Mr. Malkin does not support someone or something, he will not light the ESB for them. The contra-positive of this logic argument would be that if he does light the ESB, then he must support the someone or something. So when we take the contra-positive and apply it to the China event, logically since Mr. Malkin lighted the ESB on the 60th anniversary of China, he must support communist China. Mr. Malkin won't support a peace-loving winner of the Nobel peace prize but he will support a country known for their human-rights abuse. What does this say about the person Mr. Malkin is?
Mr. Malkin has shown his true colors. While he may differ in ideals from the Catholics, and he does have the right to light his building for whomever he pleases, he lives and works in a country that promotes the understanding and accepting of ideals contrary to a person's own ideals. He should live up to the overall ideals of the country and light the ESB in honor of Mother Theresa even if he disagrees with the organization that requested the lighting.
Mother Theresa actually earned her Nobel peace prize. She cared for thousands showing love and respect to everyone. Mother Theresa would love and respect Mr. Malkin. He should ignore his spite of the Catholic League and do unto Mother Theresa as she would do onto him.
Mike
References:
Brown, K. (2010). Catholics mount campaign to light up Empire State Building for Mother Teresa. Retrieved 10 Jun 2010 from http://abcnews.go.com/US/Media/empire-state-building-rejects-request-honor-mother-teresa/story?id=10870923&page=1
Empire State Building internet site. (n.d.). Tower lights history. Retrieved 10 Jun 2010 from http://www.esbnyc.com/tourism/tourism_history_towerlights.cfm?CFID=38553956&CFTOKEN=74572286
Empire State Building internet site. (n.d.). Lighting schedule. Retrieved 10 Jun 2010 from http://www.esbnyc.com/tourism/tourism_lightingschedule.cfm?CFID=38553956&CFTOKEN=74572286
The Empire State Building (ESB) has been illuminated in multi-colors since 1976 (ESB site). For many years, groups have been allowed to request the ESB be lit in a certain array of color to commemorate groups, people, or events. The first colors utilized in 1976 were red, white, and blue to celebrate our Nation's 200's anniversary. Last year, the ESB was lit in all red to commemorate the 60th anniversary of communist China.
So the question is, why would the ESB deny Mother Theresa but not communist China? Kimberly Brown of ABC reported that Anthony Malkin, CEO and president of Malkin Holdings, the owners of the ESB, stated "ESB has a specific policy against any other lighting for religious figures or requests by religions and religious organizations." The snake in the grass reveals his bias in his remarks.
The ABC article points out that Mr. Malkin supports pro-choice organizations. Obviously, the Catholic League is pro-life. Why would Mr. Malkin want to show support for the Catholic League when they do not adhere to his beliefs? Yet did he not allow lighting of the ESB for communist China?
Let's evaluate this from a logical standpoint. Mr. Malkin does not support the ideals of the Catholic League; therefore, he does not allow the lighting of the ESB. The sufficient condition of this logic argument is the lack of support. The necessary condition is the denying of lighting the ESB. So anytime Mr. Malkin does not support someone or something, he will not light the ESB for them. The contra-positive of this logic argument would be that if he does light the ESB, then he must support the someone or something. So when we take the contra-positive and apply it to the China event, logically since Mr. Malkin lighted the ESB on the 60th anniversary of China, he must support communist China. Mr. Malkin won't support a peace-loving winner of the Nobel peace prize but he will support a country known for their human-rights abuse. What does this say about the person Mr. Malkin is?
Mr. Malkin has shown his true colors. While he may differ in ideals from the Catholics, and he does have the right to light his building for whomever he pleases, he lives and works in a country that promotes the understanding and accepting of ideals contrary to a person's own ideals. He should live up to the overall ideals of the country and light the ESB in honor of Mother Theresa even if he disagrees with the organization that requested the lighting.
Mother Theresa actually earned her Nobel peace prize. She cared for thousands showing love and respect to everyone. Mother Theresa would love and respect Mr. Malkin. He should ignore his spite of the Catholic League and do unto Mother Theresa as she would do onto him.
Mike
References:
Brown, K. (2010). Catholics mount campaign to light up Empire State Building for Mother Teresa. Retrieved 10 Jun 2010 from http://abcnews.go.com/US/Media/empire-state-building-rejects-request-honor-mother-teresa/story?id=10870923&page=1
Empire State Building internet site. (n.d.). Tower lights history. Retrieved 10 Jun 2010 from http://www.esbnyc.com/tourism/tourism_history_towerlights.cfm?CFID=38553956&CFTOKEN=74572286
Empire State Building internet site. (n.d.). Lighting schedule. Retrieved 10 Jun 2010 from http://www.esbnyc.com/tourism/tourism_lightingschedule.cfm?CFID=38553956&CFTOKEN=74572286
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
One Size Fits All
At the end of my very first blog I wrote a phrase in which I have a strong belief. The phrase I believe strongly in is "you cannot judge today's standards by yesterday nor judge yesterday's standards by today." I developed this belief after the progressive assault on Columbus day.
There are some states which do not celebrate Columbus day (HI, NV, and, of course, CA). In other places such as Venezuela, Columbus day has been replaced with Indigenous Revolution day. Christopher Columbus was once celebrated; but over the years, he has been portrayed more as a monster than the explorer who discovered America.
This viewpoint change came about because as a civilization, the world grew up. As the world became more populated, the values of the civilization changed. With this change in value came a change in the viewpoint of the past. This has resulted in Columbus being vilified vice glorified.
Let's face it, Christopher Columbus brought disease to Native American Indians. He enslaved them and he also slaughtered them. He was not a very nice man. He was a product of his time. He lived in a true Darwinian world where the strong ruled the meek and the weak.
If Columbus had not discovered America, someone else would have. The results would've been the same. We should continue to celebrate the discovery of the new world because of its significance to our history. We should not demonize it because it does not fit with our values of our times. We have developed a country where the strong is limited in their domination. We have developed a country where the weak and the strong can govern each other together with a respect for life and liberty. Can we not celebrate Columbus day as a day which led to the birth of a Free Nation?
Its amazing sometimes how these blogs develop. My original intent was to talk about Wilder Publications. They are a small publisher which publishes past works. One of their products is a book of the US Constitution with the Declaration of Independence. Due to customers complaints about some of the books they publish, they have enacted a policy of publishing a statement inside the front cover of every one of their books.
Their statement is "This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work."
This statement does not belong in any book let alone the US Constitution. People need to wake up. Learn from history. Do not judge history. Know what you are reading. Parents should not have to be told to make any statement about books and stories from the past. But I guess I'm judging our time by a standard the masses won't understand.
Hearing the story about this one-size-fits-all statement included in a book on the Constitution made me think of one of my favorite phrases. Thus this blog was born. I can be judged by today's standards. Don't judge me by yesterday's standards and don't judge yesterday by your standards. One size does not fit all.
Mike
There are some states which do not celebrate Columbus day (HI, NV, and, of course, CA). In other places such as Venezuela, Columbus day has been replaced with Indigenous Revolution day. Christopher Columbus was once celebrated; but over the years, he has been portrayed more as a monster than the explorer who discovered America.
This viewpoint change came about because as a civilization, the world grew up. As the world became more populated, the values of the civilization changed. With this change in value came a change in the viewpoint of the past. This has resulted in Columbus being vilified vice glorified.
Let's face it, Christopher Columbus brought disease to Native American Indians. He enslaved them and he also slaughtered them. He was not a very nice man. He was a product of his time. He lived in a true Darwinian world where the strong ruled the meek and the weak.
If Columbus had not discovered America, someone else would have. The results would've been the same. We should continue to celebrate the discovery of the new world because of its significance to our history. We should not demonize it because it does not fit with our values of our times. We have developed a country where the strong is limited in their domination. We have developed a country where the weak and the strong can govern each other together with a respect for life and liberty. Can we not celebrate Columbus day as a day which led to the birth of a Free Nation?
Its amazing sometimes how these blogs develop. My original intent was to talk about Wilder Publications. They are a small publisher which publishes past works. One of their products is a book of the US Constitution with the Declaration of Independence. Due to customers complaints about some of the books they publish, they have enacted a policy of publishing a statement inside the front cover of every one of their books.
