There are still many questions about the BP/Transocean disaster in the Gulf but one thing is crystal clear, greed has once again trumped safety and common sense. This is yet another in a long string of examples of massively successful companies that still feel that it makes sense to save a few dollars by cutting corners. Just as we've seen in the recent financial debacle and the Upper Big Branch mine explosion, rich corporations played fast and loose with common sense because it was in their best financial interests to do so. Wall Street did it with people's financial future and the stability of the nation's economy. Massey Energy did it with the Upper Big Branch mine, costing the lives of 29 miners. And now BP and Transocean have done it with the environment of the Gulf Coast, the livelihoods of those in the fishing and tourist industries and they did it literally with the lives of 11 rig workers.
Now I'm not siding with Michael Moore to say that Capitalism should be killed, though his argument is not without its points. What I have maintained is that Capitalism will always, without careful oversight, trend towards corruption and fiscal lunacy. During the financial crisis companies seemed immune to any consideration of the inevitable result of the financial bubble. Instead of easing up and throttling back to cruising speed, knowing that the wave of profit was going to end and almost certainly end catastrophically, they slammed the throttle through the gate and flew into the wall at mach 3 screaming like nineteen year olds at a frat party. So quite clearly, we can't even rely on companies to look out for their own long term stability. It's true that this crisis came about from the unholy confluence of bad government decisions, inept or criminally negligent bureaucratic oversight, idiotic lending practices, over leveraged banks and investors willing to buy and sell anything, up to and including their own internal organs. And what do all of those factors have in common? Greed. Pure, undiluted greed. For money, power, influence or just plain bragging rights.
The Massey Energy mine explosion at the Upper Big Branch mine is another example of this triumph of cash over conscience. As investigations into the mine explosion that killed 29 continue, more and more evidence is coming to light about how Massey continually worked to avoid instituting safety procedures designed to disperse methane and coal dust just to save a little money and prevent even the slightest drop in production. A number of workers have testified that it was standard procedure when an inspector was onsite to relay the 'alert' down into the mine so they could scramble to put 'curtains' and other safety equipment into position prior to the inspectors reaching the area. A report on a number of 'crash' inspections where the inspectors immediately took control of communications and were able to reach the lower sections of the mine without any warning found numerous major violations in every single case. It's inconceivable to me that a company would show almost no concern whatsoever about the health and safety of workers in one of the most dangerous and unhealthy jobs in the world. I would think that it would be in the company's best interests to keep them safe and do everything to reduce the chance of a catastrophic event, even if only to avoid the risk of mine damage, investigations and lawsuits. But obviously I'm thinking too long term, whereas Massey is concerned with current numbers and making sure they never falter for any reason, even the safety of their workers.
The BP/Transocean disaster also seems to have greed as a major factor in the rig explosion and subsequent blowout in the Gulf of Mexico. According to some early investigation and interviews with the surviving crew of the Deepwater Horizon rig, BP pushed for and finally got the rig operators, Transocean, to go outside standard procedures for decoupling from the well head. This set the stage for methane to escape up to the surface where it ignited causing the explosion that eventually sunk the rig and caused the uncontrolled eruption of oil into the Gulf. Why did they want to alter the procedure? To speed up the operation and save money. This from a corporation that made over $6 Billion profit in the first quarter of 2010. Not $6B in earnings, $6B in pure profit. With that kind of margin, why quibble over the comparative pocket change of an extra day on-site? Greed. Sure they made $6 Billion last quarter, but why not cut some 'unnecessary' costs and go for $7B next quarter! It's this kind of warped drive to place profit above all other considerations that is unacceptable and leads to disasters such as the Deepwater Horizon fiasco, the Massey mine explosion and the financial implosion of 2008.
In fact, I submit that more often than not, major 'accidents' can be traced back to a decision somewhere along the way that placed profit above regulation and good judgement. Use a cheaper material than what was planned for, skip a final safety check or fail to do a careful stress test on a piece of equipment. All these things happen because those involved want to save money and everyone assumes that an accident will never happen to them. Safety checks aren't skipped because someone is bored, they are skipped because the operation is behind schedule and if they don't catch up it will cost someone money. Or they want to save someone money by finishing early. Or they get a bonus if they finish faster. See the common denominator here? I bet the vast majority of corporate and engineering disasters in America's history can be distilled down to one or more choices of profit over sanity. Just look at the BP/Transocean emergency plan for this current disaster. From what I can tell, the sum total of emergency planning was the blowout preventer on the ocean floor and if that didn't work, as it didn't, 3 months or so to drill a relief well. That's it! Everything else they are trying are either plans that have never actually worked in the past and whatever ideas they can scrape together as a result of post disaster brain storming sessions.
In fact Transocean, who owned the rig itself, more than almost anyone else, knew with some certainty what the worst case scenario was, long before this well was ever approved for drilling. Because 30 years ago a rig owned by a company called Sedco, caught fire and burned in the Gulf of Mexico in 1979, unleashing thousands of barrels of oil into the Gulf every day. Sedco is now better known as Transocean and proclaims on their web site, in a sad bit of irony "we are never out of our depth." I kid you not. Watching the archive footage from that disaster is infuriatingly similar to the current spill, right down to the failed blowout preventer. Even the technology used to attempt to stop the spill are all but identical. So while the technology to drill in deeper and deeper water has advanced at a quick pace, the tech to cap a blowout in deep water hasn't advanced in any meaningful way in over 30 years. If this doesn't upset you then you aren't paying attention. Why did they have nothing else prepared? This is the question I keep asking myself. It wouldn't take a petroleum savant to predict that it would happen again and likely at a much greater depth. So why? Because they didn't see how planning and training for this sort of worst case situation would have any positive affect on their profits. It costs money to design and test procedures and equipment to cap a blown out well head over a mile under water and financially the money spent has no positive bearing on the bottom line. From a purely accounting standpoint it would be money spent without any benefit. Unless there is a disaster, of course. So why waste money on equipment and procedures you never expect to use when you could spend that money on developing the technology to drill faster at deeper depths? It's like building a car to win the Indianapolis 500 and only as you cross the finish line do you get around to discussing how to actually bring the car to a stop.
This is why 'self regulation' or 'letting the free market decide' are not simply empty phrases, they are the harbingers of disaster. Anyone who believes that a for-profit industry can be trusted to self regulate is either a part of the industry in question, naive in the extreme or, I'm sorry to say, a complete idiot. Most, though certainly not all, corporations become more and more narcissistic the larger they become. At some point they reach a size, like BP or Massey, where the lives of their employees become vague and abstract concepts that only enter into corporate calculations as a column in a spreadsheet titled 'available resources'. A simple, calculated choice of whether to complete the well capping 'by the book' or save money and gamble that the odds are against an accident. Well, in this case 11 rig workers are dead and thousands of barrels of crude oil is gushing into the heart of America's aquatic bread-basket. Guess they chose wrong this time. Whoops! Of course next time they'll just weigh the odds again and are just as likely to make the same choice. As long as it's up to them. Corporations will always be selfish and amoral, especially once they go public and have to worry about quarterly earnings and the whims of the Market. I don't think 'Selfish' or 'Amoral' are traits we should encourage in our corporations and especially not in our financial institutions. But if they are going to function that way then we had better start paying attention.
