I am confused. This is not tongue in cheek. I am genuinely confused.
It is about the Israeli navy boarding the Turkish vessel which resulted in nine people on the Turkish vessel being killed.
As I understand the agreed facts, the Turkish vessel was sailing toward Gaza, but still in international waters, when the Israeli navy contacted it and asked it for its destination. The Turkish vessel responded that it was headed for Gaza. Whereupon, the Israeli navy forcibly boarded the vessel, a fight ensued, and nine people on the Turkish vessel were killed. The Israeli navy then took possession of the Turkish vessel and forced it into an Israeli harbor.
I'm not asking about the moral or legal right of Israel to defend itself, or the moral or legal right for it to impose a blockade on Gaza, or the moral or legal right for Israel to board a ship that is in the waters of Israel or the waters of Gaza.
I'm not even asking about Israel's moral right to board a Turkish vessel in international waters after that vessel has admitted it was headed for Gaza, then commandeer the vessel and take its cargo.
I'm asking about the legal right for the Israeli navy to forcibly board a Turkish vessel in international waters.
If I understand the international law of the sea, no nation has the right to board the vessel of another nation in international waters without permission. As I understand that law, if a private vessel or person does it, it's piracy. If a nation does it, it's an act of war.
But, I don't hear anyone saying, "Wherever the moral or ethical chips may fall in this matter, Israel did not have the legal right to board a vessel flying the Turkish flag in international waters." And I don't understand why I don't hear anyone saying that.
What am I missing here?
Monday, June 7, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
They Did It Again!
Today, in an article in the Austin American-Statesman entitled "Arizona law could chill police work, chiefs say," the author of the article referred to Arizona S.B. 1070 as "... the new Arizona law requiring police to request documents of anyone they detain and have a suspicion that they are in the country illegally."
That is not what the law requires!
Nothing ... nothing ... in Arizona S.B. 1070 says anything about requesting "documents" of anyone! It doesn't require anyone to carry documents. In fact, it doesn't say anything about documents. All this "papers, please" nonsense is exactly that. Nonsense. Arizona S.B. 1070 does not make it a crime or allow anyone to be arrested because they can't prove that they're in the country legally. That simply isn't what it does!
Once again, here's what the law actually says, if anyone is actually interested in what it actually says:
"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON."
It requires the police to make a "reasonable attempt, ... when practicable, to determine the immigration status" of a person when they have a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally.
They could "request documents," but the law does not requre that they "request documents." All they have to do is make a reasonable attempt to determine immigration status. Like the Border Patrol does now.
I was out in Big Bend recently. I was stopped at a Border Patrol check point. I was asked, "Where are you coming from? Where are you going? Are you an American citizen?" Then I was allowed to proceed. The Border Patrol officer who questioned me made a reasonable attempt to determine my immigration status, when he probably didn't even have any reason to suspect that I was in the country illegally. And he didn't ask me for any documents.
Clearly, Arizona S.B. 1070 is a law which can and almost surely will be used to discriminate against people of dark skin color or those with "foreign" accents. It is a bad law.
But, it is a bad law for what it does say and the argument ought to be about what it does say. Let's stop claiming things about the law that simply are not true.
For goodness sake, the bill isn't that long. Someone writing a newspaper article about the bill surely can take the time to at least read it. And if you read that bill and still think it requires police to "request documents," then - I apologize if this is judgemental - but you probably don't have the intelligence necessary to write newspaper articles.
If you claim it requires police to "request documents," when you know that it doesn't, then you're a liar.
That is not what the law requires!
Nothing ... nothing ... in Arizona S.B. 1070 says anything about requesting "documents" of anyone! It doesn't require anyone to carry documents. In fact, it doesn't say anything about documents. All this "papers, please" nonsense is exactly that. Nonsense. Arizona S.B. 1070 does not make it a crime or allow anyone to be arrested because they can't prove that they're in the country legally. That simply isn't what it does!
Once again, here's what the law actually says, if anyone is actually interested in what it actually says:
"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON."
It requires the police to make a "reasonable attempt, ... when practicable, to determine the immigration status" of a person when they have a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally.
They could "request documents," but the law does not requre that they "request documents." All they have to do is make a reasonable attempt to determine immigration status. Like the Border Patrol does now.
I was out in Big Bend recently. I was stopped at a Border Patrol check point. I was asked, "Where are you coming from? Where are you going? Are you an American citizen?" Then I was allowed to proceed. The Border Patrol officer who questioned me made a reasonable attempt to determine my immigration status, when he probably didn't even have any reason to suspect that I was in the country illegally. And he didn't ask me for any documents.
Clearly, Arizona S.B. 1070 is a law which can and almost surely will be used to discriminate against people of dark skin color or those with "foreign" accents. It is a bad law.
But, it is a bad law for what it does say and the argument ought to be about what it does say. Let's stop claiming things about the law that simply are not true.
For goodness sake, the bill isn't that long. Someone writing a newspaper article about the bill surely can take the time to at least read it. And if you read that bill and still think it requires police to "request documents," then - I apologize if this is judgemental - but you probably don't have the intelligence necessary to write newspaper articles.
If you claim it requires police to "request documents," when you know that it doesn't, then you're a liar.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
The Best Health Care System in the World
I frequently hear acquaintances opine that America has the best health care system in the world. I'm pretty sure I've heard some national elected officials say the same thing, though I cannot quote them. I'm sure enough, in fact, that I'm not going to Google them to get the quotations.
Yesterday the Austin American-Statesman contained an article entitled "Study: U.S. behind in cutting child mortality." It was about estimates of mortality of children younger than five being published yesterday in the British medical journal, The Lancet.
Some really good news. Two decades ago, 11.9 million children died per year worldwide. This year, only 7.7 million children will die. An improvement in 20 years of over 35%.
