"Whose responsible for the economic and financial assistance that the seafood employees will need in the coming months?"
Is it BP? In 1990, the Ninth Circuit Court decided Exxon was responsible for the lost revenue suffered by the seafood industry in Prince William Sound, and they settled for $64 million two years later. Total lost revenue damages paid by Exxon for the wreck totaled $500.7 million by 1999... almost equal to what the Supreme Court said they were liable for in punitive damages, anyway. So, history is on the side of holding BP accountable... but settlements and payoffs could be a decade away, and the fishing is over NOW. Where do these boat owners get their income from in the mean time? Federal unemployment? Should the Feds front the cost and have BP pay up later when its been decided?
I had pondered the idea of having those fisherman and seafood processors given the option of working for the Feds (temporarily) as part of the clean up process. In the first year of the Valdez cleanup, it was 88% volunteers cleaning the beaches, rocks and bays of the stinking, toxic crude sludge, but Obama is here and can easily use a temporary works program to put the unemployed fisherman to work washing rocks and carrying sand, and then use those figures to pump his "job creation" numbers to look better to voters. I abandoned the idea, however, when I imagined the tantrum Ryan would throw at hearing me suggest that a "public works project" might benefit someone other than elected politicians with a "D" next to their name.
Thoughts?
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Weather and blame
Just when it seems bad...
We have multiple weather lines running across the Gulf Coast. The grey skies decided to open. Whether or not the run off will push the slick away from the shoreline or the slick will just ride on top of the run off driven by the prevailing south winds, I don't know. It is an agonizing watch. At least a storm has a cone of death.
Federal authorities closed the majority of the fishing grounds from LA to FLA today.
So now we have cries for compensation. The unemployment starts today.
If BP is financially responsible, and as Ryan hasn't made an opinion known we'll just move ahead and say "Yes," then when can these people expect compensation? BP spokespeople have been on the horn all day today citing their safety record and a failed piece of equipment, a blow-out preventer at the well head 5000 ft down, as the cause of the explosion and spill. (Lost in this mess? 11 people dead and not one body recovered.) The construction of a box, a containment box made of concrete is a couple of days from completion. If they are able to place the box over the gusher and seal it successfully the spill could be channeled up a pipe to a container ship.
Of course, if the line, the pipe that goes from the damaged well head into the ground, fails, the gusher is unrestrained and attempts at containment by a box will be pointless. The reserve the well dips into is an oil strata containing tens of millions of barrels. If the line fails AFTER the box is placed no one is certain if the box will hold. The entire mess depends on one of two things.
1) The blow out preventer can be activated.
2) The box can be placed and a second well drilled to relieve the pressure on the failed well head.
Drilling the second well is a six week operation minimum, and the drilling depends on equipment and weather.
In four weeks the official start of hurricane season rolls around.
We have multiple weather lines running across the Gulf Coast. The grey skies decided to open. Whether or not the run off will push the slick away from the shoreline or the slick will just ride on top of the run off driven by the prevailing south winds, I don't know. It is an agonizing watch. At least a storm has a cone of death.
Federal authorities closed the majority of the fishing grounds from LA to FLA today.
So now we have cries for compensation. The unemployment starts today.
If BP is financially responsible, and as Ryan hasn't made an opinion known we'll just move ahead and say "Yes," then when can these people expect compensation? BP spokespeople have been on the horn all day today citing their safety record and a failed piece of equipment, a blow-out preventer at the well head 5000 ft down, as the cause of the explosion and spill. (Lost in this mess? 11 people dead and not one body recovered.) The construction of a box, a containment box made of concrete is a couple of days from completion. If they are able to place the box over the gusher and seal it successfully the spill could be channeled up a pipe to a container ship.
Of course, if the line, the pipe that goes from the damaged well head into the ground, fails, the gusher is unrestrained and attempts at containment by a box will be pointless. The reserve the well dips into is an oil strata containing tens of millions of barrels. If the line fails AFTER the box is placed no one is certain if the box will hold. The entire mess depends on one of two things.
1) The blow out preventer can be activated.
2) The box can be placed and a second well drilled to relieve the pressure on the failed well head.
Drilling the second well is a six week operation minimum, and the drilling depends on equipment and weather.
In four weeks the official start of hurricane season rolls around.
Ryan who?
Talk about embarrassing... I said I was making the post to piss you off. You actually think I'm going to criticize a State for taking some initiative in this matter? Please... I thought we were friends and that we understood each other better than that?
Had you been reading past posts, you'd have seen that I did admit to thinking the law was going to have a tough ride through the court system, but that much of it was sound. I still think you are taking too much of your own data from biased sources, since I did read the entire of the legislation AND the related SCOTUS decisions that relate to it (linked therein). "Stop and Identify" laws are legal, constitutional regulations that have stood the test... and requiring non-citizens to maintain proof of status was never a contention of mine even when I wasn't posting a sarcastic, "devil's advocate" position. I still feel the law will face its biggest challenge when the first American citizen is detained for not being able to immediately prove status. Using your example, if the Santa Clause-clad people being questioned for a robbery are detained when they can't show residency status that meets the State's criteria, and any of those Santas are legal citizens (not resident aliens) and decide to file suit, AZ loses. The Court has already determined that the most you can demand of a CITIZEN during the investigative process is his/her name to satisfy the "Stop and Identify" statutes... detaining them for failure to deliver is then a violation of their civil rights and grounds for repeal of the law. THAT was all I had issue with, and if AZ can ensure that this never happens, then the law will remain in place (with my very real and measurable support) in perpetuitas.
Regarding your comments on my post concerning racial profiling, I will say the following:
You wrote: "YES, race is a factor in determining a potential terrorist. They are in general of a certain ethnic background, a certain age, and a certain gender. To ignore such facts to satisfy your civil liberty concerns doesn't help me sleep at night, nor the US effectively protect her citizens. Using race as ONE tool among others is not just necessary, it's common sense."