That's why America, and any nation that stakes its power and stability on a capitalistic model, must have a system in place to counter corporate greed. Consider the metaphor of our highway and road system. We don't just put up a few caution signs and a weigh station here and there to check paperwork. We have traffic lights and stop signs to control the flow of traffic. We have state and local police to ensure drivers follow the rules and those who don't are fined or jailed. There are also those in the justice system whose job it is to provide oversight on the police to deal with any corruption. There are DMV regulations mandating safety devices and minimal mechanical soundness of our vehicles. There are inspections. There are traffic regulations to keep everyone moving in logical, controlled patterns and regulation on where and when you can park. Sure, there is the odd driver who bemoans the speed limit that prevents him from taking out his Porsche and screaming down the highway at 150 mph, but society has decided that public safety is more important than the whims of an adrenalin junkie. So why not apply these ideas to our corporate and financial system?
First, let's stop listening to every whimper from these sectors whenever a new regulation is proposed. Any objection from this quarter must be taken with a salt-lick sized grain of sodium since they have everything to gain from killing regulation. Second, make the regulations intelligent and fair, but difficult to circumvent. Third, ensure the penalties for breaking these regulations are severe enough, even for a company the size of BP, to 'encourage' compliance. Fines will only be effective if they are commensurate with the profits of the corporation in question so as to make noncompliance far too expensive and damaging to risk. Fourth, stop trusting corporations to actually follow the aforementioned regulations and make sure there is objective oversight in place. Fifth, there should be a series of checks and balances in place to verify that the oversight is clearly separated from the industry it regulates and that any corruption within that agency is swiftly addressed and severely punished (see point three). As part of this, regulators should be barred from crossing the lines to work for the industry they have been overseeing for five years or more. The last thing we need are regulators walking across the street to advise corporations on how to beat the oversight agency from which they just resigned or worse, giving corporations a pass on regulations to kiss up for a job. This has actually happened recently and I'm sure is not unique. Kind of defeats the purpose of oversight, don't you think?
As to the BP/Transocean disaster itself? If it was up to me, there would not be another approval for offshore drilling until or unless the company doing the drilling is able to demonstrate layers of redundant safety and emergency response procedures that are appropriate for the depth and manner of their drilling. Emphasis on 'demonstrate'. I don't care what someone scribbled on a bar napkin. I want it produced and tested at the depth it's rated to be used! I would order the shutdown of BP's other major drilling rig, Atlantis, which is currently drilling deeper and is only a hundred miles further out into the Gulf than the Deepwater Horizon. BP has already shown it cannot be trusted and does not currently have any workable plan to deal with deep water spills. I would mandate that all operating offshore rigs would be subject to immediate and detailed safety inspections. Any violations that could bear on personnel safety or oil containment would result in a shutdown of that facility until it was resolved. No exceptions. Companies operating wells in US waters would be required, as stated earlier, to develop, test and deploy procedures and equipment appropriate to prevent or quickly stop a worst case scenario. No optimistic predictions! I'm talking what's the worst thing that could happen and what are the plans to deal with it. No plan, no production. This would have to be done within a specific time period or the well would be shut down. Liability for spills would be expanded well into the billions of dollars so that it would never again be worth the risk to bypass regulations or safety. Ideally this liability would be tied in some way to the company's profits so as to make the final number sufficiently agonizing. These penalties would be multiplied exponentially if the company was proven to have knowingly bypassed regulations.
Think I'm being too harsh? Tell that to the families of the 11 men who were killed on the Deepwater Horizon and the 29 who died at the Upper Big Branch mine. Tell that to the millions out of work all because of stupid decisions by people still racking in top dollar salaries. Tell that to the thousands of Gulf Coast residents who make their living from the fish, shrimp, oysters and other animals that will be devastated by this spill. Tell that to the tens of thousands of people along the coast from Texas to the Keys whose livelihoods depend on tourism. And please, try and explain the details of your concerns to the pelicans, osprey, tarpon, flounder, shrimp and all the other species who will die by the thousands because of the BP/Transocean disaster. I have zero sympathy for companies like BP and Transocean. They knew full well how badly things could go wrong, but they did nothing to prepare. No redundant systems to prevent the blow out. No viable emergency plans appropriate to the depth. In short, they did nothing except line their pockets, secure that the odds were in their favor. If both companies are destroyed in the process of cleaning up this disaster and trying to make reparations to the lives they have ended and shredded I will not shed one single tear. It will be an example to every other company about what happens when you sacrifice everyone else and everything else in the pursuit your wealth.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
You MAY Have the Right
If there's one thing Americans are all very proud of it's our Constitution. Liberal, Conservative, Dallas fan, Libertarian or Glenn Beck, they will tell you that the Constitution is what makes America the great nation it is. I too think this 200+ year old piece of parchment is one of the most important government documents ever written. It has all sorts of great ideas, such as having three equal branches of government. Integral checks and balances to keep any of the three from becoming too powerful. Unquestioned rights to freedom of Speech, assembly and religion. And another that we Americans are rightfully proud of, assumption of innocence. In other words, no matter how much anger we feel or how much proof we are told exists, those arrested are still the 'accused' or the 'alleged' criminal. They are a 'suspect' until they are proven to be guilty in a court of law. Innocent until proven guilty.
Yet somehow in recent years, with the threat of terrorism more and more a part of our lives, it has become acceptable to start overlooking these Constitutional protections when they are inconvenient. The same politician who will thump his chest and vow that the Second Amendment is sacred will turn to the camera another day and proclaim that we should be able to take an American citizen and strip him of his Constitutional rights simply because he is "accused" of being a terrorist. In fact Senator Lieberman, with several co-sponsors, is introducing a bill that would give the State Department the power to revoke the citizenship of Americans abroad if they are believed to be associating with the wrong people. Never mind that this makes the individual, an American citizen mind you, guilty without arrest or trial. Guilty based on what? A sliver of hearsay intelligence? A picture of you standing near or talking to a person 'of interest'? The whole idea is not only un-American, but sounds blatantly un-Constitutional. Just as bad though is that the bill would prevent nothing, would provide no actual protection at all. Look at the most recent terrorist suspect arrested, Faisal Shahzad who is alleged to have planned the unsuccessful NY Time Square bombing and also an American citizen. Sure he was out of the country for something like 5 months in Pakistan, but we didn't know about any of his contacts there until after the fact. We still don't know very much for sure even now. So the bill inspired by Shahzad's case would have done nothing to prevent it. And on top of that, the bill will waste time in Congress better spent on any of a dozen other serious items, including changes that would actually matter and not tear a hole in the Constitution in the process. Perhaps time would be better served in confirming the current nominee to head the Transportation Safety Administration, an appointment held up for the better part of a year with no end in sight.
It's the same thing with the idea of reading a terrorist suspect his Miranda rights. You know, "you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you" speech we see regularly on every cop show. Miranda warnings have their roots in the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court decision that, to put it simply, said that before interrogation a suspect must be informed of their rights within the Justice system. See here for more info on Miranda Rights. It's just a requirement to ensure the person under arrest is aware of their rights, nothing more. Nobody seems to have a problem with Miranda for serial killers, rapists, pedophiles and the like. But read them to a terrorist suspect and suddenly half the country goes up in hysteria. I know we all hate terrorists. 9/11 has scarred us all to some degree or another. But this is America, and as we are so very proud, we have a justice system that is based on innocent until proven guilty. Yet as soon as we hear someone use the 'T' word we all start frothing at the mouth. Suddenly we are trying to come up with any possible way to circumvent our own justice system so we can rush them to the electric chair as soon as possible. Forgetting, of course, that they haven't actually been convicted of anything yet. I'm sure someone will say, "yeah, but so-and-so confessed!" So? Many criminals do confess, yet we still have a trial or at least go through the prescribed legal steps for judgment and sentencing. Some will point out that terrorists are evil monsters who don't deserve the rights of our legal system, citizen or not. To tell you the truth, while I do hate terrorists, I'm actually more scared of serial killers. Yet I still support their rights to due process. And if it's good enough for the twisted sociopathic likes of Jeffrey Daumer and Charles Manson then I say it's good enough for Faisal Shahzad, the failed Yuppy bomber.