Their statement is "This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work."
This statement does not belong in any book let alone the US Constitution. People need to wake up. Learn from history. Do not judge history. Know what you are reading. Parents should not have to be told to make any statement about books and stories from the past. But I guess I'm judging our time by a standard the masses won't understand.
Hearing the story about this one-size-fits-all statement included in a book on the Constitution made me think of one of my favorite phrases. Thus this blog was born. I can be judged by today's standards. Don't judge me by yesterday's standards and don't judge yesterday by your standards. One size does not fit all.
Mike
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
My Voice Was Heard Today
This morning, I did something I've never done before in my life. I voted at a polling station. While I've voted in most Presidential elections (I think I might have missed one; specifically, I don't remember voting in the 1988 election), due to my military service, every time I've voted, it's been an absentee ballot. So today was a new experience for me.
It was especially a new experience because I felt I had a stake in local issues. I was a Georgia resident for over 30 years; however, for the last 23 years, I have not lived in Georgia. Every ballot I voted via absentee included some issue for the local community. While my vote on those issues was counted, the outcome of the vote would not have an effect on me personally. I remember one of the issues was about raising the local sales tax one cent to fund some item. I do not remember my vote - including even if I voted on those issues; however, my vote and the outcome did not have an effect on me personally since I did not live nor shop in the local community. Today I voted on issues that affect the community I in which I currently live.
Today's election is a primary election. Included with each party's candidates running to represent their party in the November elections are several local elections and several local issues. Voter turnout is expected to be less than a November election because many people seem to not to vote during the primary elections. To me that is sad. There are several initiatives on the ballot which will affect everyone in the state, and because this is a primary election, some people are not going to vote because, hey, it's just a primary election.
These people who do not vote are allowing those of who do vote to affect their lives. Think about that. I voted today on several issues which will have an outcome on how the state I live in conducts business. The people who do not vote are allowing my vote to decide the issue without their thoughts or feelings or voice to be heard. I can understand someone not caring about who wins an election but when an issue can affect the pocketbook of the community, would not everyone who would be affected by the vote outcome want to vote in the issue?
Having a voice in issues that could affect you is a right which should be exercised at every opportunity. My vote in local issues did not really count before as my vote did not affect me. My vote counted today for me. Today my voice was heard.
Mike
It was especially a new experience because I felt I had a stake in local issues. I was a Georgia resident for over 30 years; however, for the last 23 years, I have not lived in Georgia. Every ballot I voted via absentee included some issue for the local community. While my vote on those issues was counted, the outcome of the vote would not have an effect on me personally. I remember one of the issues was about raising the local sales tax one cent to fund some item. I do not remember my vote - including even if I voted on those issues; however, my vote and the outcome did not have an effect on me personally since I did not live nor shop in the local community. Today I voted on issues that affect the community I in which I currently live.
Today's election is a primary election. Included with each party's candidates running to represent their party in the November elections are several local elections and several local issues. Voter turnout is expected to be less than a November election because many people seem to not to vote during the primary elections. To me that is sad. There are several initiatives on the ballot which will affect everyone in the state, and because this is a primary election, some people are not going to vote because, hey, it's just a primary election.
These people who do not vote are allowing those of who do vote to affect their lives. Think about that. I voted today on several issues which will have an outcome on how the state I live in conducts business. The people who do not vote are allowing my vote to decide the issue without their thoughts or feelings or voice to be heard. I can understand someone not caring about who wins an election but when an issue can affect the pocketbook of the community, would not everyone who would be affected by the vote outcome want to vote in the issue?
Having a voice in issues that could affect you is a right which should be exercised at every opportunity. My vote in local issues did not really count before as my vote did not affect me. My vote counted today for me. Today my voice was heard.
Mike
Monday, June 7, 2010
Janet Kobren is a Pinhead
Sunday (9/6) on FOXNEWS, an "activist witness" was interviewed for the Sunday morning program. This witness explained what they witnessed on Monday May 31st during the Israeli commandeering of the so-called peaceful flotilla which was attempting to violate the blockade Israel has on the Gaza Strip. The mis-information and total bias of this witness was extraordinary. FOXNEWS gave her an opportunity to spread her misnomers without ever putting her comments to the test. I shall put Ms. Kobren's comments to the test and prove she is a pinhead.
One of her complaints is that Israel is collectively punishing the people of Palestine and Gaza against the 4th Geneva Convention. She stated this in the FOXNEWS interview and she also stated this upon her arrival back in the states. So the question is what does the Geneva Convention state about "collective punishment"? Article 33 of the 4th Geneva Convention states, "No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited."
During WWII, the Germans would punish an entire village or town for the actions of a person or several persons. This punishment was typically the slaughter and pillage of said village or town. This violates the concept of individual responsibility. Without due process, the Germans punished a group of people for the crimes of one. The Geneva Convention wanted to ensure this type of reprisal would not happen again, thus this article was passed. So is the withholding of trade or goods a collective punishment? Not in the context of the reason the article was approved. The article is concerned with physical harm. The Israelis do allow humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip. While it is not enough for the Palestinians to flourish, the Palestinians are alive without being subject to physical harm. So let's flip this argument on its head and show the bias of Janet Kobren.
The blockade is in retaliation for Hamas' lobbing rockets into the southern part of Israel. The blockade's purpose is to keep Hamas from making and deploying explosives against the people of Israel. So far the blockade is working as the rocket attacks have all but ceased. Hamas was launching rockets into Israel to cause harm to innocent Israelis. In other words, Hamas was conducting a type of collective punishment on the southern inhabitants of Israel because they (Hamas) don't like the Jewish state. Hamas was punishing innocent people for the actions of others in violation of the individual reponsibility concept of Article 33. Where was the outcry of this violation of human rights by these supporters of Palestine?
The supporters of Palestine argue that the blockade is illegal. They have no basis in international law for their arguments. In fact, the blockade is legal under the San Remo Manual on International Law applicable to armed conflicts at sea. Article II of the San Remo Manual, which defines the rules of a blockade, states:
102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:
(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or
(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.
The Palestinians are living in the Gaza Strip and they are not necessarily starving. One of the controls Israel is enforcing in the blockade is the limitation of electricity to the Gaza Strip. Hamas has the choice to either provide the electricity to their people or for the production of weapons. This is not a starving of the civilian population. Israel does allow humanitarian aid into Gaza but only after inspection. Now the second part of the article: Is the damage to the civilian population excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated? Of course not! The Palestinians are alive. The military advantage anticipated is keeping Israelis alive. Tit for tat; therefore, the blockade is legal.
Another bias of this "peaceful" flotilla is that they argued the violence started when the Israeli commandos boarded the ship. In other words, the boarding of the ship was the violent act. Davi Barker reported from an interview that Janet said "The violence was just their boarding, and their trying to take over." This means, without provocation, the "peaceful" members of the flotilla engaged in self-defense by the mere presence of the commandos vice the commandos actually committing an act which would constitute a threat on life. I do not know of any peaceful activist who takes up arms to defend themselves. Martin Luther King, Jr was peaceful a peaceful activist. He never took up arms, even in self-defense. Ghandi, who was constantly besieged with violent acts on his person, was peaceful. He, too, never took up arms in self-defense. These flotilla activists were not peaceful. They violated their own vow of peace (if they even had one) when they took up arms. They went looking for a fight and the Israelis fell for it.
Another beautiful element to this witness was she was not even on the ship where the violence occurred. It would've been better if FOXNEWS had arranged an interview with someone where true life-or-death actions occurred. Instead, we had to listen to someone on a ship which submitted to the takeover more peacefully. To speak up for violent offenders even one did not participate in the violence is to support the violent actions which means the non-violent participant is just as guilty as the violent participant.
Another argument Janet has against the seizure of the ships was the seizure occurred in international waters, approximately 50 miles from Israel. I love it when the ignorant speak. It shows their bias and their lack of knowledge. Of course, it means they are spreading their lies and unless someone like me steps up to point out their misnomers, their mis-information might be taken as fact.
In an earlier blog I reported on what is considered territorial waters, the contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone, and international waters. I will not go into those definitions again. Instead, let's look at what the San Remo Manual states.