I am rational enough to understand that your point is valid, but it doesn't invalidate the point I made. The question is difficult because the risk to individual freedom is very real. In making your defense of racial profiling as an integral part of national security doctrine and procedure, you are making the case that the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", and while I admire your ability to employ such jewels from the Star Trek cannon into your daily life, the sentiment is false and is, in fact, antithetical to the conservative agenda as I understand it to be.
Let's maintain some perspective here and know that I have not CONDEMNED any aspect of our current security policies, I have only questioned what would happen if such a civil rights violation did occur (which I maintain hasn't occurred). It has kept us safe in our post-9/11 America and has not, to the best of my knowledge, infringed on any individual or minority rights to any measurable degree. Your feelings that my opinions are nothing more than worthless "wishing-upon-a-star" fantasies aside, I still think that ALL focus by the Federal government in matters of "rule of law" should focus on the rights and freedoms of the individual, rather than the limitations of the same for the "greater good of the whole society". Want to see a reduction in the kidnapping rate in southern AZ? Legalize concealed carry of firearms for anyone over the age of 21, and remove all regulations limiting the number and type of firearms that individuals may keep in their homes, cars or places of employment, and expand the "Castle Doctrine" to include any personal property held by the individual rather than limiting it to home or automobile (meaning you can shoot trespassers you find anywhere on your property, and not just those that have broken into your house or car). Want to see illegal border crossings reduced? Withhold Federal tax revenue from the State and use it to build the wall the Feds are legally required to build by employing State contractors (thus, keeping the money IN the State and ensuring that the job is done to the State's satisfaction).
How can you NOT see (and agree with the idea) that EVERYTHING the Federal government does in regards to "border security" and "illegal immigration problems" does almost NOTHING to fix the problem and only compounds it by bring the mess closer and closer to the homes and hearts of individual taxpayers? It is MY TAX DOLLARS that are being wasted on an unfinished fence, and the risk I am taking in being kidnapped by rogue Mexican drug lords is far less than that risked by someone living in Brownsville, TX or Tuscon, AZ... so of course I am going to defer MY opinion on the subject to those that are living with the danger and threats, but as long as it is MY tax dollars are work (or waste), then I still have the right to express my opinion, and there is no debating that opinion without reasonable, measurable and specific alternative ideas presented.
I am calling for solutions, while you are supporting the status quo. You maintain that the status quo has never been adequately implemented by the Feds (and you are correct)... but it DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE STATUS QUO ISN'T WORKING!!! Obama won't build the fence, the Feds won't stop adding additional regulations and limitations on individual rights, so it is up to the States to force the change, and I support that effort 100%... INCLUDING the AZ laws as they stand now and as long as they stand up to the standards of the Constitution's protective clauses.
Had you been reading past posts, you'd have seen that I did admit to thinking the law was going to have a tough ride through the court system, but that much of it was sound. I still think you are taking too much of your own data from biased sources, since I did read the entire of the legislation AND the related SCOTUS decisions that relate to it (linked therein). "Stop and Identify" laws are legal, constitutional regulations that have stood the test... and requiring non-citizens to maintain proof of status was never a contention of mine even when I wasn't posting a sarcastic, "devil's advocate" position. I still feel the law will face its biggest challenge when the first American citizen is detained for not being able to immediately prove status. Using your example, if the Santa Clause-clad people being questioned for a robbery are detained when they can't show residency status that meets the State's criteria, and any of those Santas are legal citizens (not resident aliens) and decide to file suit, AZ loses. The Court has already determined that the most you can demand of a CITIZEN during the investigative process is his/her name to satisfy the "Stop and Identify" statutes... detaining them for failure to deliver is then a violation of their civil rights and grounds for repeal of the law. THAT was all I had issue with, and if AZ can ensure that this never happens, then the law will remain in place (with my very real and measurable support) in perpetuitas.
Regarding your comments on my post concerning racial profiling, I will say the following:
You wrote: "YES, race is a factor in determining a potential terrorist. They are in general of a certain ethnic background, a certain age, and a certain gender. To ignore such facts to satisfy your civil liberty concerns doesn't help me sleep at night, nor the US effectively protect her citizens. Using race as ONE tool among others is not just necessary, it's common sense."
I am rational enough to understand that your point is valid, but it doesn't invalidate the point I made. The question is difficult because the risk to individual freedom is very real. In making your defense of racial profiling as an integral part of national security doctrine and procedure, you are making the case that the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", and while I admire your ability to employ such jewels from the Star Trek cannon into your daily life, the sentiment is false and is, in fact, antithetical to the conservative agenda as I understand it to be.
Let's maintain some perspective here and know that I have not CONDEMNED any aspect of our current security policies, I have only questioned what would happen if such a civil rights violation did occur (which I maintain hasn't occurred). It has kept us safe in our post-9/11 America and has not, to the best of my knowledge, infringed on any individual or minority rights to any measurable degree. Your feelings that my opinions are nothing more than worthless "wishing-upon-a-star" fantasies aside, I still think that ALL focus by the Federal government in matters of "rule of law" should focus on the rights and freedoms of the individual, rather than the limitations of the same for the "greater good of the whole society". Want to see a reduction in the kidnapping rate in southern AZ? Legalize concealed carry of firearms for anyone over the age of 21, and remove all regulations limiting the number and type of firearms that individuals may keep in their homes, cars or places of employment, and expand the "Castle Doctrine" to include any personal property held by the individual rather than limiting it to home or automobile (meaning you can shoot trespassers you find anywhere on your property, and not just those that have broken into your house or car). Want to see illegal border crossings reduced? Withhold Federal tax revenue from the State and use it to build the wall the Feds are legally required to build by employing State contractors (thus, keeping the money IN the State and ensuring that the job is done to the State's satisfaction).