Some of this is political posturing, but that doesn't excuse it. Pandering to the 'hang 'em high' crowd in direct opposition to our legal system is pathetic. We have laws and we have procedures for those who break them. The most important thing is that we follow the law. Otherwise it's just an arbitrary decision by whoever is in power that moment. America's justice system is based on strict codes and procedures to ensure it is as impartial as possible. Are we really ready to take these decisions away from the courts and hand them over to politicians and bureaucrats who are more interested in polls and campaigning than justice? It's easy, and darkly satisfying to take someone like Shahzad and dispose of him violently like a Bond villain. But this would require us to willingly sacrifice what it is to be an American. To say to our fellow Americans and the rest of the world that our laws are not impartial, that the law only applies to certain people, under certain circumstances who shall be determined at a later date and based upon criteria to be decided later. That would be a change in the very fabric of our society and way of life due to continued threats of violence, wouldn't it? Sounds kinda familiar to me . . .
Definition: Terrorism
"The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda."
Yet somehow in recent years, with the threat of terrorism more and more a part of our lives, it has become acceptable to start overlooking these Constitutional protections when they are inconvenient. The same politician who will thump his chest and vow that the Second Amendment is sacred will turn to the camera another day and proclaim that we should be able to take an American citizen and strip him of his Constitutional rights simply because he is "accused" of being a terrorist. In fact Senator Lieberman, with several co-sponsors, is introducing a bill that would give the State Department the power to revoke the citizenship of Americans abroad if they are believed to be associating with the wrong people. Never mind that this makes the individual, an American citizen mind you, guilty without arrest or trial. Guilty based on what? A sliver of hearsay intelligence? A picture of you standing near or talking to a person 'of interest'? The whole idea is not only un-American, but sounds blatantly un-Constitutional. Just as bad though is that the bill would prevent nothing, would provide no actual protection at all. Look at the most recent terrorist suspect arrested, Faisal Shahzad who is alleged to have planned the unsuccessful NY Time Square bombing and also an American citizen. Sure he was out of the country for something like 5 months in Pakistan, but we didn't know about any of his contacts there until after the fact. We still don't know very much for sure even now. So the bill inspired by Shahzad's case would have done nothing to prevent it. And on top of that, the bill will waste time in Congress better spent on any of a dozen other serious items, including changes that would actually matter and not tear a hole in the Constitution in the process. Perhaps time would be better served in confirming the current nominee to head the Transportation Safety Administration, an appointment held up for the better part of a year with no end in sight.
It's the same thing with the idea of reading a terrorist suspect his Miranda rights. You know, "you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you" speech we see regularly on every cop show. Miranda warnings have their roots in the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court decision that, to put it simply, said that before interrogation a suspect must be informed of their rights within the Justice system. See here for more info on Miranda Rights. It's just a requirement to ensure the person under arrest is aware of their rights, nothing more. Nobody seems to have a problem with Miranda for serial killers, rapists, pedophiles and the like. But read them to a terrorist suspect and suddenly half the country goes up in hysteria. I know we all hate terrorists. 9/11 has scarred us all to some degree or another. But this is America, and as we are so very proud, we have a justice system that is based on innocent until proven guilty. Yet as soon as we hear someone use the 'T' word we all start frothing at the mouth. Suddenly we are trying to come up with any possible way to circumvent our own justice system so we can rush them to the electric chair as soon as possible. Forgetting, of course, that they haven't actually been convicted of anything yet. I'm sure someone will say, "yeah, but so-and-so confessed!" So? Many criminals do confess, yet we still have a trial or at least go through the prescribed legal steps for judgment and sentencing. Some will point out that terrorists are evil monsters who don't deserve the rights of our legal system, citizen or not. To tell you the truth, while I do hate terrorists, I'm actually more scared of serial killers. Yet I still support their rights to due process. And if it's good enough for the twisted sociopathic likes of Jeffrey Daumer and Charles Manson then I say it's good enough for Faisal Shahzad, the failed Yuppy bomber.
Some of this is political posturing, but that doesn't excuse it. Pandering to the 'hang 'em high' crowd in direct opposition to our legal system is pathetic. We have laws and we have procedures for those who break them. The most important thing is that we follow the law. Otherwise it's just an arbitrary decision by whoever is in power that moment. America's justice system is based on strict codes and procedures to ensure it is as impartial as possible. Are we really ready to take these decisions away from the courts and hand them over to politicians and bureaucrats who are more interested in polls and campaigning than justice? It's easy, and darkly satisfying to take someone like Shahzad and dispose of him violently like a Bond villain. But this would require us to willingly sacrifice what it is to be an American. To say to our fellow Americans and the rest of the world that our laws are not impartial, that the law only applies to certain people, under certain circumstances who shall be determined at a later date and based upon criteria to be decided later. That would be a change in the very fabric of our society and way of life due to continued threats of violence, wouldn't it? Sounds kinda familiar to me . . .
Definition: Terrorism
"The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda."
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
The Best We Can Do?
A superstitious soul might think Mother Nature was trying to tell us something. On April 5th, a mine explosion in the heart of coal country kills 29. Less than a month later an explosion on a deep water oil rig kills 11 more and ultimately destroys the rig itself. In addition to the lives lost, the rig disaster also left a ruptured well head spewing oil into the Gulf of Mexico from nearly a mile deep while supposedly smart people scratch their heads and wonder why that blowout preventer failed to actually, you know . . . prevent anything. As the massive, and expanding oil slick threatens to hit the wetlands and coastal fisheries of Louisiana it seems well past time to ask if this is really the best we can do?
Many will say that these events are a tragedy, but something we have to live with because we 'need' the oil and 'need' the coal. No choice, they'll say. But is that true? Look, fossil fuels are called that because that's what they are: fossils. The end products of a hundred million years or more of plant and animal life dying and interacting with heat, pressure and other assorted phenomena. These are not resources that are springing magically from the bosom of the earth. They are a distinctly finite sprinkling of combustible materials left from bygone days. The compost of another age. But no matter how you phrase it, this stuff is running out.
This isn't my opinion. It isn't a Liberal conspiracy theory. It's irrefutable fact. You only have to look at what extremes coal and oil companies are having to go to just to keep up the supply. We've tapped the majority of the land-locked oil reserves already and those will be running out faster than you might think. Especially with growing economies like China and India sucking harder on that particular straw every year. So now we're trying to drill wells a mile or more beneath the waves, looking for whatever more we can slurp out of the Earth's nooks and crannies, like butter from an english muffin. Coal mines are wandering for miles under the mountains and in some places they aren't even bothering with mines at all. They just lop the tops off mountains and sift through the remains.