Article 98 states "Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked." Hmm. This flotilla announced they were going to breach the blockade which means Israel has the right to capture the flotilla. The flotilla vessels resisted capture and thus were attacked. Every action was in accordance with the San Remo Manual.
Let's go even further. Article 97 states "A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document." The action of the Israelis occurred in waters outside the contiguous zone but within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Now the San Remo Manual addresses more of the territorial waters and EEZ of NEUTRAL states when it forbids military action. In fact, action in EEZ's of neutral states is not forbidden only to the extent that the action does not harm the economic benefits of the 200 mile EEZ. Let's utilize Ms. Kobren's own statements against her. She claims the action occurred in international waters, about 50 miles from the coast, which for her meant "they had no right to be there in internationally waters attacking non violent civilians" (Barker). Article 10 states "Subject to other applicable rules of the law of armed conflict at sea contained in this document or elsewhere, hostile actions by naval forces may be conducted in, on or over:....the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf and, where applicable, the archipelagic waters, of belligerent States; (b) the high seas; and (c) subject to paragraphs 34 and 35, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of neutral States." Read that again, "the high seas." Is that not the very spot of international waters Ms. Kobren stated the action occurred?
So there Ms. Kobren, international law on armed conflict at sea states Israel has a right to enforce its blockade, especially against a flotilla boisterous in its claim to violate the blockade, in the very waters you say they had no right to conduct the operation they conducted. Maybe if you spent sometime getting your facts straight vice spreading your innocent ignorance, your voice for your cause might have some truth.
Janet Kobren is spreading mis-information and is mis-guided. I give her props for standing up for what she believes; she has that right. However, her message is tainted by her ignorance of law and her participation in a disguised peaceful act. For her actions, Janet Kobren and her compatriots in the flotilla are all pinheads.
Mike
References:
Barker, Davi. (2010). A hero's welcome for the Bay Area flotilla survivors. Retrieved 06 Jun 2010 from http://www.examiner.com/x-17122-SF-Muslim-Examiner~y2010m6d5-A-heros-welcome-for-the-Bay-Area-Flotilla-survivors
Article 33 of the 4th Geneva Convention. Retrieved 06 Jun 2010 from the International Red Cross: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/380-600038?OpenDocument
Commentaries on Article 33 of the 4th Geneva Convention. Retrieved 06 Jun 2010 from the International Red Cross: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600038?OpenDocument
San Remo Manual on international law applicable to armed conflict at sea. Retrieved 06 Jun 2010 from the International Red Cross: http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JMSU
One of her complaints is that Israel is collectively punishing the people of Palestine and Gaza against the 4th Geneva Convention. She stated this in the FOXNEWS interview and she also stated this upon her arrival back in the states. So the question is what does the Geneva Convention state about "collective punishment"? Article 33 of the 4th Geneva Convention states, "No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited."
During WWII, the Germans would punish an entire village or town for the actions of a person or several persons. This punishment was typically the slaughter and pillage of said village or town. This violates the concept of individual responsibility. Without due process, the Germans punished a group of people for the crimes of one. The Geneva Convention wanted to ensure this type of reprisal would not happen again, thus this article was passed. So is the withholding of trade or goods a collective punishment? Not in the context of the reason the article was approved. The article is concerned with physical harm. The Israelis do allow humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip. While it is not enough for the Palestinians to flourish, the Palestinians are alive without being subject to physical harm. So let's flip this argument on its head and show the bias of Janet Kobren.
The blockade is in retaliation for Hamas' lobbing rockets into the southern part of Israel. The blockade's purpose is to keep Hamas from making and deploying explosives against the people of Israel. So far the blockade is working as the rocket attacks have all but ceased. Hamas was launching rockets into Israel to cause harm to innocent Israelis. In other words, Hamas was conducting a type of collective punishment on the southern inhabitants of Israel because they (Hamas) don't like the Jewish state. Hamas was punishing innocent people for the actions of others in violation of the individual reponsibility concept of Article 33. Where was the outcry of this violation of human rights by these supporters of Palestine?
The supporters of Palestine argue that the blockade is illegal. They have no basis in international law for their arguments. In fact, the blockade is legal under the San Remo Manual on International Law applicable to armed conflicts at sea. Article II of the San Remo Manual, which defines the rules of a blockade, states:
102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:
(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or
(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.
The Palestinians are living in the Gaza Strip and they are not necessarily starving. One of the controls Israel is enforcing in the blockade is the limitation of electricity to the Gaza Strip. Hamas has the choice to either provide the electricity to their people or for the production of weapons. This is not a starving of the civilian population. Israel does allow humanitarian aid into Gaza but only after inspection. Now the second part of the article: Is the damage to the civilian population excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated? Of course not! The Palestinians are alive. The military advantage anticipated is keeping Israelis alive. Tit for tat; therefore, the blockade is legal.
Another bias of this "peaceful" flotilla is that they argued the violence started when the Israeli commandos boarded the ship. In other words, the boarding of the ship was the violent act. Davi Barker reported from an interview that Janet said "The violence was just their boarding, and their trying to take over." This means, without provocation, the "peaceful" members of the flotilla engaged in self-defense by the mere presence of the commandos vice the commandos actually committing an act which would constitute a threat on life. I do not know of any peaceful activist who takes up arms to defend themselves. Martin Luther King, Jr was peaceful a peaceful activist. He never took up arms, even in self-defense. Ghandi, who was constantly besieged with violent acts on his person, was peaceful. He, too, never took up arms in self-defense. These flotilla activists were not peaceful. They violated their own vow of peace (if they even had one) when they took up arms. They went looking for a fight and the Israelis fell for it.
Another beautiful element to this witness was she was not even on the ship where the violence occurred. It would've been better if FOXNEWS had arranged an interview with someone where true life-or-death actions occurred. Instead, we had to listen to someone on a ship which submitted to the takeover more peacefully. To speak up for violent offenders even one did not participate in the violence is to support the violent actions which means the non-violent participant is just as guilty as the violent participant.
Another argument Janet has against the seizure of the ships was the seizure occurred in international waters, approximately 50 miles from Israel. I love it when the ignorant speak. It shows their bias and their lack of knowledge. Of course, it means they are spreading their lies and unless someone like me steps up to point out their misnomers, their mis-information might be taken as fact.
In an earlier blog I reported on what is considered territorial waters, the contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone, and international waters. I will not go into those definitions again. Instead, let's look at what the San Remo Manual states.
Article 98 states "Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked." Hmm. This flotilla announced they were going to breach the blockade which means Israel has the right to capture the flotilla. The flotilla vessels resisted capture and thus were attacked. Every action was in accordance with the San Remo Manual.
Let's go even further. Article 97 states "A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document." The action of the Israelis occurred in waters outside the contiguous zone but within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Now the San Remo Manual addresses more of the territorial waters and EEZ of NEUTRAL states when it forbids military action. In fact, action in EEZ's of neutral states is not forbidden only to the extent that the action does not harm the economic benefits of the 200 mile EEZ. Let's utilize Ms. Kobren's own statements against her. She claims the action occurred in international waters, about 50 miles from the coast, which for her meant "they had no right to be there in internationally waters attacking non violent civilians" (Barker). Article 10 states "Subject to other applicable rules of the law of armed conflict at sea contained in this document or elsewhere, hostile actions by naval forces may be conducted in, on or over:....the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf and, where applicable, the archipelagic waters, of belligerent States; (b) the high seas; and (c) subject to paragraphs 34 and 35, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of neutral States." Read that again, "the high seas." Is that not the very spot of international waters Ms. Kobren stated the action occurred?
So there Ms. Kobren, international law on armed conflict at sea states Israel has a right to enforce its blockade, especially against a flotilla boisterous in its claim to violate the blockade, in the very waters you say they had no right to conduct the operation they conducted. Maybe if you spent sometime getting your facts straight vice spreading your innocent ignorance, your voice for your cause might have some truth.
Janet Kobren is spreading mis-information and is mis-guided. I give her props for standing up for what she believes; she has that right. However, her message is tainted by her ignorance of law and her participation in a disguised peaceful act. For her actions, Janet Kobren and her compatriots in the flotilla are all pinheads.