How can you NOT see (and agree with the idea) that EVERYTHING the Federal government does in regards to "border security" and "illegal immigration problems" does almost NOTHING to fix the problem and only compounds it by bring the mess closer and closer to the homes and hearts of individual taxpayers? It is MY TAX DOLLARS that are being wasted on an unfinished fence, and the risk I am taking in being kidnapped by rogue Mexican drug lords is far less than that risked by someone living in Brownsville, TX or Tuscon, AZ... so of course I am going to defer MY opinion on the subject to those that are living with the danger and threats, but as long as it is MY tax dollars are work (or waste), then I still have the right to express my opinion, and there is no debating that opinion without reasonable, measurable and specific alternative ideas presented.
I am calling for solutions, while you are supporting the status quo. You maintain that the status quo has never been adequately implemented by the Feds (and you are correct)... but it DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE STATUS QUO ISN'T WORKING!!! Obama won't build the fence, the Feds won't stop adding additional regulations and limitations on individual rights, so it is up to the States to force the change, and I support that effort 100%... INCLUDING the AZ laws as they stand now and as long as they stand up to the standards of the Constitution's protective clauses.
Talk about murky waters...
So, I tried to find precedent-setting historical events to use as a guideline or model for the Gulf spill, with Exxon Valdez as the primary event because of its huge impact on Alaskan fishing industries... and the fact that the litigation involved is now finally finished, 20+ years after the fact.
This is NOT an easy course to steer, however. The initial punitive damages awarded by the courts for Exxon to pay were determined to be one-years worth of profit... estimated at $5 billion in 1990 dollars, but through an appeals process that took 14 years to complete, the SCOTUS determined that the punitive damages could not exceed the compensatory damages, which stood at $500 million and some change. In an effort to end the litigation process, Exxon settled out-of-court with the famous "Seattle Seven" (the largest seafood producers effected by the spill) which further cut their financial cost down to $63.75 million... and that is a HUGE reduction from the initial $5 billion awarded, and the $500 million that the SCOTUS determined was "justified". I have to assume that this settlement was reached only because of the time lost in the appeals court system... nearly 18 years of litigation before these seven seafood companies saw even a penny in lost revenue compensation.
Exxon averaged $3.9 billion a year in net profits during the entire court process from early in 1990 its completion in 2008.
I'm saying here that I do feel BP is responsible for lost revenue to the Gulf Coast seafood industry. The Exxon Valdez wreck was determined to be an "accident", just as I am assuming the rig explosion will be (keeping to the "angelic" position Jambo took in his initial post), but the Courts determined that Exxon had a responsibility, just as I am sure they will with BP. The fact that the rig was leased won't factor in unless some fact or procedure was omitted from operation, thus moving the culpability to the manufacturer rather than BP (Transocean, I think). As Jambo said, the clean-up is completely and utterly BP's job, in both cost and operation, and any assistance that the Feds might offer via the National Guard or the military will be paid for by BP. I kept the scope of my reading only to the question of lost revenue to the regional industries, and going by the results and determinations of the Exxon Valdez disaster, I'd say that BP will pay, but far less than what is determined to be owed and only after decades of litigation and appeals have passed.
I'm far more curious to see what this disaster does to the "Drill, baby, drill" movement so central to conservative plans for greater domestic energy production. Calls (screams, more likely) that the drilling is bad for Mother Earth by the environmental crowd won't negate the fact that the vast majority of our domestic crude production is handled safely and without incident... but the exception to the rule (in this case) is going to be all anyone sees for many years into the future.
One further point... on the phone, Jambo mentioned that the slick was far worse than expected and that the possibility stood that the well-head itself was ruptured beyond the means to close it off, allowing as much as 150,000 barrels per day to pour into the Gulf. This estimation, as far as I can see, is worst-case. The size of the slick is measured from satellite data, and it is bigger than expected, but weather conditions in the Gulf have been less-than-ideal and may have contributed to a greater spreading effect (meaning the oil is floating in a slick only half a millimeter think over a greater area than the 2-inch-thick slick that washed ashore after the Valdez wreck). I know that the slick was estimated to reach the Chandeleur Islands (which I have been to... a beautiful spot, believe me) today, and scientists will be able to accurately measure the thickness of the slick as it reaches those shores. Islands more familiar to our group, like the Ship Islands and the Horn Islands, shouldn't see oil till the end of the week (if at all).
What I am trying to say is that, having sent 4 separate ROV missions down to the well-head already, I think I'm more inclined to believe the 5,000 barrel per day estimate than I am the 100,000 barrel estimate, until such time as the exact nature of the leak is determined. What is known to be fact is that the well-head can't be closed without some kind of secondary means not already in place (either a dome placed over it, or additional relief wells drilled through the leaking well), so the leak will continue for the time being. All that can be hoped is that it isn't as bad as the worst-case scenarios have estimated.
This is NOT an easy course to steer, however. The initial punitive damages awarded by the courts for Exxon to pay were determined to be one-years worth of profit... estimated at $5 billion in 1990 dollars, but through an appeals process that took 14 years to complete, the SCOTUS determined that the punitive damages could not exceed the compensatory damages, which stood at $500 million and some change. In an effort to end the litigation process, Exxon settled out-of-court with the famous "Seattle Seven" (the largest seafood producers effected by the spill) which further cut their financial cost down to $63.75 million... and that is a HUGE reduction from the initial $5 billion awarded, and the $500 million that the SCOTUS determined was "justified". I have to assume that this settlement was reached only because of the time lost in the appeals court system... nearly 18 years of litigation before these seven seafood companies saw even a penny in lost revenue compensation.