Do you realize that for all the interesting ways we've come up with to use oil, gas and coal that when you strip away the techno fluff we're using energy 'technology' that is little changed from that first moment humans discovered fire? Think about it. In the hundreds of thousands of years since that fateful discovery, no one will ever know exactly when it happened, our primary energy sources have been the burning of assorted materials. Wood, coal, oil, gas, peat, grass, whatever. Is this really the best we can do? Are we actually satisfied with this state of energy production? All that time and "Can we burn it?" is the best we can do? I may be mistaken, but one of the only truly innovative and applicable energy sources we've come up with in all that time is nuclear fission. And that's all about starting a nuclear reaction, without letting it get out of control. So one mistake at the wrong time can have horrible consequences that make oil spills or mine explosions seem like minor traffic accidents. Chernobyl anyone?
So perhaps it's time to pull our collective heads out of the fireplace and start thinking outside the box we've been stuck in for millennia. Man has done a lot of amazing things and figured out a lot of unbelievable stuff, but we're still, when all is said and done, just tossing stuff on the bonfire to see what will burn or explode. I think it's time we tried something new, don't you?
Many will say that these events are a tragedy, but something we have to live with because we 'need' the oil and 'need' the coal. No choice, they'll say. But is that true? Look, fossil fuels are called that because that's what they are: fossils. The end products of a hundred million years or more of plant and animal life dying and interacting with heat, pressure and other assorted phenomena. These are not resources that are springing magically from the bosom of the earth. They are a distinctly finite sprinkling of combustible materials left from bygone days. The compost of another age. But no matter how you phrase it, this stuff is running out.
This isn't my opinion. It isn't a Liberal conspiracy theory. It's irrefutable fact. You only have to look at what extremes coal and oil companies are having to go to just to keep up the supply. We've tapped the majority of the land-locked oil reserves already and those will be running out faster than you might think. Especially with growing economies like China and India sucking harder on that particular straw every year. So now we're trying to drill wells a mile or more beneath the waves, looking for whatever more we can slurp out of the Earth's nooks and crannies, like butter from an english muffin. Coal mines are wandering for miles under the mountains and in some places they aren't even bothering with mines at all. They just lop the tops off mountains and sift through the remains.
Do you realize that for all the interesting ways we've come up with to use oil, gas and coal that when you strip away the techno fluff we're using energy 'technology' that is little changed from that first moment humans discovered fire? Think about it. In the hundreds of thousands of years since that fateful discovery, no one will ever know exactly when it happened, our primary energy sources have been the burning of assorted materials. Wood, coal, oil, gas, peat, grass, whatever. Is this really the best we can do? Are we actually satisfied with this state of energy production? All that time and "Can we burn it?" is the best we can do? I may be mistaken, but one of the only truly innovative and applicable energy sources we've come up with in all that time is nuclear fission. And that's all about starting a nuclear reaction, without letting it get out of control. So one mistake at the wrong time can have horrible consequences that make oil spills or mine explosions seem like minor traffic accidents. Chernobyl anyone?
So perhaps it's time to pull our collective heads out of the fireplace and start thinking outside the box we've been stuck in for millennia. Man has done a lot of amazing things and figured out a lot of unbelievable stuff, but we're still, when all is said and done, just tossing stuff on the bonfire to see what will burn or explode. I think it's time we tried something new, don't you?
Sunday, April 25, 2010
The Worst Idea
I recently heard about a Pentagon idea that may well be the most brain dead concept I've heard in recent memory, and that's saying something. The idea is to repurpose existing Minuteman III ICBMs (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles) to carry conventional payloads. Put simply, they would yank the nuclear warheads and put in a conventional one in its place thus giving the military a pretty accurate intercontinental strike capability. The idea is not new. President G.W. Bush tried several times to insert budgeting to convert Trident SLBMs (Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles) to conventional use during his Presidency. Thankfully intelligent people were involved and the plan was killed.
I give the idea a B+ for reusing and recycling equipment but I give it an F- for common sense. Let's take a quick history lesson here shall we? ICBMs can be traced back to the German V-2 built during WWII and launched from continental Europe and targeted for London and other UK areas. After the war both the US and USSR began looking at the technology to supplement their nuclear bomber forces. In 1957 the Soviets launched their first true ICBM, the R-7 and almost two years later the US tested the Atlas D. These missiles were built to deliver nuclear payloads thousands of miles around the world. They were developed continually until the end of the Cold War resulting in missiles capable of reaching from the US or Soviet heartlands to almost any part of the opposition's country. At the zenith of their development, ICBMs were fitted with MIRV (Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicles) payloads that were capable of delivering multiple warheads to independent targets from a single missile. The ICBM concept was also expanded to include SLBMs that could be launched from dedicated submarines anywhere in the world with minimal warning. Nuclear war is what ICBMs were built for. This is what they have represented to the world for the last 50+ years.
So can anyone tell me why firing off a conventionally tipped ICBM might be a questionable plan? Even with the Cold War officially over for the better part of 20 years, NORAD (North American Air Defense) still operates beneath Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado just like its Russian equivalent certainly does. The entire facility is mounted on massive shock absorbers and designed to be sealed away from the rest of the world in the event of a nuclear attack. And sitting in a room are soldiers who, in addition to monitoring North America airspace in general, also still monitor the world for ICBM launches. Just like the Russians still do. You might be surprised to know that there is absolutely no way to tell the difference between a nuclear and conventional payload from a launch detection display. Unlike a cruise missile, a ballistic missile flies on a very unique trajectory. It launches vertically into the upper stratosphere and is anything but stealthy. You don't exactly need stealth when your opponent only has 15 minutes or less before impact and has minimal interception options once the warhead detaches from the missile itself. The point is that there is no way to disguise or hide an ICBM launch. When it leaves the silo, lights are going to start flashing all over the world and heads of state will be woken. Yes, we could inform Russia beforehand, not to mention the UK, France, Germany, China, Canada and every other major power that it's not a nuke. And we can tell them all that anything launched from Vandenberg AFB is just a conventional ICBM, so don't worry it's all good. But do you really think it's a good idea to use a system that is one misunderstanding or dropped communique away from starting a nuclear exchange?
Sure, there are advantages to the idea. Pop off an ICBM from California and hit a target in the mountains of Afghanistan in about 10 minutes or so with pretty good accuracy. But we already have cruise missiles that can be launched from ships and submarines. B-1B, B-2 Stealth and even the venerable B-52 can carry upwards of 20 cruise missiles virtually around the globe, non-stop with the use of inflight refueling. From launch point, cruise missiles can reach out another 600 + miles and strike with high accuracy. We have unmanned drones that can operate from remote locations and hit targets with precision munitions. Do we really need what the ICBM can give us? I don't think so, because the danger is overwhelming. All it will take is one mistake to potentially kill millions. It comes down to this- yes a conventionally armed ICBM would add a small bit of extra flexibility to the US military arsenal. However, the very real danger of using a weapon that is indeed the iconic symbol of nuclear war far outweighs any fleeting benefits we might gain. This idea is the product of abject stupidity.
I give the idea a B+ for reusing and recycling equipment but I give it an F- for common sense. Let's take a quick history lesson here shall we? ICBMs can be traced back to the German V-2 built during WWII and launched from continental Europe and targeted for London and other UK areas. After the war both the US and USSR began looking at the technology to supplement their nuclear bomber forces. In 1957 the Soviets launched their first true ICBM, the R-7 and almost two years later the US tested the Atlas D. These missiles were built to deliver nuclear payloads thousands of miles around the world. They were developed continually until the end of the Cold War resulting in missiles capable of reaching from the US or Soviet heartlands to almost any part of the opposition's country. At the zenith of their development, ICBMs were fitted with MIRV (Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicles) payloads that were capable of delivering multiple warheads to independent targets from a single missile. The ICBM concept was also expanded to include SLBMs that could be launched from dedicated submarines anywhere in the world with minimal warning. Nuclear war is what ICBMs were built for. This is what they have represented to the world for the last 50+ years.