Mike
References:
Barker, Davi. (2010). A hero's welcome for the Bay Area flotilla survivors. Retrieved 06 Jun 2010 from http://www.examiner.com/x-17122-SF-Muslim-Examiner~y2010m6d5-A-heros-welcome-for-the-Bay-Area-Flotilla-survivors
Article 33 of the 4th Geneva Convention. Retrieved 06 Jun 2010 from the International Red Cross: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/380-600038?OpenDocument
Commentaries on Article 33 of the 4th Geneva Convention. Retrieved 06 Jun 2010 from the International Red Cross: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600038?OpenDocument
San Remo Manual on international law applicable to armed conflict at sea. Retrieved 06 Jun 2010 from the International Red Cross: http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JMSU
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Ban the American Flag? WHAT?
Yesterday (I was feeling lazy; therefore, I did not post) I received an email which detailed that moveon.org, Organizing American, and the SEIU were twittering to vote for yes on a FOXNEWS poll. I was originally very angry that this was happening. I even posted a status on my facebook page against these very people. After I let my blood pressure come down (which I need to do for real!), I did a little research with a saner head.
The research I did was to go to twitter to see if the email was true. Unless the individual members of the above organizations were twittering themselves, the email is absolutely false. The major groups mentioned in the email were not twittering to go vote yes on the poll.
The truth, though, in the email is that the "YES" on the poll was definitely winning. Of course, that in itself presents a problem except of course when you consider you can vote as many times as you want on the poll, which means a very few people can swing the vote in their direction if they so choose. This is one of the reasons FOXNEWS declares all of their polls "not scientific."
So what was the poll? That's another amusing thing in this whole email. The email forwarded to me was started on June 4th. Now it could've started several weeks ago and have been edited before being sent to the person who forwarded to me; you can't tell. The amusing thing though is the poll was from the first week in May. The poll was started May 7 (approximately, I'm basing this on the first comment date). So if the email forwarded to me was started at that time, it took a full month to get into my email box.
The FOXNEWS poll was asking if the American Flag should be banned at schools. Of course, the question is misleading. This poll was a result of the conflict which occurred at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, California over five students wearing American flag decorated clothes on Cinco de Mayo. The poll does not ask if American flag adorned clothing should be banned; instead, it asks if the American flag should be banned. The YES response reads "YES. The safety of the students come first."
The YES answer is a typical progressive method to spin a result in their direction so I was amazed that it was asked on FOXNEWS considering most people view FOXNEWS as biased right (of course, this viewpoint is taken because FOXNEWS is definitely not biased LEFT which is how other news and media outlets are biased). The YES answer can get some to answer YES because to answer NO would mean the person is in favor of putting students at risk. Tricky wording at its best!
The flap over the flag is a ridiculous situation. I will be the first to say the students who wore the American flag-covered clothing were doing it to rile up their fellow students who were wearing Mexican flags because of Cinco de Mayo even if they say they were weren't. However, I stand with them on this matter because in the FOXNEWS article, one of the Mexican supporters shows their ignorance.
Joshua Miller wrote, "Freshman Laura Ponce, who had a Mexican flag painted on her face and chest, told the Morgan Hill Times that Cinco de Mayo is the "only day" Mexican-American students can show their national pride." Can you believe this? Displaying "national" pride for a nation that is not America while getting a free education in America. Also, she doesn't even understand what Cinco de Mayo is representing.
One of the amusing facts about Cinco de Mayo is that it's predominantly celebrated in America. Yes, that's right, Mexico does not celebrate Cinco de Mayo. That is not to say that Cinco de Mayo is not celebrated by some Mexicans. Those who live in Puebla, Mexico celebrate Cinco de Mayo; for the rest of Mexico it's more of a low-key event than a big celebration (Barbezat). There is even a website devoted to the celebration; but, alas, it's American.
In 1862, France, Spain, and England invaded Mexico who was in the midst of an upheaval which caused business interests to suffer property losses. Basically, Mexico wasn't paying their bills to their foreign investors and the foreign investors came to collect. Spain and England struck deals and left. France wanted more. On May 5th, 1862, an outnumbered Mexican army defeated the French at Puebla. An astounding victory for the Mexicans - they defeated one of the most powerful armies in the world! They won the battle, but lost the war as the French went onto occupy Mexico. Napoleon III installed his own emperor in Mexico. In 1867, after the Civil War was over and the US had sent troops to the border invoking the Monroe Doctrine, the French withdrew giving Mexico back to the Mexicans. Let me reiterate, France invaded Mexico because the Mexicans weren't paying their bills. The Mexicans won a battle but lost the war. It took the US demanding the French to leave to actually leave. This is what is celebrated on Cinco de Mayo. This is what represents Mexican national pride - at least according to a teenager who lives in America.
It really is sad the spin some people put on events. It's really sad when people speak and are actually ignorant of the facts (I have my fingers crossed that all of my facts are correct!). It's sad that the displaying of American pride in America on any given day would be considered conflict invoking.
We are the melting pot. In a melting pot, the parts become a whole. The pot is emblazoned with the flag of America. People can have pride in the place from which they or their ancestors came; however, that pride should have a small voice when compared to the pride one should have for living in a country where freedom reigns.
Cinco de Mayo is just another day. Much like St Patrick's Day, it's not a holiday but just another day to have some fun. Cinco de Mayo does not have the significance of July the 4th or September the 15th (Mexico's actual independence day). It is not on the same plain as these two dates and should not be viewed as such.
This is America. National pride is about America in America. We will tolerate pride of other nations because we believe in free speech; however, to even suggest we temper our speech to accommodate another's belief because of what might happen is un-American. The ignorant have called Arizona's immigration law un-American. Do they even know what American is? I definitely can say that to call for the ban of the flag in any shape or version to appease any group in America is not only un-American but it's actually ANTI-AMERICAN! Shame on anyone who voted YES in the FOXNEWS poll.
Mike
References:
Foxnews poll: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/05/06/american-flag-banned-america/
Cinco de Mayo advocacy site: http://www.vivacincodemayo.org/history.htm
Miller, J. (2010). California students sent home for wearing U.S. flags on Cinco de Mayo. Retrieved 05 Jun 2010 from http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/06/california-students-sent-home-wearing-flags-cinco-mayo/
Barbezat, S. (n.d.). Cinco de Mayo holiday in Mexico. Retrieved 05 Jun 2010 from http://gomexico.about.com/od/festivalsholidays/p/cinco_de_mayo.htm
Downey, D. (Ed.). (1987). New Standard Encyclopedia. IL: Standard educational corporation.
The research I did was to go to twitter to see if the email was true. Unless the individual members of the above organizations were twittering themselves, the email is absolutely false. The major groups mentioned in the email were not twittering to go vote yes on the poll.
The truth, though, in the email is that the "YES" on the poll was definitely winning. Of course, that in itself presents a problem except of course when you consider you can vote as many times as you want on the poll, which means a very few people can swing the vote in their direction if they so choose. This is one of the reasons FOXNEWS declares all of their polls "not scientific."
So what was the poll? That's another amusing thing in this whole email. The email forwarded to me was started on June 4th. Now it could've started several weeks ago and have been edited before being sent to the person who forwarded to me; you can't tell. The amusing thing though is the poll was from the first week in May. The poll was started May 7 (approximately, I'm basing this on the first comment date). So if the email forwarded to me was started at that time, it took a full month to get into my email box.
The FOXNEWS poll was asking if the American Flag should be banned at schools. Of course, the question is misleading. This poll was a result of the conflict which occurred at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, California over five students wearing American flag decorated clothes on Cinco de Mayo. The poll does not ask if American flag adorned clothing should be banned; instead, it asks if the American flag should be banned. The YES response reads "YES. The safety of the students come first."
The YES answer is a typical progressive method to spin a result in their direction so I was amazed that it was asked on FOXNEWS considering most people view FOXNEWS as biased right (of course, this viewpoint is taken because FOXNEWS is definitely not biased LEFT which is how other news and media outlets are biased). The YES answer can get some to answer YES because to answer NO would mean the person is in favor of putting students at risk. Tricky wording at its best!