Exxon averaged $3.9 billion a year in net profits during the entire court process from early in 1990 its completion in 2008.
I'm saying here that I do feel BP is responsible for lost revenue to the Gulf Coast seafood industry. The Exxon Valdez wreck was determined to be an "accident", just as I am assuming the rig explosion will be (keeping to the "angelic" position Jambo took in his initial post), but the Courts determined that Exxon had a responsibility, just as I am sure they will with BP. The fact that the rig was leased won't factor in unless some fact or procedure was omitted from operation, thus moving the culpability to the manufacturer rather than BP (Transocean, I think). As Jambo said, the clean-up is completely and utterly BP's job, in both cost and operation, and any assistance that the Feds might offer via the National Guard or the military will be paid for by BP. I kept the scope of my reading only to the question of lost revenue to the regional industries, and going by the results and determinations of the Exxon Valdez disaster, I'd say that BP will pay, but far less than what is determined to be owed and only after decades of litigation and appeals have passed.
I'm far more curious to see what this disaster does to the "Drill, baby, drill" movement so central to conservative plans for greater domestic energy production. Calls (screams, more likely) that the drilling is bad for Mother Earth by the environmental crowd won't negate the fact that the vast majority of our domestic crude production is handled safely and without incident... but the exception to the rule (in this case) is going to be all anyone sees for many years into the future.
One further point... on the phone, Jambo mentioned that the slick was far worse than expected and that the possibility stood that the well-head itself was ruptured beyond the means to close it off, allowing as much as 150,000 barrels per day to pour into the Gulf. This estimation, as far as I can see, is worst-case. The size of the slick is measured from satellite data, and it is bigger than expected, but weather conditions in the Gulf have been less-than-ideal and may have contributed to a greater spreading effect (meaning the oil is floating in a slick only half a millimeter think over a greater area than the 2-inch-thick slick that washed ashore after the Valdez wreck). I know that the slick was estimated to reach the Chandeleur Islands (which I have been to... a beautiful spot, believe me) today, and scientists will be able to accurately measure the thickness of the slick as it reaches those shores. Islands more familiar to our group, like the Ship Islands and the Horn Islands, shouldn't see oil till the end of the week (if at all).
What I am trying to say is that, having sent 4 separate ROV missions down to the well-head already, I think I'm more inclined to believe the 5,000 barrel per day estimate than I am the 100,000 barrel estimate, until such time as the exact nature of the leak is determined. What is known to be fact is that the well-head can't be closed without some kind of secondary means not already in place (either a dome placed over it, or additional relief wells drilled through the leaking well), so the leak will continue for the time being. All that can be hoped is that it isn't as bad as the worst-case scenarios have estimated.
The quiver is full ...
... so I''m compelled, neigh honor bound, to post rather then "text."
Response 1:
First off, if you weren't a fan of the most recent Star Trek, then you're a maniac, plain and simple. Fantastically done. Superbly casted. Good story. Compared to the other Trek movies, a home run. It far and away is the best since Kahn (although the TNG Borg movie was a keeper).
Response 2:
Alright ... Father Johnathan. You wrote:
"In short, they will choose to err on the side of charity rather than security." First off, that's fine. By your standard that simply means they have no serious place at the table when discussing specific security issues. But that isn't the point, they don't anyway, not in any practical way I can discern (save PJP II's fight against communism which included hours of personal discussion with Ronald Wilson Reagan). The point here is had Father Johnathan said what you wrote, I would have no beef whatsoever. I would have said, "well they're a church after all, not defense think tank." But he didn't. Just a few nights ago he was asked (I want to say it was on O'Reilly with Juan Williams as guest host), "So you have issue with the AZ law?", and he said bluntly (atypical for him I might add), "The Arizona law is idiotic!" And I include both italics and an explanation point because both are warranted. This obviously infers that its' authors and backers are "idiotic." Not to mention, I doubt (after watching him discuss it) that he even read the law. Which is the same beef I have with you Titus, because you clearly did not follow the provided link, nor read the bill itself either.
"More importantly, though, I want it clear that I am not 100% comfortable with most of the AZ legislation, either... as I have stated in recent posts. I shudder at the thought of an American citizen being REQUIRED to produce proof of citizenship for nothing more than having Latino features or for speaking Spanish as a first language. If a crime has been committed, or there is evidence to suspect that a crime has been committed, then identification can be requested as allowed under current law... but there is no Constitutional grounds for demanding that anyone in this nation that might be suspected of being an illegal alien be able to prove their status without violating both their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights."
The authorities must ALREADY be in "lawful contact" with an individual BEFORE they can request identification. One MAY NOT simply accost a human being in Arizona and demand they provide "their papers." This is the drivel coming out of the main stream press and a point I'm frankly surprised you missed (although I shouldn't be surprised, I suspected you were itching to find a defensible reason as to oppose this law). It's similar (if not identical) to the old Mississippi seat belt law. A police officer couldn't pull you over for not wearing one, he (or she) could only issue it as a companion ticket in the event you were not wearing one when pulled over for speeding (for example). Not to mention, the Arizona law is a mirror image of the federal law, so if you have a problem with the state's law then you have a problem with the federal law, which among other things REQUIRES aliens to maintain legal status documentation on their person at all times in public. The AZ law simply put in place the lawful mechanism to ENFORCE FEDERAL STANDARDS. Weaving in and out of traffic, speeding, drug possession, brawls, public nudity - in any of these cases as a pedestrian, motorist, skater, skate boarder, bicyclist, tricyclist, unicyclist or hover craft the first thing an officer will do upon investigation is ask for I.D. This law simply allows officers, provided a reasonable suspicion that they are here illegally exists, in the employ of the state/city/county, to detain and turn them over to the feds. And why would the feds take them? Because its federal law already to detain those suspected of an illegals status!