So can anyone tell me why firing off a conventionally tipped ICBM might be a questionable plan? Even with the Cold War officially over for the better part of 20 years, NORAD (North American Air Defense) still operates beneath Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado just like its Russian equivalent certainly does. The entire facility is mounted on massive shock absorbers and designed to be sealed away from the rest of the world in the event of a nuclear attack. And sitting in a room are soldiers who, in addition to monitoring North America airspace in general, also still monitor the world for ICBM launches. Just like the Russians still do. You might be surprised to know that there is absolutely no way to tell the difference between a nuclear and conventional payload from a launch detection display. Unlike a cruise missile, a ballistic missile flies on a very unique trajectory. It launches vertically into the upper stratosphere and is anything but stealthy. You don't exactly need stealth when your opponent only has 15 minutes or less before impact and has minimal interception options once the warhead detaches from the missile itself. The point is that there is no way to disguise or hide an ICBM launch. When it leaves the silo, lights are going to start flashing all over the world and heads of state will be woken. Yes, we could inform Russia beforehand, not to mention the UK, France, Germany, China, Canada and every other major power that it's not a nuke. And we can tell them all that anything launched from Vandenberg AFB is just a conventional ICBM, so don't worry it's all good. But do you really think it's a good idea to use a system that is one misunderstanding or dropped communique away from starting a nuclear exchange?
Sure, there are advantages to the idea. Pop off an ICBM from California and hit a target in the mountains of Afghanistan in about 10 minutes or so with pretty good accuracy. But we already have cruise missiles that can be launched from ships and submarines. B-1B, B-2 Stealth and even the venerable B-52 can carry upwards of 20 cruise missiles virtually around the globe, non-stop with the use of inflight refueling. From launch point, cruise missiles can reach out another 600 + miles and strike with high accuracy. We have unmanned drones that can operate from remote locations and hit targets with precision munitions. Do we really need what the ICBM can give us? I don't think so, because the danger is overwhelming. All it will take is one mistake to potentially kill millions. It comes down to this- yes a conventionally armed ICBM would add a small bit of extra flexibility to the US military arsenal. However, the very real danger of using a weapon that is indeed the iconic symbol of nuclear war far outweighs any fleeting benefits we might gain. This idea is the product of abject stupidity.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Me & Senator McCain
At least a month ago I sent Senator John McCain (R-AZ) an email via his web site about my belief that 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' should be repealed. I sent this to Senator McCain because of his position as Ranking Member on the Senate Armed Services Committee. I was particularly irritated at how he had seemed to reverse his own previous position on the subject. The heart of my email came out of my earlier post on the subject.
Below is the response, complete and unedited, I received today from Senator McCain's office.
- - - - - - - - - -
Mr. Erik Prince
Dear Mr. Prince:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. I appreciate hearing your views on this controversial issue.
Recently, the Senate Armed Services Committee received testimony from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the Service Secretaries on the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, echoing the desire of President Obama to have it repealed by Congress. The committee also heard the personal views of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, several of the combatant commanders, and most recently, the Service Chiefs, who have responsibility for the organization, training, and overall readiness of their forces and for providing their best military advice to the President on matters that might affect their ability to ensure sufficiently trained and ready forces.
Each of the military's Service Chiefs has expressed his support for the comprehensive, ten-month policy review of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" that Secretary Gates has directed. However, each has indicated that he is not prepared to support a repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy at this time. Based on their expert testimony, I am urging Congress to await the completion of the Pentagon's policy review in order to give the Service Chiefs the information they have asked for before any attempt is made to change law. I will strongly oppose any attempt to change the current law based on an incomplete and inadequate review of this policy, and I hope that my fellow Senators will also take this approach in the interest of national security.
With respect to the review itself, I have expressed my concerns about its focus and scope. Unfortunately, in his testimony earlier this year to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Secretary Gates described the mandate as "a review of the issues associated with properly implementing a repeal of the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy."The guiding question, as Secretary Gates put it, should be "not whether the military prepares to make this change, but how we best prepare for it." This is consistent with President Obama's goals, but it seems to get things backwards: The current Pentagon review should be an objective study of the relevant military issues, not an implementation plan.
The issue that Congress must decide, and the issue the Service Chiefs should be asked to give their best military advice about, is whether the "Don't Ask Don't' Tell" policy should be repealed. We should ask that question to our service personnel and their families at all levels and genuinely consider their views in our debate.Clearly, there are many policy and logistical challenges that would have to be overcome if the law is repealed, but that should not be the primary focus of the ongoing policy review. I will continue to insist that we use the coming months to study not only how to implement a change to the current policy, but also whether and why the men and women of the Armed Forces - the generals, the officers, the NCOs, and the privates - support or oppose such a change. I would then expect the views of the Service Chiefs to incorporate this critically important information.
I am proud of, and thankful for, every American who chooses to put on the uniform of our nation and serve their country, particularly in this time of war. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is not perfect, but it reflects a compromise achieved with great difficulty that has effectively supported military readiness. However imperfect, the policy has allowed many gay and lesbian Americans to serve their country. I honor their service, I honor their sacrifices, and I honor them. But we should not change the current policy until we are confident - from a military standpoint, with the informed advice of the Service Chiefs - that such a change is consistent with military effectiveness.
Again, thank you again for writing me on this issue. Feel free to contact me in the future on this or any other matter.
Sincerely,
John McCain
United States Senator
JM/mf
- - - - - - - - - -
Below you will find my response, which I sent via the website earlier today.
- - - - - - - - - -
Senator McCain,
I appreciate your reply. I also appreciate that many feel an assessment is needed before any repeal is begun. But I fully agree with Secretary Gates that it's not 'if' it is 'when' the repeal is implemented. I completely disagree with your suggestion that we need to "ask that question to our service personnel and their families at all levels and genuinely consider their views in our debate." At what time in our history has the government of the United States ever polled service members and their families before implementing a necessary change in military policy?That strikes me as a very strange statement. The government decides, the SecDef directs and the Joint Chiefs inform their subordinates what changes are being made. In my 8 years as an Air Force Boom Operator I do not recall a single instance when I was asked what my opinion was of a policy change. My squadron commander informed us of the change along with how it would be implemented and when it would be completed by and it happened. It's called orders.
You say that "the policy has allowed many gay and lesbian Americans to serve their country. I honor their service, I honor their sacrifices, and I honor them." With all due respect Senator, forcing them to hide a significant portion of their lives in a dark corner so that you and a few of their comrades won't be made uncomfortable is hardly what I would term 'Honoring' them. It's more like 'using' them without having to actually give them the same rights as their fellow soldiers.
Here's what it all comes down to, as far as I'm concerned. It is Wrong to make loyal soldiers who are placing their lives on the line every day, live a secret life for no better reason than for the convenience of others. These men and women are American Soldiers, sir, and if you truly honor them and their sacrifice you would step up and do the right thing. Grant them the rights of every other America Soldier. The right to love who they want, within the bounds of military regulations and decorum. For just one moment, Senator, imagine you were unable to let anyone else know who you Loved or wanted to have a relationship with while all around you your comrades could not only date who they wanted but brag about it on a regular basis.
It's a matter of right and wrong. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is and has always been Wrong. It's that simple.