The flap over the flag is a ridiculous situation. I will be the first to say the students who wore the American flag-covered clothing were doing it to rile up their fellow students who were wearing Mexican flags because of Cinco de Mayo even if they say they were weren't. However, I stand with them on this matter because in the FOXNEWS article, one of the Mexican supporters shows their ignorance.
Joshua Miller wrote, "Freshman Laura Ponce, who had a Mexican flag painted on her face and chest, told the Morgan Hill Times that Cinco de Mayo is the "only day" Mexican-American students can show their national pride." Can you believe this? Displaying "national" pride for a nation that is not America while getting a free education in America. Also, she doesn't even understand what Cinco de Mayo is representing.
One of the amusing facts about Cinco de Mayo is that it's predominantly celebrated in America. Yes, that's right, Mexico does not celebrate Cinco de Mayo. That is not to say that Cinco de Mayo is not celebrated by some Mexicans. Those who live in Puebla, Mexico celebrate Cinco de Mayo; for the rest of Mexico it's more of a low-key event than a big celebration (Barbezat). There is even a website devoted to the celebration; but, alas, it's American.
In 1862, France, Spain, and England invaded Mexico who was in the midst of an upheaval which caused business interests to suffer property losses. Basically, Mexico wasn't paying their bills to their foreign investors and the foreign investors came to collect. Spain and England struck deals and left. France wanted more. On May 5th, 1862, an outnumbered Mexican army defeated the French at Puebla. An astounding victory for the Mexicans - they defeated one of the most powerful armies in the world! They won the battle, but lost the war as the French went onto occupy Mexico. Napoleon III installed his own emperor in Mexico. In 1867, after the Civil War was over and the US had sent troops to the border invoking the Monroe Doctrine, the French withdrew giving Mexico back to the Mexicans. Let me reiterate, France invaded Mexico because the Mexicans weren't paying their bills. The Mexicans won a battle but lost the war. It took the US demanding the French to leave to actually leave. This is what is celebrated on Cinco de Mayo. This is what represents Mexican national pride - at least according to a teenager who lives in America.
It really is sad the spin some people put on events. It's really sad when people speak and are actually ignorant of the facts (I have my fingers crossed that all of my facts are correct!). It's sad that the displaying of American pride in America on any given day would be considered conflict invoking.
We are the melting pot. In a melting pot, the parts become a whole. The pot is emblazoned with the flag of America. People can have pride in the place from which they or their ancestors came; however, that pride should have a small voice when compared to the pride one should have for living in a country where freedom reigns.
Cinco de Mayo is just another day. Much like St Patrick's Day, it's not a holiday but just another day to have some fun. Cinco de Mayo does not have the significance of July the 4th or September the 15th (Mexico's actual independence day). It is not on the same plain as these two dates and should not be viewed as such.
This is America. National pride is about America in America. We will tolerate pride of other nations because we believe in free speech; however, to even suggest we temper our speech to accommodate another's belief because of what might happen is un-American. The ignorant have called Arizona's immigration law un-American. Do they even know what American is? I definitely can say that to call for the ban of the flag in any shape or version to appease any group in America is not only un-American but it's actually ANTI-AMERICAN! Shame on anyone who voted YES in the FOXNEWS poll.
Mike
References:
Foxnews poll: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/05/06/american-flag-banned-america/
Cinco de Mayo advocacy site: http://www.vivacincodemayo.org/history.htm
Miller, J. (2010). California students sent home for wearing U.S. flags on Cinco de Mayo. Retrieved 05 Jun 2010 from http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/06/california-students-sent-home-wearing-flags-cinco-mayo/
Barbezat, S. (n.d.). Cinco de Mayo holiday in Mexico. Retrieved 05 Jun 2010 from http://gomexico.about.com/od/festivalsholidays/p/cinco_de_mayo.htm
Downey, D. (Ed.). (1987). New Standard Encyclopedia. IL: Standard educational corporation.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
The Rules of the Game
Last night (02 Jun), Cleveland Indian shortstop Jason Donald grounded to the second base side of the infield. Detroit Tiger first baseman Miguel Cabrera moved to his right to cut the ball off while the pitcher, Armando Galarraga, ran to first base to catch the throw. He caught the ball and put his foot to the bag moments before the runner got to first. Instead of calling the batter out, first base umpire, Jim Joyce, called the runner safe. Replays clearly show the runner out. If Donald had been called out as he should've been, this game would've gone into the history book as the 21st perfect game. Instead, the blown call resulted in documentation of the game as a one-hitter.
Jim Joyce, after watching the replay after the game, asked to see the young pitcher. Once Galarraga was brought to Joyce's locker room, Joyce apologized for blowing the call. Joyce says he clearly thought the runner beat the throw until he saw the replay. He blames himself, as he should, for "costing [Galarraga] a perfect game."
Today, the commissioner of baseball, Bud Selig, let the blown call stand. Instead of erasing a bad call, he will let the history books show a one-hitter vice a perfect game. Selig stated human error is part of the game and that he is open to reviewing possible rule changes for instant replay (instant replay is only used for homerun hits). But the game stands as called. Why could he not undue an obvious wrong?
Everyone involved has been a great sportsman about this travesty. The expression on Galarraga's face when he saw Jim Joyce call the runner safe is all you have to see to understand the professional this man is. His face went from absolute joy to disbelief to smug resignation. He never argued the call. He even defended the umpire after the game. Jim Joyce is considered one of the best umpires in the business. For him to break protocol and apologize to Galarraga says a lot about the man and his professionalism. Bud Selig stood by the call and the final score. Was he professional? Some would argue he did the game wrong. The twenty-first perfect game in the over 100 year-old sport was not to be because of a blown call - a call the umpire who made it even admits was blown. Where's the justice?
From the game standpoint, umpires are human. Their role is to fairly call the game as they see it within the rules established by Major League Baseball. Sometimes the way they see it is not the same as the players or the managers or even the fans see the game. There are numerous times when the umpires are at odds with everyone else on how they see a particular play unfold. That is an unfortunate part of the game. Just realize, the rules are the rules with the umpires being the judge. The managers make mistakes that cost their teams the game. The players make mistakes that cost their teams the game. The umpires make mistakes that cost a team the game. While this is undesirable, it is a fact and function of the game.
Television has brought instant replay which is used in some form in most sports to make the game more accurate. The belief is that by overturning obvious human error makes the game called the way the game was supposed to be called. Some of the new advances in technology showcase even the smallest of human errors. For example, most of the major networks have a strike zone tracker where a digital representation of the strike zone is displayed and compared with the umpire's call. Does this really make the game better?
What if Bud Selig had reversed the call? What precedent would he had set for the next generation of baseball? What would he be telling the fans of yesteryear where a same type of call, if television had been around, had the same result? Would we want to review footage (if it exists) of prior games to correct blown calls in those games? How many other calls would people want to be overturned after the fact?
Bud Selig made the right call. The umpire saw what the umpire saw and he called it that way in accordance to the rules of the game. He admits he was wrong but the game has ended so the replay has no bearing on the game as it stands. Mr. Selig opened the door that if Major League Baseball wanted to prevent this from happening in the future, the rules could be changed to allow a future umpire call to be overturned by instant reply during the game. Until the rules are changed, the rules of the game are the rules of the game. And Major League Baseball and all parties involved followed those rules.
What about empathy for the pitcher? Should we not have empathy for taking away that young pitcher's perfect game? We definitely can feel for him - he was robbed of a perfect game. With too much empathy, we ignore the rules for a particular individual in a particular event. This ignoring of the rules only benefits the one member while at the same time undermining the integrity of the rules. We do not need this type of undermining in sports or in our judicial system. The rules of the game are the rules of the game. If you don't like them, change them. Ignoring them only undermines ones integrity and does not benefit the whole.
Mike
References:
Beck, J. (2010). Missed call ends Galarraga's perfect bid. Retrieved 03 Jun 2010 from http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100602&content_id=10727590&vkey=recap&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb
MLB.com. (2010). Major league baseball statement. Retrieved 03 Jun 2010 from http://mlb.mlb.com/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20100603&content_id=10760448&vkey=pr_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb
Jim Joyce, after watching the replay after the game, asked to see the young pitcher. Once Galarraga was brought to Joyce's locker room, Joyce apologized for blowing the call. Joyce says he clearly thought the runner beat the throw until he saw the replay. He blames himself, as he should, for "costing [Galarraga] a perfect game."