Now let me just address this: "I'm all in favor of State's taking the lead in the effort to curb illegal immigration, but as has been said a thousand times right here in this forum, by Ryan himself... we don't need NEW RULES to make us safer, we simply need the rules we have enforced adequately." The feds won't. Plain and simple. They didn't under Bush, sure as hell won't under Obama. So what is a border state with rampant crime, drugs, and exploding social costs to do? That's the question you have to answer if you are to oppose Arizona in this - what do you suggest they do given the feds have proven they will not fufill their sworn duty?
And this: "The cries against illegal immigration in this country are about the cost these illegals are bring to the American tax payer, right? The cost in health care, housing, security risks, crime rates... all paid by the legal citizenry of the USA, and not by the illegals. So why is it alright to make tax paying citizens of this country run even the smallest risk of having their rights violated one iota further? I call this "cutting off the nose to spite the face"... and it never fixes anything."
To be honest., I find this an almost embarrassing point. It is the quintessential "too clever by half" double speak that drives normal Americans, especially normal border state Americans, mad. There are ranchers being murdered out there. Drug cartels snatching American citizens in broad day light and holding them for ransom. Do you know the state of Arizona has the second highest kidnapping rate per capita in the world? Not the US, the WORLD. This isn't some theoretical exercise for them. Not some preponderance a think tank should grapple with in order to find some out of the box "third way." Nor is there time for these type of absolutely shitty little assessments. And that's what that was. There's a CRISIS in that state for God's sake. The fence built on the border with CA is double lined with sensors. It 's construction has worked to tremendously drivedown CA crossings and caused an EXPLOSION in AZ crossings, where there is no fence - not that you believe a real and virtual fence, manned with adequate boots on the ground would work. All data only shows that it will & has, yet your unyielding ideological opposition to the very premise of "fences" is in no danger of waining. Why do you think both US Senators called for 3,000 additional troops be alloted to AZ and put on the border? Not "an expedited federal involvement", they didn't call on the PoTUS to "enforce the laws already on the books", they called for soldiers! My God man, it's a crisis, an emergency. The governor declared a state of emergency along the border - AND THE FEDS DID NOTHING. The AZ law is a symptom of what's wrong with the feds, not a symptom of what's wrong with AZ! And while we are at it I have numerous times provided a measurable and specific "road map" for the "President Ryan" policy on stemming illegal entry via the Southern border (and by the way, they're not "undocumented" nor "non-legals", they are CRIMINALS). Where is yours? How does President Titus effect illegal entry in his "no fence, no ID required" world? And if I sound pissed, it's because I AM. I am so sick of these cute little arguments and feigning civil liberty "concerns" taking place of what should be common sense - fences, patrols, sensors, requiring documentation, hefty fines for employers - IT ALL WORKS and it's all already law! Just nobody, save the great state of Arizona, is bothering to enforce it - Arizona is the only one looking after itself, and I'm damned proud of them. It's about time.
The sides here are not "pro immigrant" or "anti immigrant." It's not even pro and anti illegal immigrant. It's pro-crime or pro-law, plain and simple.
Response 3: (your "One More Thing Post")
"I recall vivid and very animated discussions with Ryan on his back patio in MS concerning a topic that touches on this same issue (in my opinion) and that is the hot-topic term "racial profiling". Expecting any Latino-looking American to be able to produce proof of citizenship and/or residency status with no reasonable suspicion of participation or involvement in a crime is nothing more than abridging the rights and freedoms of any American that might be considered "Latino" in appearance. That, it seems to me, is the big problem with the AZ legislation. It was also the root of my problem with the issue of racial profiling during the heightened security checks at airports across the land in the post-9/11 world."
"If Obama/Reid/Pelosi are wrong for compelling all Americans to carry the mandated amount of government-approved health insurance, why is it okay to mandate that Americans of Latino origins in AZ be required to "prove" their status as Americans without reasonable suspicion of having committed a crime?"
I think I've embarrassed you enough on this, so this won't be long. Law enforcement must already be in "lawful contact" over a (suspected) criminal matter (which yes, includes traffic, it's a crime to speed). In addition there must also be a "reasonable suspicion" that the individual is illegal - and I think 20 guys that don't speak English in the back of a sweaty van with no ID qualifies as "suspicious." But in addition to that the AZ legislature further tweaked the law by expressly forbidding the stopping of individuals within Arizona on the basis of race or ethnicity. I know stopping people based on race just to ask them for their papers fits your template for what type of people advocate fence building (namely the racist, homophobic, white robe wearing, cross burning unenlightened masses), but you are shockingly in error here.
And the rest of it, the "lecture" on how we might "lose our freedoms" and that being a fate worse than the terrorists winning (or at least as bad), I'm sorry. I've passed the stage where I find your lectures and musings on this insightful - they're bogus. We are not and have not as a society decided on a course of racial profiling. YES, race is a factor in determining a potential terrorist. They are in general of a certain ethnic background, a certain age, and a certain gender. To ignore such facts to satisfy your civil liberty concerns doesn't help me sleep at night, nor the US effectively protect her citizens. Using race as ONE tool among others is not just necessary, it's common sense. If a person in a Santa Clause outfit robbed a series of banks 3 days before Christmas I think Bloomingdale Santas would need to understand if detectives questioned them when they were in line attempting to cash their pay check. I have every confidence that our law enforcement officials will use race as one tool among many, less you think an 85 year old Swiss woman in a wheel chair should send off as many red flags when paying cash for a one way airline ticket from Brussels as would 25 year old Moustafa Aziz from Yemen.