Erik Prince
US Air Force 1988 - 1996
Boom Operator
Below is the response, complete and unedited, I received today from Senator McCain's office.
- - - - - - - - - -
Mr. Erik Prince
Dear Mr. Prince:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. I appreciate hearing your views on this controversial issue.
Recently, the Senate Armed Services Committee received testimony from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the Service Secretaries on the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, echoing the desire of President Obama to have it repealed by Congress. The committee also heard the personal views of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, several of the combatant commanders, and most recently, the Service Chiefs, who have responsibility for the organization, training, and overall readiness of their forces and for providing their best military advice to the President on matters that might affect their ability to ensure sufficiently trained and ready forces.
Each of the military's Service Chiefs has expressed his support for the comprehensive, ten-month policy review of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" that Secretary Gates has directed. However, each has indicated that he is not prepared to support a repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy at this time. Based on their expert testimony, I am urging Congress to await the completion of the Pentagon's policy review in order to give the Service Chiefs the information they have asked for before any attempt is made to change law. I will strongly oppose any attempt to change the current law based on an incomplete and inadequate review of this policy, and I hope that my fellow Senators will also take this approach in the interest of national security.
With respect to the review itself, I have expressed my concerns about its focus and scope. Unfortunately, in his testimony earlier this year to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Secretary Gates described the mandate as "a review of the issues associated with properly implementing a repeal of the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy."The guiding question, as Secretary Gates put it, should be "not whether the military prepares to make this change, but how we best prepare for it." This is consistent with President Obama's goals, but it seems to get things backwards: The current Pentagon review should be an objective study of the relevant military issues, not an implementation plan.
The issue that Congress must decide, and the issue the Service Chiefs should be asked to give their best military advice about, is whether the "Don't Ask Don't' Tell" policy should be repealed. We should ask that question to our service personnel and their families at all levels and genuinely consider their views in our debate.Clearly, there are many policy and logistical challenges that would have to be overcome if the law is repealed, but that should not be the primary focus of the ongoing policy review. I will continue to insist that we use the coming months to study not only how to implement a change to the current policy, but also whether and why the men and women of the Armed Forces - the generals, the officers, the NCOs, and the privates - support or oppose such a change. I would then expect the views of the Service Chiefs to incorporate this critically important information.
I am proud of, and thankful for, every American who chooses to put on the uniform of our nation and serve their country, particularly in this time of war. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is not perfect, but it reflects a compromise achieved with great difficulty that has effectively supported military readiness. However imperfect, the policy has allowed many gay and lesbian Americans to serve their country. I honor their service, I honor their sacrifices, and I honor them. But we should not change the current policy until we are confident - from a military standpoint, with the informed advice of the Service Chiefs - that such a change is consistent with military effectiveness.
Again, thank you again for writing me on this issue. Feel free to contact me in the future on this or any other matter.
Sincerely,
John McCain
United States Senator
JM/mf
- - - - - - - - - -
Below you will find my response, which I sent via the website earlier today.
- - - - - - - - - -
Senator McCain,
I appreciate your reply. I also appreciate that many feel an assessment is needed before any repeal is begun. But I fully agree with Secretary Gates that it's not 'if' it is 'when' the repeal is implemented. I completely disagree with your suggestion that we need to "ask that question to our service personnel and their families at all levels and genuinely consider their views in our debate." At what time in our history has the government of the United States ever polled service members and their families before implementing a necessary change in military policy?That strikes me as a very strange statement. The government decides, the SecDef directs and the Joint Chiefs inform their subordinates what changes are being made. In my 8 years as an Air Force Boom Operator I do not recall a single instance when I was asked what my opinion was of a policy change. My squadron commander informed us of the change along with how it would be implemented and when it would be completed by and it happened. It's called orders.
You say that "the policy has allowed many gay and lesbian Americans to serve their country. I honor their service, I honor their sacrifices, and I honor them." With all due respect Senator, forcing them to hide a significant portion of their lives in a dark corner so that you and a few of their comrades won't be made uncomfortable is hardly what I would term 'Honoring' them. It's more like 'using' them without having to actually give them the same rights as their fellow soldiers.
Here's what it all comes down to, as far as I'm concerned. It is Wrong to make loyal soldiers who are placing their lives on the line every day, live a secret life for no better reason than for the convenience of others. These men and women are American Soldiers, sir, and if you truly honor them and their sacrifice you would step up and do the right thing. Grant them the rights of every other America Soldier. The right to love who they want, within the bounds of military regulations and decorum. For just one moment, Senator, imagine you were unable to let anyone else know who you Loved or wanted to have a relationship with while all around you your comrades could not only date who they wanted but brag about it on a regular basis.
It's a matter of right and wrong. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is and has always been Wrong. It's that simple.
Erik Prince
US Air Force 1988 - 1996
Boom Operator
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Guns, Guns, Guns
As I type this, we are a day from April 19th. This date is significant in several ways. First, it was the date of the first two clashes at Lexington and Concord that lit off the American Revolution. It's also the anniversary of the fiery conclusion to the 1993 Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, TX. And in 1995 it marked the Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh. So why is the date significant this year? Two separate, but equally disturbing Pro-Gun/2nd Amendment rallies are set for the 19th. First up, the 'Second Amendment March' will be at the Washington Monument on the National Mall. This will be an unarmed gathering, due to D.C. law. The second, calling itself the 'Restore the Constitution' rally will be set at Fort Hunt National Park, just across the Potomac from the capital. This one is planned to be very much an armed demonstration, as VA law allows the open carrying of firearms.
I'm very much aware that firearms are something Americans feel a strong attachment to. That's fine and that's legal. I have no overwhelming desire to outlaw them, but that doesn't mean I'm happy with hundreds of armed citizens protesting at the doorstep of the Capital. If there is one type of gathering I'd rather not see armed it's a protest aimed at the government. It's not a good precedent to set. I don't even understand what they are protesting. I don't recall any recent legislation that assaulted gun ownership. In fact, there have been some dubious ones that are quite Pro gun, such as allowing train passengers to check luggage containing firearms, allowing guns to be carried in National Parks and the most bizarre of all carrying them in bars. There's nothing that makes me feel safer than a drunk with a Beretta! But setting aside the issue of shoot-outs over dart game disputes, what, exactly are they protesting?
I've lost a lot of my patience with this group of people. While I recognize their right to own firearms, the whole concept seems to have an almost religious quality about it that scares the hell out of me. It's not that some citizens want to own guns. It's the way many are struck with awe and reverence when the subject of the Second Amendment arises. Look, it's a 9mm semi-automatic pistol . . . not the True Cross! It doesn't take much to get the NRA crowd howling at the moon. All you have to do is merely suggest that maybe, perhaps it should be more complicated to buy a gun than fill a prescription and devout gun owners will go up in flames. Do they really want to go back to some idealized wild west situation where everyone walks around with a Desert Eagle on their hip or an AR-15 slung over their shoulder? Will that make them feel safer, and if so, what are they so afraid of?