Today, the commissioner of baseball, Bud Selig, let the blown call stand. Instead of erasing a bad call, he will let the history books show a one-hitter vice a perfect game. Selig stated human error is part of the game and that he is open to reviewing possible rule changes for instant replay (instant replay is only used for homerun hits). But the game stands as called. Why could he not undue an obvious wrong?
Everyone involved has been a great sportsman about this travesty. The expression on Galarraga's face when he saw Jim Joyce call the runner safe is all you have to see to understand the professional this man is. His face went from absolute joy to disbelief to smug resignation. He never argued the call. He even defended the umpire after the game. Jim Joyce is considered one of the best umpires in the business. For him to break protocol and apologize to Galarraga says a lot about the man and his professionalism. Bud Selig stood by the call and the final score. Was he professional? Some would argue he did the game wrong. The twenty-first perfect game in the over 100 year-old sport was not to be because of a blown call - a call the umpire who made it even admits was blown. Where's the justice?
From the game standpoint, umpires are human. Their role is to fairly call the game as they see it within the rules established by Major League Baseball. Sometimes the way they see it is not the same as the players or the managers or even the fans see the game. There are numerous times when the umpires are at odds with everyone else on how they see a particular play unfold. That is an unfortunate part of the game. Just realize, the rules are the rules with the umpires being the judge. The managers make mistakes that cost their teams the game. The players make mistakes that cost their teams the game. The umpires make mistakes that cost a team the game. While this is undesirable, it is a fact and function of the game.
Television has brought instant replay which is used in some form in most sports to make the game more accurate. The belief is that by overturning obvious human error makes the game called the way the game was supposed to be called. Some of the new advances in technology showcase even the smallest of human errors. For example, most of the major networks have a strike zone tracker where a digital representation of the strike zone is displayed and compared with the umpire's call. Does this really make the game better?
What if Bud Selig had reversed the call? What precedent would he had set for the next generation of baseball? What would he be telling the fans of yesteryear where a same type of call, if television had been around, had the same result? Would we want to review footage (if it exists) of prior games to correct blown calls in those games? How many other calls would people want to be overturned after the fact?
Bud Selig made the right call. The umpire saw what the umpire saw and he called it that way in accordance to the rules of the game. He admits he was wrong but the game has ended so the replay has no bearing on the game as it stands. Mr. Selig opened the door that if Major League Baseball wanted to prevent this from happening in the future, the rules could be changed to allow a future umpire call to be overturned by instant reply during the game. Until the rules are changed, the rules of the game are the rules of the game. And Major League Baseball and all parties involved followed those rules.
What about empathy for the pitcher? Should we not have empathy for taking away that young pitcher's perfect game? We definitely can feel for him - he was robbed of a perfect game. With too much empathy, we ignore the rules for a particular individual in a particular event. This ignoring of the rules only benefits the one member while at the same time undermining the integrity of the rules. We do not need this type of undermining in sports or in our judicial system. The rules of the game are the rules of the game. If you don't like them, change them. Ignoring them only undermines ones integrity and does not benefit the whole.
Mike
References:
Beck, J. (2010). Missed call ends Galarraga's perfect bid. Retrieved 03 Jun 2010 from http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100602&content_id=10727590&vkey=recap&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb
MLB.com. (2010). Major league baseball statement. Retrieved 03 Jun 2010 from http://mlb.mlb.com/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20100603&content_id=10760448&vkey=pr_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
What Would You Call It?
Today I had FOXNEWS on in the background when I heard a story that infuriated me. White House correspondent Helen Thomas, an admitted as-left-as-you-can-go liberal, took Robert Gibbs, the White House Press Secretary, to task for not condemning Israel for their "deliberate massacre." She was talking about the incident in the Mediterranean Sea where nine members of a flotilla meaning to bypass Israel's blockade were gunned down. Look closely at those words: DELIBERATE MASSACRE. I wonder if she knows what they mean?
Deliberate, as defined by New Standard, is to consider carefully and at length, weigh. Consulting a law dictionary, Merriam-Webster defines deliberate as to think about and weigh or discuss issues and decision carefully. Deliberate can be compared to premeditated. So before we even get to the definition of massacre, let's look at what Ms. Thomas is insinuating with her comments. She is effectively saying Israel with forethought in mind went aboard those vessels with the intent to kill, or in other words, the massacre was the plan from the beginning.
Massacre, as defined by New Standard, is the indiscriminate, ruthless killing of human beings or animals, slaughter. So again, reflecting on Ms. Thomas' comment, Israel considered carefully, then with premeditation, ruthlessly slaughtered the flotilla members. As far as I'm concerned, her words are slanderous at best. The event off the coast was an unfortunate event but not a massacre; and the event definitely was not a deliberate massacre.
Her use of the word massacre made me wonder if other "massacres" have been deemed a massacre when they might not actually be a massacre? The first that came to my mind was the Boston Massacre. This incident occurred in early 1770 outside the Custom House. A crowd gathered and taunted the sentry on duty. A group of redcoats arrived to lend aid. Confusion reigned and the soldiers fired their muskets. Five people would eventually die from the incident, three immediately, two of them later (New Standard, pg B-370). Was this a massacre?
In 1966, a 25 year old ex-marine ascended the tower on the University of Texas campus and began a reign of terror that would not end until some brave souls got into the tower and took his life. Known as the Texas Tower Massacre, this event resulted in the loss of 15 people's lives and the wounding of 33 others (Macleod). Charles Whitman, with premeditation and ruthlessness, took his mother's life, his wife's life, and the lives of people who were unlucky enough to get in his sights while in the tower. Was this a massacre?
In 1972, eight Palestinian terrorists invaded the Olympic village in Munich, Germany during the early morning of the Summer Olympics. They would kill two Israeli Olympic members and take another nine hostage. In the end, all of the hostages would die (Rosenberg). The terrorist group Black September, with premeditation and ruthlessness, took the lives of the Israeli athletes. Was this a massacre?
In 1970, members of the Ohio National Guard, while trying to disperse a crowd of students protesting the invasion of Cambodia, fired into the crowd killing four students and wounding nine others. The protesters had gathered on the campus of Kent State and when the National Guard arrived to disperse the crowd, tension arose which ended with the unnecessary taking of lives (Lewis). Was this a massacre?
You should be able to see a pattern. In three of the incidents mentioned, an armed group of individuals was provoked by another group. In each of the three incidents, items were thrown or the soldiers were assaulted which led to the soldiers unleashing a barrage of bullets onto the crowd. In each incident, an unfortunate taking of human lives occurred. Were they massacre? Some would say they were. What they definitely could not say is that the massacres were deliberate.
The other two incidents were events where a group or individual purposely with forethought sought out to take human lives. Their intent was to kill. The event in Munich was limited by the number of Israels available for the killing. The event in Texas was going to continue until either the madman was killed (which is what happened) or he ran out of ammunition. There is no doubt that both of these incidents were massacres. There is also no doubt that both of these incidents were deliberate massacres.
Some reporters and writers should stick to questions that are brief and the point vice showing their visceral attitudes. However, I'll let you decide if provoking an armed group is a deliberate massacre. What's your call?
Mike
In the references is a link to a wikipedia article which lists many, many more massacres which have been documented throughout history. I was amused by the fact someone added the killings which occurred in England yesterday....but not the Israeli raid..........
(as I was getting ready to publish, I noticed that the wiki article had been edited removing the England trajedy...one of the reasons I don't trust wiki.....)