If I'm coming off with an attitude, sorry. It's just this conversation is so sophomoric - it's settled. Race can and must be used as one tool among others. And our law enforcement community has been doing exactly that, less there was some massive round up of random Arabs within the US I missed, or a flat ban on airline travel for all Mid Easterners.
"Why is the marginalization of those holding a "conservative" political view in modern American politics "wrong", but the marginalization of anyone in this nation because of "less-than-ordinary" appearances (for lack of a better term), be they ethnic, linguistic, religious or otherwise, perfectly acceptable in the eyes of those that feel safety and security are more important than basic and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution?"
Again, this above is just idiotic, to quote Father Johnathan. No one is advocating this. This is not a mainstream conservative view. Our law enforcement isn't doing this. The AZ law forbids it - find another sad story, ok?
"It all boils down to this (for me, anyway): There simply MUST be another way for us to secure our borders and/or fix the immigration issues that DOES NOT cause the nation to risk even ONE incident of civil rights abuse or neglect ..."
I think this statement demonstrates more than any other that your well is dry on this issue. A law, any law, that restricts even a single incident of civil rights violations? Do I get a Harry Potter wand with that? There is a plethora of groups that will claim anything short of amnesty has caused civil rights violations, and they'll file suit accordingly on specific incidents whether they are legitimate or not. Again, I have measurable specifics, you have a wish upon a star. It is clear to me you have gone as far as you care to on this issue, bankrupt of solutions, feeling there are no "good" answers. Mean time officials from the governor on down in AZ don't have the luxury of not answering the question. Decapitated heads are being rolled into Arizona night clubs whose offenders flea back across the border. Ranchers, the salt of the earth, are being blasted in the chest at point blank range with double barrel shot guns. Hospitals aren't going bankrupt, they are bankrupt and shutting down. Brewer's citizens are being kidnapped at the rate of second highest in the world ... so as soon as you want to join us in the real world here Alice, where clear and present security threats derserve real answers, you let me know Ace.
Response 4:
Your gun post was perfectly presented. I particularly like the fire extinguisher analogy. Funny how when you pass gun laws, criminals don't obey them.
Response 5:
Jambo, your post on who is responsible for damages is a fair question, but to what were you referring to in I Did Make An Error: "I said casino work, and I should have said tourism. The two sources I read lumped casino work with tourism. Being that well over 60% of our guests are from out of town, I have no issue with that." I don't see the post nor paragraph to which you are referring.
Response 6:
You got one thing right in your AZ op ed there Titus - you pissed me off enough to post.
Response 1:
First off, if you weren't a fan of the most recent Star Trek, then you're a maniac, plain and simple. Fantastically done. Superbly casted. Good story. Compared to the other Trek movies, a home run. It far and away is the best since Kahn (although the TNG Borg movie was a keeper).
Response 2:
Alright ... Father Johnathan. You wrote:
"In short, they will choose to err on the side of charity rather than security." First off, that's fine. By your standard that simply means they have no serious place at the table when discussing specific security issues. But that isn't the point, they don't anyway, not in any practical way I can discern (save PJP II's fight against communism which included hours of personal discussion with Ronald Wilson Reagan). The point here is had Father Johnathan said what you wrote, I would have no beef whatsoever. I would have said, "well they're a church after all, not defense think tank." But he didn't. Just a few nights ago he was asked (I want to say it was on O'Reilly with Juan Williams as guest host), "So you have issue with the AZ law?", and he said bluntly (atypical for him I might add), "The Arizona law is idiotic!" And I include both italics and an explanation point because both are warranted. This obviously infers that its' authors and backers are "idiotic." Not to mention, I doubt (after watching him discuss it) that he even read the law. Which is the same beef I have with you Titus, because you clearly did not follow the provided link, nor read the bill itself either.
"More importantly, though, I want it clear that I am not 100% comfortable with most of the AZ legislation, either... as I have stated in recent posts. I shudder at the thought of an American citizen being REQUIRED to produce proof of citizenship for nothing more than having Latino features or for speaking Spanish as a first language. If a crime has been committed, or there is evidence to suspect that a crime has been committed, then identification can be requested as allowed under current law... but there is no Constitutional grounds for demanding that anyone in this nation that might be suspected of being an illegal alien be able to prove their status without violating both their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights."
The authorities must ALREADY be in "lawful contact" with an individual BEFORE they can request identification. One MAY NOT simply accost a human being in Arizona and demand they provide "their papers." This is the drivel coming out of the main stream press and a point I'm frankly surprised you missed (although I shouldn't be surprised, I suspected you were itching to find a defensible reason as to oppose this law). It's similar (if not identical) to the old Mississippi seat belt law. A police officer couldn't pull you over for not wearing one, he (or she) could only issue it as a companion ticket in the event you were not wearing one when pulled over for speeding (for example). Not to mention, the Arizona law is a mirror image of the federal law, so if you have a problem with the state's law then you have a problem with the federal law, which among other things REQUIRES aliens to maintain legal status documentation on their person at all times in public. The AZ law simply put in place the lawful mechanism to ENFORCE FEDERAL STANDARDS. Weaving in and out of traffic, speeding, drug possession, brawls, public nudity - in any of these cases as a pedestrian, motorist, skater, skate boarder, bicyclist, tricyclist, unicyclist or hover craft the first thing an officer will do upon investigation is ask for I.D. This law simply allows officers, provided a reasonable suspicion that they are here illegally exists, in the employ of the state/city/county, to detain and turn them over to the feds. And why would the feds take them? Because its federal law already to detain those suspected of an illegals status!
Now let me just address this: "I'm all in favor of State's taking the lead in the effort to curb illegal immigration, but as has been said a thousand times right here in this forum, by Ryan himself... we don't need NEW RULES to make us safer, we simply need the rules we have enforced adequately." The feds won't. Plain and simple. They didn't under Bush, sure as hell won't under Obama. So what is a border state with rampant crime, drugs, and exploding social costs to do? That's the question you have to answer if you are to oppose Arizona in this - what do you suggest they do given the feds have proven they will not fufill their sworn duty?