Based on some of the rhetoric coming out of the organizers and speakers at these two marches, it's fear of the Government. Daniel Almond, who organized the armed rally on the VA side of the Potomac, is determined to protect the Second Amendment, yet has no problem ignoring inconvenient bits of the Constitution like national elections. Almond explains, "I'm not really here to try and court majority opinion and win 51% support for my cause...even if that were necessary." In a truly surreal twist of logic he sees the Second Amendment as hedge against the "tyranny of the majority." I guess a government duly elected by the majority is 'tyranny'. At least when you're the one in the minority. Kind of like being a fair weather patriot, isn't it? Democracy is great . . . unless your candidate loses. It's not even like the nation has been turned upside down either. Income taxes are at their lowest point in over a decade. The President just hosted the largest gathering of world leaders by a US President since FDR to discuss and take steps towards securing nuclear material. And legislation is going into effect that will stop health insurance companies from denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions thus opening the door for millions to finally be able to obtain insurance coverage. Contrary to what the NRA, self serving politicians, and the Mayan calendar might tell you, the world is not coming to an end.
The problem is not with most gun owners, but with this fringy element that sees their guns as a source of power and stability when the rest of the world is changing way too fast. This kind of thinking slots cleanly into the militia mentality, hence the re-emergence of militias after more than a decade of decline. These groups wrap themselves in the flag and claim to be arming to take back America. But who are they taking it back from? Are they talking about the 53% of Americans who voted for Obama? Am I the only person who wonders where these rallies were when the Bush Administration was tapping phones without warrants and expanding the power of the Executive branch? They seem to have a very flexible idea of what is intrusive. Warrant-less wiretaps are just to keep us safe, but changes to health insurance regulations are a 'Socialist Agenda' requiring armed insurrection? It's time to just call it like it is, these groups are really no different than one of these religious extremist groups. They are convinced that they are the only ones who see the truth about some nebulous evil in the world and they are willing to arm themselves and possibly even kill to get their way. It's domestic terrorism, though we prefer not to call it that. It's much more acceptable to use the term 'terrorist' to refer to someone from outside. Someone, not 'us'. But it was certainly pure and simple terrorism on April 19th, 1995 when 168 civilian men, women and children were murdered because Tim McVeigh thought the Federal Government was out of control. Seems like a very bad day to choose for an anti-government/Pro-gun march.
I'm very much aware that firearms are something Americans feel a strong attachment to. That's fine and that's legal. I have no overwhelming desire to outlaw them, but that doesn't mean I'm happy with hundreds of armed citizens protesting at the doorstep of the Capital. If there is one type of gathering I'd rather not see armed it's a protest aimed at the government. It's not a good precedent to set. I don't even understand what they are protesting. I don't recall any recent legislation that assaulted gun ownership. In fact, there have been some dubious ones that are quite Pro gun, such as allowing train passengers to check luggage containing firearms, allowing guns to be carried in National Parks and the most bizarre of all carrying them in bars. There's nothing that makes me feel safer than a drunk with a Beretta! But setting aside the issue of shoot-outs over dart game disputes, what, exactly are they protesting?
I've lost a lot of my patience with this group of people. While I recognize their right to own firearms, the whole concept seems to have an almost religious quality about it that scares the hell out of me. It's not that some citizens want to own guns. It's the way many are struck with awe and reverence when the subject of the Second Amendment arises. Look, it's a 9mm semi-automatic pistol . . . not the True Cross! It doesn't take much to get the NRA crowd howling at the moon. All you have to do is merely suggest that maybe, perhaps it should be more complicated to buy a gun than fill a prescription and devout gun owners will go up in flames. Do they really want to go back to some idealized wild west situation where everyone walks around with a Desert Eagle on their hip or an AR-15 slung over their shoulder? Will that make them feel safer, and if so, what are they so afraid of?
Based on some of the rhetoric coming out of the organizers and speakers at these two marches, it's fear of the Government. Daniel Almond, who organized the armed rally on the VA side of the Potomac, is determined to protect the Second Amendment, yet has no problem ignoring inconvenient bits of the Constitution like national elections. Almond explains, "I'm not really here to try and court majority opinion and win 51% support for my cause...even if that were necessary." In a truly surreal twist of logic he sees the Second Amendment as hedge against the "tyranny of the majority." I guess a government duly elected by the majority is 'tyranny'. At least when you're the one in the minority. Kind of like being a fair weather patriot, isn't it? Democracy is great . . . unless your candidate loses. It's not even like the nation has been turned upside down either. Income taxes are at their lowest point in over a decade. The President just hosted the largest gathering of world leaders by a US President since FDR to discuss and take steps towards securing nuclear material. And legislation is going into effect that will stop health insurance companies from denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions thus opening the door for millions to finally be able to obtain insurance coverage. Contrary to what the NRA, self serving politicians, and the Mayan calendar might tell you, the world is not coming to an end.
The problem is not with most gun owners, but with this fringy element that sees their guns as a source of power and stability when the rest of the world is changing way too fast. This kind of thinking slots cleanly into the militia mentality, hence the re-emergence of militias after more than a decade of decline. These groups wrap themselves in the flag and claim to be arming to take back America. But who are they taking it back from? Are they talking about the 53% of Americans who voted for Obama? Am I the only person who wonders where these rallies were when the Bush Administration was tapping phones without warrants and expanding the power of the Executive branch? They seem to have a very flexible idea of what is intrusive. Warrant-less wiretaps are just to keep us safe, but changes to health insurance regulations are a 'Socialist Agenda' requiring armed insurrection? It's time to just call it like it is, these groups are really no different than one of these religious extremist groups. They are convinced that they are the only ones who see the truth about some nebulous evil in the world and they are willing to arm themselves and possibly even kill to get their way. It's domestic terrorism, though we prefer not to call it that. It's much more acceptable to use the term 'terrorist' to refer to someone from outside. Someone, not 'us'. But it was certainly pure and simple terrorism on April 19th, 1995 when 168 civilian men, women and children were murdered because Tim McVeigh thought the Federal Government was out of control. Seems like a very bad day to choose for an anti-government/Pro-gun march.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Repeal of Intelligence
There are those for and those against the recently passed healthcare reform bill (HCR). That would be true of any legislation of course, but what makes this time so . . . interesting is that the side that lost is in the midst of a PR campaign that is virtually pointless in real terms. Well two prongs of the same campaign. First is the battle cry, which began before the final House vote when it was clear that HCR would pass, to "Repeal and Replace" the bill. Second, which started shortly after the final vote, that the law was unconstitutional and State Attorneys General would sue the Federal Government to overturn it.
As to the first prong of the Republican response to HCR passage, you have got to be kidding me. It doesn't take a constitutional scholar, in fact most eighth graders are up to the task, to realize that it takes two thirds majorities in BOTH houses of Congress to override the inevitable Presidential veto. Keeping in mind that Republicans don't even have close to a simple majority, much less two thirds. Even if you accept the assumption that Republicans may gain seats in the mid term elections, it would take a truly historic turnover to give them veto proof majorities. How historic? They would need a net gain of 26 seats in the 100 member Senate and 112 seats in the House. If the vote was held today, that would still be almost impossible. By the time November rolls around and HCR is starting to take affect kids will no longer be subject to insurance rejection from "pre-existing conditions", Medicare recipients will have gotten drug benefit refund checks and not one person will have been sentenced to die by a "Death Panel". They may gain some seats, but I don't think they're likely to gain the majority in either House much less the landslides needed to "Repeal & Replace".