References:
Sheppard, N. (2010). Helen Thomas accuses Israel of 'deliberate massacre, an international crime'. Retrieved 02 Jun 2010 from http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/06/01/helen-thomas-accuses-israel-deliberate-massacre-international-crime#ixzz0pkxZ9JhT
Krauss, J. (2010). At least 10 killed as Israel raids Gaza aid fleet. Retrieved 02 Jun 2010 from http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100531/wl_afp/mideastconflictgazademoaid
MacLeod, M. (n.d.). Charles Whitman: the Texas sniper. Retrieved 02 Jun 2010 from http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/mass/whitman/index_1.html
Rosenburh, J. (n.d.). Munich massacre. Retrieved 02 Jun 2010 from http://history1900s.about.com/od/famouscrimesscandals/p/munichmassacre.htm
Lewis, J and Thomas Hensley. (1998). The May 4 shootings at Kent State University: the search for historical accuracy. Retrieved 02 Jun 2010 from http://dept.kent.edu/sociology/lewis/LEWIHEN.htm
Merriam-Webster's dictionary of law. (1996). MA: Merriam-Webster.
New standard encyclopedia dictionary. (1984). IL: Standard educational corporation.
Downey, D. (Ed.). (1987). New Standard Encyclopedia. IL: Standard educational corporation.
List of events named massacre: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_events_named_massacres
Deliberate, as defined by New Standard, is to consider carefully and at length, weigh. Consulting a law dictionary, Merriam-Webster defines deliberate as to think about and weigh or discuss issues and decision carefully. Deliberate can be compared to premeditated. So before we even get to the definition of massacre, let's look at what Ms. Thomas is insinuating with her comments. She is effectively saying Israel with forethought in mind went aboard those vessels with the intent to kill, or in other words, the massacre was the plan from the beginning.
Massacre, as defined by New Standard, is the indiscriminate, ruthless killing of human beings or animals, slaughter. So again, reflecting on Ms. Thomas' comment, Israel considered carefully, then with premeditation, ruthlessly slaughtered the flotilla members. As far as I'm concerned, her words are slanderous at best. The event off the coast was an unfortunate event but not a massacre; and the event definitely was not a deliberate massacre.
Her use of the word massacre made me wonder if other "massacres" have been deemed a massacre when they might not actually be a massacre? The first that came to my mind was the Boston Massacre. This incident occurred in early 1770 outside the Custom House. A crowd gathered and taunted the sentry on duty. A group of redcoats arrived to lend aid. Confusion reigned and the soldiers fired their muskets. Five people would eventually die from the incident, three immediately, two of them later (New Standard, pg B-370). Was this a massacre?
In 1966, a 25 year old ex-marine ascended the tower on the University of Texas campus and began a reign of terror that would not end until some brave souls got into the tower and took his life. Known as the Texas Tower Massacre, this event resulted in the loss of 15 people's lives and the wounding of 33 others (Macleod). Charles Whitman, with premeditation and ruthlessness, took his mother's life, his wife's life, and the lives of people who were unlucky enough to get in his sights while in the tower. Was this a massacre?
In 1972, eight Palestinian terrorists invaded the Olympic village in Munich, Germany during the early morning of the Summer Olympics. They would kill two Israeli Olympic members and take another nine hostage. In the end, all of the hostages would die (Rosenberg). The terrorist group Black September, with premeditation and ruthlessness, took the lives of the Israeli athletes. Was this a massacre?
In 1970, members of the Ohio National Guard, while trying to disperse a crowd of students protesting the invasion of Cambodia, fired into the crowd killing four students and wounding nine others. The protesters had gathered on the campus of Kent State and when the National Guard arrived to disperse the crowd, tension arose which ended with the unnecessary taking of lives (Lewis). Was this a massacre?
You should be able to see a pattern. In three of the incidents mentioned, an armed group of individuals was provoked by another group. In each of the three incidents, items were thrown or the soldiers were assaulted which led to the soldiers unleashing a barrage of bullets onto the crowd. In each incident, an unfortunate taking of human lives occurred. Were they massacre? Some would say they were. What they definitely could not say is that the massacres were deliberate.
The other two incidents were events where a group or individual purposely with forethought sought out to take human lives. Their intent was to kill. The event in Munich was limited by the number of Israels available for the killing. The event in Texas was going to continue until either the madman was killed (which is what happened) or he ran out of ammunition. There is no doubt that both of these incidents were massacres. There is also no doubt that both of these incidents were deliberate massacres.
Some reporters and writers should stick to questions that are brief and the point vice showing their visceral attitudes. However, I'll let you decide if provoking an armed group is a deliberate massacre. What's your call?
Mike
In the references is a link to a wikipedia article which lists many, many more massacres which have been documented throughout history. I was amused by the fact someone added the killings which occurred in England yesterday....but not the Israeli raid..........
(as I was getting ready to publish, I noticed that the wiki article had been edited removing the England trajedy...one of the reasons I don't trust wiki.....)
References:
Sheppard, N. (2010). Helen Thomas accuses Israel of 'deliberate massacre, an international crime'. Retrieved 02 Jun 2010 from http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/06/01/helen-thomas-accuses-israel-deliberate-massacre-international-crime#ixzz0pkxZ9JhT
Krauss, J. (2010). At least 10 killed as Israel raids Gaza aid fleet. Retrieved 02 Jun 2010 from http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100531/wl_afp/mideastconflictgazademoaid
MacLeod, M. (n.d.). Charles Whitman: the Texas sniper. Retrieved 02 Jun 2010 from http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/mass/whitman/index_1.html
Rosenburh, J. (n.d.). Munich massacre. Retrieved 02 Jun 2010 from http://history1900s.about.com/od/famouscrimesscandals/p/munichmassacre.htm
Lewis, J and Thomas Hensley. (1998). The May 4 shootings at Kent State University: the search for historical accuracy. Retrieved 02 Jun 2010 from http://dept.kent.edu/sociology/lewis/LEWIHEN.htm
Merriam-Webster's dictionary of law. (1996). MA: Merriam-Webster.
New standard encyclopedia dictionary. (1984). IL: Standard educational corporation.
Downey, D. (Ed.). (1987). New Standard Encyclopedia. IL: Standard educational corporation.
List of events named massacre: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_events_named_massacres
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Charles in Charge of the Oil Spill in the Gulf
Last Friday the President visited Louisiana to inspect the coast and visit with local officials. He reiterated something he had said earlier in the week at a press conference. This "something" flabbergasted me. He said he was in charge. He said he "takes full responsibility" for the cleanup.
Let me get this straight, the President of the United States is responsible for stopping the oil leak and cleaning up the resultant oil spill? I'm trying to wrap my brain around this from a legal standpoint. To be honest, I cannot. I also believe that in four years when I graduate from law school, I still will not be able to justify the President's words.
I read the Constitution, specifically Article II which defines the executive branch of the United States. I could not find legal wording stating the President is responsible for what is happening off the coast of Louisiana. I searched the entire Constitution to see if it defined who in the government is responsible for the oil spill or the oil leak. There isn't anything about the legal limits in this arena in the Constitution.
Now some may argue that oil spills were not around back in the late 1700's. I will give them that point. The Constitution defines the legal limits of each branch of the government and the government overall. It further does not state that a catastrophe in one state is the responsibility of the Federal government. The Federal government can definitely assist. But no place in the Constitution is it written the Federal government is allowed to take over any state, business, or any other entity. Something not explicitly written in the Constitution is not authorized for the Federal government; if anything, it's authorized to the States or to the people (Amendment 10 of the Constitution). As a matter of fact when the Federal government is required to do something for the state is written in Article IV Section 4 to the Constitution. "The United States......shall protect each of them (States in the Union) against Invasion."
I guess the oil spill could be looked upon as an invasion of oil. But then the United States is obligated to protect the state. Nothing is written to give the Federal government the authority to take over the stopping of the spill or allowing the President to be responsible or in charge of something happening in the Country or off its coast.
Since this oil leak is off the coast by some 40 miles who really is responsible? The territorial waters of the United States extends twelve nautical miles from the baseline (boundary line dividing land from ocean). International law also recognizes a contiguous zone. This "contiguous zone" extends from 12 nautical miles to 24 nautical miles. This is a zone to allow a territory to exert some control such as customs, immigration, and sanitary laws. The 40 miles is definitely outside the territorial control of the United States.
International law also recognizes an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). This is a zone which gives each territory sovereign rights to the resources in a zone extending 200 miles from their baseline. The 40 miles is within the EEZ of the United States.