And this: "The cries against illegal immigration in this country are about the cost these illegals are bring to the American tax payer, right? The cost in health care, housing, security risks, crime rates... all paid by the legal citizenry of the USA, and not by the illegals. So why is it alright to make tax paying citizens of this country run even the smallest risk of having their rights violated one iota further? I call this "cutting off the nose to spite the face"... and it never fixes anything."
To be honest., I find this an almost embarrassing point. It is the quintessential "too clever by half" double speak that drives normal Americans, especially normal border state Americans, mad. There are ranchers being murdered out there. Drug cartels snatching American citizens in broad day light and holding them for ransom. Do you know the state of Arizona has the second highest kidnapping rate per capita in the world? Not the US, the WORLD. This isn't some theoretical exercise for them. Not some preponderance a think tank should grapple with in order to find some out of the box "third way." Nor is there time for these type of absolutely shitty little assessments. And that's what that was. There's a CRISIS in that state for God's sake. The fence built on the border with CA is double lined with sensors. It 's construction has worked to tremendously drivedown CA crossings and caused an EXPLOSION in AZ crossings, where there is no fence - not that you believe a real and virtual fence, manned with adequate boots on the ground would work. All data only shows that it will & has, yet your unyielding ideological opposition to the very premise of "fences" is in no danger of waining. Why do you think both US Senators called for 3,000 additional troops be alloted to AZ and put on the border? Not "an expedited federal involvement", they didn't call on the PoTUS to "enforce the laws already on the books", they called for soldiers! My God man, it's a crisis, an emergency. The governor declared a state of emergency along the border - AND THE FEDS DID NOTHING. The AZ law is a symptom of what's wrong with the feds, not a symptom of what's wrong with AZ! And while we are at it I have numerous times provided a measurable and specific "road map" for the "President Ryan" policy on stemming illegal entry via the Southern border (and by the way, they're not "undocumented" nor "non-legals", they are CRIMINALS). Where is yours? How does President Titus effect illegal entry in his "no fence, no ID required" world? And if I sound pissed, it's because I AM. I am so sick of these cute little arguments and feigning civil liberty "concerns" taking place of what should be common sense - fences, patrols, sensors, requiring documentation, hefty fines for employers - IT ALL WORKS and it's all already law! Just nobody, save the great state of Arizona, is bothering to enforce it - Arizona is the only one looking after itself, and I'm damned proud of them. It's about time.
The sides here are not "pro immigrant" or "anti immigrant." It's not even pro and anti illegal immigrant. It's pro-crime or pro-law, plain and simple.
Response 3: (your "One More Thing Post")
"I recall vivid and very animated discussions with Ryan on his back patio in MS concerning a topic that touches on this same issue (in my opinion) and that is the hot-topic term "racial profiling". Expecting any Latino-looking American to be able to produce proof of citizenship and/or residency status with no reasonable suspicion of participation or involvement in a crime is nothing more than abridging the rights and freedoms of any American that might be considered "Latino" in appearance. That, it seems to me, is the big problem with the AZ legislation. It was also the root of my problem with the issue of racial profiling during the heightened security checks at airports across the land in the post-9/11 world."
"If Obama/Reid/Pelosi are wrong for compelling all Americans to carry the mandated amount of government-approved health insurance, why is it okay to mandate that Americans of Latino origins in AZ be required to "prove" their status as Americans without reasonable suspicion of having committed a crime?"
I think I've embarrassed you enough on this, so this won't be long. Law enforcement must already be in "lawful contact" over a (suspected) criminal matter (which yes, includes traffic, it's a crime to speed). In addition there must also be a "reasonable suspicion" that the individual is illegal - and I think 20 guys that don't speak English in the back of a sweaty van with no ID qualifies as "suspicious." But in addition to that the AZ legislature further tweaked the law by expressly forbidding the stopping of individuals within Arizona on the basis of race or ethnicity. I know stopping people based on race just to ask them for their papers fits your template for what type of people advocate fence building (namely the racist, homophobic, white robe wearing, cross burning unenlightened masses), but you are shockingly in error here.
And the rest of it, the "lecture" on how we might "lose our freedoms" and that being a fate worse than the terrorists winning (or at least as bad), I'm sorry. I've passed the stage where I find your lectures and musings on this insightful - they're bogus. We are not and have not as a society decided on a course of racial profiling. YES, race is a factor in determining a potential terrorist. They are in general of a certain ethnic background, a certain age, and a certain gender. To ignore such facts to satisfy your civil liberty concerns doesn't help me sleep at night, nor the US effectively protect her citizens. Using race as ONE tool among others is not just necessary, it's common sense. If a person in a Santa Clause outfit robbed a series of banks 3 days before Christmas I think Bloomingdale Santas would need to understand if detectives questioned them when they were in line attempting to cash their pay check. I have every confidence that our law enforcement officials will use race as one tool among many, less you think an 85 year old Swiss woman in a wheel chair should send off as many red flags when paying cash for a one way airline ticket from Brussels as would 25 year old Moustafa Aziz from Yemen.
If I'm coming off with an attitude, sorry. It's just this conversation is so sophomoric - it's settled. Race can and must be used as one tool among others. And our law enforcement community has been doing exactly that, less there was some massive round up of random Arabs within the US I missed, or a flat ban on airline travel for all Mid Easterners.
"Why is the marginalization of those holding a "conservative" political view in modern American politics "wrong", but the marginalization of anyone in this nation because of "less-than-ordinary" appearances (for lack of a better term), be they ethnic, linguistic, religious or otherwise, perfectly acceptable in the eyes of those that feel safety and security are more important than basic and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution?"