Then we have the litigation angle. I think we are now up to 13 states who are filing lawsuits or have filed them against the Federal government. Again I'm no law expert, but seems telling that only 13 Republican Attorneys General are going in on this. Even some lawyers who say they don't support the bill are admitting that there really isn't a legal case for scrapping the law. In fact, when the University of Washington tried to put together a debate between legal experts on the legality of HCR, they couldn't find anyone to champion the unconstitutionality of the bill. And in another wild dust-up in Georgia, we have a State legislature and Governor talking about impeaching the GA Attorney General for not joining the madness. Attorney General Thurbert Baker, after investigating the legality of such a suit at the Governor's request, wrote the Governor to say:
"Based upon my understanding of the current Act, I am unaware of any constitutional infirmities and do not think it would be prudent, legally or fiscally, to pursue such litigation. I must therefore respectfully decline your request." He continued, "In short, this litigation is likely to fail and will consume significant amounts of taxpayers' hard-earned money in the process." (The full letter is available here)
Speaking of tax payer's money, the Attorney General of Virginia, Kenneth Cuccinelli, actually put out a statement in response to cost concerns for his litigation against the HCR bill:
"The court filing fee for the case of Commonwealth v. Kathleen Sebelius in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia was $350. There has been no additional cost above this amount, as the litigation is being handled entirely by the attorney general’s staff." (Full press release here)
The $350 is simply the charge for filing the paperwork with the court. Really, that's it? So I take it that the entire AG staff has agreed to do all work on this case on their own time and using none of the AG office's resources? Is that what he's claiming? Because if not, then, forgive my directness but, he's lying. Every moment one of the AG staff spends on this useless piece of litigation is time they are being paid by the VA taxpayers and time they are not working on other business. Every piece of paper used or Kilobyte of data sent while online is using AG resources that are paid for by the VA taxpayers. That adds up to way more that $350, even just for the initial filing.
Now are these guys really too stupid to know that all this is pointless? Of course not. They are well aware that they have a snowball's chance in hell of repealing this law as long as Obama sits in the Oval Office. They are also well aware that litigation is almost certainly a waste of time as well. So why are they wasting time and money on it? Actually I just answered my own question, at least in part. Money. There is a nice bit of anger still frothing out there and every riled up citizen is a potential source of campaign cash. The longer they can keep that outrage humming along, the more cash they can raise. Guess this is their idea of 'fiscal conservatism'. Spend thousands and thousands of dollars of our money so the GOP can make theirs. Guess they have to refill the RNC coffers emptied for 'Office Supplies' from Congressional Liquors and 'Entertainment Expenses' at the Voyeur erotic nightclub in CA. Not to mention the Hawaii based convention. Now that's what I call fiscally responsible!
I think what most amazes me about all of this is that the conservative base doesn't seem to care. They are lied to and they are unfazed. They are callously used to perpetuate misinformation and disrupt any rational discussion of the issues at hand and they keep smiling and waving signs. Conservative corporations and political action committees hijack their demonstrations and they don't mind. The same politicians who voted consistently to enact huge unpaid for tax cuts during the Bush years are now billing themselves as the last bastions of fiscal restraint, yet their supporters don't care. I can fully understand policy concerns and differences. I can understand frustration at the current Administration. What I can't fathom is how so many are willfully blind to the utter lack of respect they receive from the conservative luminaries they support. The rational conservative base should demand more than what they are getting from people like John Boehner and Michelle Bachman who only exist to perpetuate themselves and their friends, whatever the cost to the nation.
As to the first prong of the Republican response to HCR passage, you have got to be kidding me. It doesn't take a constitutional scholar, in fact most eighth graders are up to the task, to realize that it takes two thirds majorities in BOTH houses of Congress to override the inevitable Presidential veto. Keeping in mind that Republicans don't even have close to a simple majority, much less two thirds. Even if you accept the assumption that Republicans may gain seats in the mid term elections, it would take a truly historic turnover to give them veto proof majorities. How historic? They would need a net gain of 26 seats in the 100 member Senate and 112 seats in the House. If the vote was held today, that would still be almost impossible. By the time November rolls around and HCR is starting to take affect kids will no longer be subject to insurance rejection from "pre-existing conditions", Medicare recipients will have gotten drug benefit refund checks and not one person will have been sentenced to die by a "Death Panel". They may gain some seats, but I don't think they're likely to gain the majority in either House much less the landslides needed to "Repeal & Replace".
Then we have the litigation angle. I think we are now up to 13 states who are filing lawsuits or have filed them against the Federal government. Again I'm no law expert, but seems telling that only 13 Republican Attorneys General are going in on this. Even some lawyers who say they don't support the bill are admitting that there really isn't a legal case for scrapping the law. In fact, when the University of Washington tried to put together a debate between legal experts on the legality of HCR, they couldn't find anyone to champion the unconstitutionality of the bill. And in another wild dust-up in Georgia, we have a State legislature and Governor talking about impeaching the GA Attorney General for not joining the madness. Attorney General Thurbert Baker, after investigating the legality of such a suit at the Governor's request, wrote the Governor to say:
"Based upon my understanding of the current Act, I am unaware of any constitutional infirmities and do not think it would be prudent, legally or fiscally, to pursue such litigation. I must therefore respectfully decline your request." He continued, "In short, this litigation is likely to fail and will consume significant amounts of taxpayers' hard-earned money in the process." (The full letter is available here)
Speaking of tax payer's money, the Attorney General of Virginia, Kenneth Cuccinelli, actually put out a statement in response to cost concerns for his litigation against the HCR bill:
"The court filing fee for the case of Commonwealth v. Kathleen Sebelius in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia was $350. There has been no additional cost above this amount, as the litigation is being handled entirely by the attorney general’s staff." (Full press release here)
The $350 is simply the charge for filing the paperwork with the court. Really, that's it? So I take it that the entire AG staff has agreed to do all work on this case on their own time and using none of the AG office's resources? Is that what he's claiming? Because if not, then, forgive my directness but, he's lying. Every moment one of the AG staff spends on this useless piece of litigation is time they are being paid by the VA taxpayers and time they are not working on other business. Every piece of paper used or Kilobyte of data sent while online is using AG resources that are paid for by the VA taxpayers. That adds up to way more that $350, even just for the initial filing.
Now are these guys really too stupid to know that all this is pointless? Of course not. They are well aware that they have a snowball's chance in hell of repealing this law as long as Obama sits in the Oval Office. They are also well aware that litigation is almost certainly a waste of time as well. So why are they wasting time and money on it? Actually I just answered my own question, at least in part. Money. There is a nice bit of anger still frothing out there and every riled up citizen is a potential source of campaign cash. The longer they can keep that outrage humming along, the more cash they can raise. Guess this is their idea of 'fiscal conservatism'. Spend thousands and thousands of dollars of our money so the GOP can make theirs. Guess they have to refill the RNC coffers emptied for 'Office Supplies' from Congressional Liquors and 'Entertainment Expenses' at the Voyeur erotic nightclub in CA. Not to mention the Hawaii based convention. Now that's what I call fiscally responsible!
I think what most amazes me about all of this is that the conservative base doesn't seem to care. They are lied to and they are unfazed. They are callously used to perpetuate misinformation and disrupt any rational discussion of the issues at hand and they keep smiling and waving signs. Conservative corporations and political action committees hijack their demonstrations and they don't mind. The same politicians who voted consistently to enact huge unpaid for tax cuts during the Bush years are now billing themselves as the last bastions of fiscal restraint, yet their supporters don't care. I can fully understand policy concerns and differences. I can understand frustration at the current Administration. What I can't fathom is how so many are willfully blind to the utter lack of respect they receive from the conservative luminaries they support. The rational conservative base should demand more than what they are getting from people like John Boehner and Michelle Bachman who only exist to perpetuate themselves and their friends, whatever the cost to the nation.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