So what is BP doing drilling off the coast? Well, the United States leases their mineral rights to the oil companies. The oil companies then mine the resources from the earth and pay royalties to the United States. This means the United States "owns" the oil in the ground beneath the sea. The Federal government gives up the rights to the oil that the oil company pulls from the earth in return for monetary compensation. What this means is the oil polluting the Gulf of Mexico actually belongs to the Federal Government. However, the responsible party to the spill is BP, the oil company who was attempting to mine the oil. So who should be in charge? That's right BP. Who's at fault? Right now I'll say BP. (Only because the oil rig was not BP's but another company's. If the oil rig company was at fault for the explosion then that would make them at fault for the resultant oil leak. However, it wouldn't alleviate BP's liability for the leak or the resultant oil spill.)
So what should the President do about the oil spill? Stop the rhetoric and the PR stunts. He is not in charge of the oil leak. He should be deploying all resources necessary to the Gulf states to assist in cleanup and protecting their resources. He should be offering BP assistance in stopping the leak. If they don't want it, then so be it - remember, we don't have the expertise to stop the oil leak, and right now, it doesn't look like BP does either. The Federal government should also be ready to hold BP financially responsible. Unfortunately, there are limits to this based on federal laws.
I just heard on FOXNEWS that Eric Holder has said he will be filing charges against BP. This is something unwarranted. We should hold BP accountable but only after the oil leak is stopped. Any distractions are not needed at this time.
But I guess this is what happens with Charles in Charge.....
Mike
References:
Ask AP. (2010). Gulf boundaries. Retrieved 01 Jun 2010 from http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/nation/20100528_ap_askapgulfboundariescreditagencyreports.html#axzz0pchbh3JD
Applegate, David. (1997). Doughnut holes in the gulf of Mexico. Retrieved 01 Jun 2010 from http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/ibru/publications/full/bsb5-3_applegate.pdf
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. (n.d.) Primer on ocean jurisdictions:
drawing lines in the water. Retrieved 01 Jun 2010 from http://oceancommission.gov/documents/prepub_report/primer.pdf
Farlex. (n.d.) Territorial waters. Retrieved 01 Jun 2010 from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Contiguous+zone
Farlex. (n.d.) Law of the sea. Retrieved 01 Jun 2010 from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Law+of+the+Sea
Farlex. (n.d.) Contiguous zone. Retrieved 01 Jun 2010 from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Contiguous+zone
Bazinet, K and Michael McAuliff. (2010). President Obama: I'm in charge of oil spill cleanup, but admits mistakes in reaction to BP slick . NY: NYdaily news. Retrieved 01 Jun 2010 from http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/05/27/2010-5-27_president_obama_im_in_charge_of_oil_spill_cleanup_but_admits_mistakes_in_reactio.html#ixzz0pdz8fZsQ
Geology.com. (n.d.). Mineral rights. Retrieved 01 Jun 2010 from http://geology.com/articles/mineral-rights.shtml
Superville, D. (2010). Obama visits oil spill on Louisiana beach. Freep.com. Retrieved 01 Jun 2010 from http://www.freep.com/article/20100528/NEWS07/100528036/1322/Obama-visits-oil-spill-on-Louisiana-beach
Let me get this straight, the President of the United States is responsible for stopping the oil leak and cleaning up the resultant oil spill? I'm trying to wrap my brain around this from a legal standpoint. To be honest, I cannot. I also believe that in four years when I graduate from law school, I still will not be able to justify the President's words.
I read the Constitution, specifically Article II which defines the executive branch of the United States. I could not find legal wording stating the President is responsible for what is happening off the coast of Louisiana. I searched the entire Constitution to see if it defined who in the government is responsible for the oil spill or the oil leak. There isn't anything about the legal limits in this arena in the Constitution.
Now some may argue that oil spills were not around back in the late 1700's. I will give them that point. The Constitution defines the legal limits of each branch of the government and the government overall. It further does not state that a catastrophe in one state is the responsibility of the Federal government. The Federal government can definitely assist. But no place in the Constitution is it written the Federal government is allowed to take over any state, business, or any other entity. Something not explicitly written in the Constitution is not authorized for the Federal government; if anything, it's authorized to the States or to the people (Amendment 10 of the Constitution). As a matter of fact when the Federal government is required to do something for the state is written in Article IV Section 4 to the Constitution. "The United States......shall protect each of them (States in the Union) against Invasion."
I guess the oil spill could be looked upon as an invasion of oil. But then the United States is obligated to protect the state. Nothing is written to give the Federal government the authority to take over the stopping of the spill or allowing the President to be responsible or in charge of something happening in the Country or off its coast.
Since this oil leak is off the coast by some 40 miles who really is responsible? The territorial waters of the United States extends twelve nautical miles from the baseline (boundary line dividing land from ocean). International law also recognizes a contiguous zone. This "contiguous zone" extends from 12 nautical miles to 24 nautical miles. This is a zone to allow a territory to exert some control such as customs, immigration, and sanitary laws. The 40 miles is definitely outside the territorial control of the United States.
International law also recognizes an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). This is a zone which gives each territory sovereign rights to the resources in a zone extending 200 miles from their baseline. The 40 miles is within the EEZ of the United States.
So what is BP doing drilling off the coast? Well, the United States leases their mineral rights to the oil companies. The oil companies then mine the resources from the earth and pay royalties to the United States. This means the United States "owns" the oil in the ground beneath the sea. The Federal government gives up the rights to the oil that the oil company pulls from the earth in return for monetary compensation. What this means is the oil polluting the Gulf of Mexico actually belongs to the Federal Government. However, the responsible party to the spill is BP, the oil company who was attempting to mine the oil. So who should be in charge? That's right BP. Who's at fault? Right now I'll say BP. (Only because the oil rig was not BP's but another company's. If the oil rig company was at fault for the explosion then that would make them at fault for the resultant oil leak. However, it wouldn't alleviate BP's liability for the leak or the resultant oil spill.)
So what should the President do about the oil spill? Stop the rhetoric and the PR stunts. He is not in charge of the oil leak. He should be deploying all resources necessary to the Gulf states to assist in cleanup and protecting their resources. He should be offering BP assistance in stopping the leak. If they don't want it, then so be it - remember, we don't have the expertise to stop the oil leak, and right now, it doesn't look like BP does either. The Federal government should also be ready to hold BP financially responsible. Unfortunately, there are limits to this based on federal laws.
I just heard on FOXNEWS that Eric Holder has said he will be filing charges against BP. This is something unwarranted. We should hold BP accountable but only after the oil leak is stopped. Any distractions are not needed at this time.
But I guess this is what happens with Charles in Charge.....
Mike
References:
Ask AP. (2010). Gulf boundaries. Retrieved 01 Jun 2010 from http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/nation/20100528_ap_askapgulfboundariescreditagencyreports.html#axzz0pchbh3JD
Applegate, David. (1997). Doughnut holes in the gulf of Mexico. Retrieved 01 Jun 2010 from http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/ibru/publications/full/bsb5-3_applegate.pdf
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. (n.d.) Primer on ocean jurisdictions:
drawing lines in the water. Retrieved 01 Jun 2010 from http://oceancommission.gov/documents/prepub_report/primer.pdf
Farlex. (n.d.) Territorial waters. Retrieved 01 Jun 2010 from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Contiguous+zone
Farlex. (n.d.) Law of the sea. Retrieved 01 Jun 2010 from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Law+of+the+Sea
Farlex. (n.d.) Contiguous zone. Retrieved 01 Jun 2010 from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Contiguous+zone
Bazinet, K and Michael McAuliff. (2010). President Obama: I'm in charge of oil spill cleanup, but admits mistakes in reaction to BP slick . NY: NYdaily news. Retrieved 01 Jun 2010 from http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/05/27/2010-5-27_president_obama_im_in_charge_of_oil_spill_cleanup_but_admits_mistakes_in_reactio.html#ixzz0pdz8fZsQ
Geology.com. (n.d.). Mineral rights. Retrieved 01 Jun 2010 from http://geology.com/articles/mineral-rights.shtml
Superville, D. (2010). Obama visits oil spill on Louisiana beach. Freep.com. Retrieved 01 Jun 2010 from http://www.freep.com/article/20100528/NEWS07/100528036/1322/Obama-visits-oil-spill-on-Louisiana-beach
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)