Again, this above is just idiotic, to quote Father Johnathan. No one is advocating this. This is not a mainstream conservative view. Our law enforcement isn't doing this. The AZ law forbids it - find another sad story, ok?
"It all boils down to this (for me, anyway): There simply MUST be another way for us to secure our borders and/or fix the immigration issues that DOES NOT cause the nation to risk even ONE incident of civil rights abuse or neglect ..."
I think this statement demonstrates more than any other that your well is dry on this issue. A law, any law, that restricts even a single incident of civil rights violations? Do I get a Harry Potter wand with that? There is a plethora of groups that will claim anything short of amnesty has caused civil rights violations, and they'll file suit accordingly on specific incidents whether they are legitimate or not. Again, I have measurable specifics, you have a wish upon a star. It is clear to me you have gone as far as you care to on this issue, bankrupt of solutions, feeling there are no "good" answers. Mean time officials from the governor on down in AZ don't have the luxury of not answering the question. Decapitated heads are being rolled into Arizona night clubs whose offenders flea back across the border. Ranchers, the salt of the earth, are being blasted in the chest at point blank range with double barrel shot guns. Hospitals aren't going bankrupt, they are bankrupt and shutting down. Brewer's citizens are being kidnapped at the rate of second highest in the world ... so as soon as you want to join us in the real world here Alice, where clear and present security threats derserve real answers, you let me know Ace.
Response 4:
Your gun post was perfectly presented. I particularly like the fire extinguisher analogy. Funny how when you pass gun laws, criminals don't obey them.
Response 5:
Jambo, your post on who is responsible for damages is a fair question, but to what were you referring to in I Did Make An Error: "I said casino work, and I should have said tourism. The two sources I read lumped casino work with tourism. Being that well over 60% of our guests are from out of town, I have no issue with that." I don't see the post nor paragraph to which you are referring.
Response 6:
You got one thing right in your AZ op ed there Titus - you pissed me off enough to post.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
I did make an error
I said casino work, and I should have said tourism. The two sources I read lumped casino work with tourism. Being that well over 60% of our guests are from out of town, I have no issue with that.
Responsibility for Damages
Ok. Here goes.
Walking out of work last night I looked up, wondering who the hell would be tarring a roof at 4AM. My next thought was, "Seriously hazy for this early in the morning." Then I realized it was smoke from the slick burn.
Looking at the news this morning, the slick has expanded from the size of Rhode Island to the size of Puerto Rico in two days. While some experts say this is a false reading, ( contending satellites can't determine slick depth, weather, etc) it more than likely means that the main line is cracked much worse than originally feared. If that main line goes, it is an Exxon Valdez spill every two days.
For reasons too cumbersome to explain in this post, the plugging of this leak is at best 3 weeks, at worst months away.
So.
Let's be angelic advocates and say there was no negligence, no faulty drilling practices, no guidelines disregarded on the part of the BP personnel. It was an accident. BP was doing work vital to the economy of the United States and the world, employing people at a decent wage and providing benefits to lots of families. And now we're faced, as a nation, with the catastrophic economic disaster of the loss of the fourth largest job industry in the region. (Seafood and seafood related industries account for the fourth largest segment of employment in the Gulf Coast region, from Brownsville, TX to Key West, FL, behind the defense industry, oil, and casino work.) Tens of thousands of people will very shortly be out of work, with the residual effects that could last over a decade. (Oyster beds could be contaminated for generations. One needs to harvest the contaminated oysters to "clean" the beds, but the act of harvesting reintroduces contaminants into the water, contaminating the new oysters, and so on.)
The cries for what the federal government is going to do about the fishermen is what I'm asking about, not the clean-up. My cynicism towards federal intervention notwithstanding, the clean-up will be on BP's bill. The only thing our government likes doing more than spending money is spending someone else's money. Is BP responsible for the unemployment of thousands of self employed fishermen? Plus the people at the factories and processing plants?
Walking out of work last night I looked up, wondering who the hell would be tarring a roof at 4AM. My next thought was, "Seriously hazy for this early in the morning." Then I realized it was smoke from the slick burn.
Looking at the news this morning, the slick has expanded from the size of Rhode Island to the size of Puerto Rico in two days. While some experts say this is a false reading, ( contending satellites can't determine slick depth, weather, etc) it more than likely means that the main line is cracked much worse than originally feared. If that main line goes, it is an Exxon Valdez spill every two days.
For reasons too cumbersome to explain in this post, the plugging of this leak is at best 3 weeks, at worst months away.
So.
Let's be angelic advocates and say there was no negligence, no faulty drilling practices, no guidelines disregarded on the part of the BP personnel. It was an accident. BP was doing work vital to the economy of the United States and the world, employing people at a decent wage and providing benefits to lots of families. And now we're faced, as a nation, with the catastrophic economic disaster of the loss of the fourth largest job industry in the region. (Seafood and seafood related industries account for the fourth largest segment of employment in the Gulf Coast region, from Brownsville, TX to Key West, FL, behind the defense industry, oil, and casino work.) Tens of thousands of people will very shortly be out of work, with the residual effects that could last over a decade. (Oyster beds could be contaminated for generations. One needs to harvest the contaminated oysters to "clean" the beds, but the act of harvesting reintroduces contaminants into the water, contaminating the new oysters, and so on.)
The cries for what the federal government is going to do about the fishermen is what I'm asking about, not the clean-up. My cynicism towards federal intervention notwithstanding, the clean-up will be on BP's bill. The only thing our government likes doing more than spending money is spending someone else's money. Is BP responsible for the unemployment of thousands of self employed fishermen? Plus the people at the factories and processing plants?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