The news about the United States' record in the same area - the record of "the best health care system in the world"? Not so good as that.
Twenty years ago, the United States ranked 29th among the nations of the world in child mortality. Not all that good, in my opinion. One wonders why "the best health care system in the world" would not be first in that ranking. But, whatever the reason, it has gotten worse. Today, the United States ranks 42nd among the nations of the world in child mortality. To make that clear, 41 nations in the world have a smaller percentage of their children dying each year than we do.
Much of Europe is ahead of us on that list. Better than us. Chile is ahead of us. The United Arab Emirates* is ahead of us. Cuba is ahead of us on that list. A smaller percentage of Cuban children die each year than American children. Last time I checked, Cuba really did have socialized medicine.
Singapore tops the list. Ahead of us. Better than us. In 1990, Serbia and Malaysia lost more of their children than we did. Now they lose less. Serbia and Malaysia save more of their children than we do.
Now, to be fair, the United States has cut its rate of child mortality in the last 20 years. Our rate of child mortality did decline 42 percent. About the same rate of decline as Angola, Sierra Leone, and Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan, for crying out loud. We're doing as well as Kazakhstan!
The study was done by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington. That's Washington State, by the way, not Washington, D.C. The author of the study is Christopher Murray, who directs the institute.
Mr. Murray says, "There are an awful lot of people who think we have the best medical system in the world. The data is so contrary to that."
The data. What a concept. The data. Not the myth, not the bravado, not the jingoism. The data.
Just in case you were wondering: "Rather than being tied to race, the data suggest broader problems with the nation's poorly planned health care system, experts say."
So, be against health care reform in the United States if you want to. But, don't try convincing me it's because we already have "the best health care system in the world." Because, we don't. And if you say it when you know it's not true, it's a lie.
In the words of that famous Republican, Leigh Anne Touhy, in "The Blind Side," "Don't you dare lie to me."
*According to Wikipedia, "Standards of health care are considered to be generally high in the United Arab Emirates, resulting from increased government spending during strong economic years. ... Health care currently is free ... for UAE citizens."
Yesterday the Austin American-Statesman contained an article entitled "Study: U.S. behind in cutting child mortality." It was about estimates of mortality of children younger than five being published yesterday in the British medical journal, The Lancet.
Some really good news. Two decades ago, 11.9 million children died per year worldwide. This year, only 7.7 million children will die. An improvement in 20 years of over 35%.
The news about the United States' record in the same area - the record of "the best health care system in the world"? Not so good as that.
Twenty years ago, the United States ranked 29th among the nations of the world in child mortality. Not all that good, in my opinion. One wonders why "the best health care system in the world" would not be first in that ranking. But, whatever the reason, it has gotten worse. Today, the United States ranks 42nd among the nations of the world in child mortality. To make that clear, 41 nations in the world have a smaller percentage of their children dying each year than we do.
Much of Europe is ahead of us on that list. Better than us. Chile is ahead of us. The United Arab Emirates* is ahead of us. Cuba is ahead of us on that list. A smaller percentage of Cuban children die each year than American children. Last time I checked, Cuba really did have socialized medicine.
Singapore tops the list. Ahead of us. Better than us. In 1990, Serbia and Malaysia lost more of their children than we did. Now they lose less. Serbia and Malaysia save more of their children than we do.
Now, to be fair, the United States has cut its rate of child mortality in the last 20 years. Our rate of child mortality did decline 42 percent. About the same rate of decline as Angola, Sierra Leone, and Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan, for crying out loud. We're doing as well as Kazakhstan!
The study was done by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington. That's Washington State, by the way, not Washington, D.C. The author of the study is Christopher Murray, who directs the institute.
Mr. Murray says, "There are an awful lot of people who think we have the best medical system in the world. The data is so contrary to that."
The data. What a concept. The data. Not the myth, not the bravado, not the jingoism. The data.
Just in case you were wondering: "Rather than being tied to race, the data suggest broader problems with the nation's poorly planned health care system, experts say."
So, be against health care reform in the United States if you want to. But, don't try convincing me it's because we already have "the best health care system in the world." Because, we don't. And if you say it when you know it's not true, it's a lie.
In the words of that famous Republican, Leigh Anne Touhy, in "The Blind Side," "Don't you dare lie to me."
*According to Wikipedia, "Standards of health care are considered to be generally high in the United Arab Emirates, resulting from increased government spending during strong economic years. ... Health care currently is free ... for UAE citizens."
Monday, May 24, 2010
Bobby Jindal, Hypocrite
When Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, a Republican, delivered the Republican Party's response to President Barack Obama's State of the Union Address on February 24, 2009, here are a few of the things he said:
"The strength of America is not found in our government."
"To strengthen our economy, we need urgent action to keep energy prices down. All of us remember what it felt like to pay $4 at the pump -- and unless we act now, those prices will return. To stop that from happening, we need to increase conservation, increase energy efficiency, increase the use of alternative and renewable fuels, increase our use of nuclear power and increase drilling for oil and gas here at home." [Emphasis added.]
"Democratic leaders in Washington place their hope in the federal government. We place our hope in you -- the American people."
"We oppose the national Democrats' view that says the way to strengthen our country is to increase dependence on government."
Lousiana Governor Bobby Jindal, of the party whose candidates for President and Vice President in the last U.S. presidential election campaigned on the slogan, "Drill, baby, drill!" Bobby Jindal, of the party of "less government." Bobby Jindal, whose most recent Vice Presidential candidate recently said in a speech in his state of Louisiana, that we did not need more studies, we needed more drilling.
That Bobby Jindal.
Today, he held a press conference, together with U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. In that press conference he eloquently described the desperate circumstances in which his fellow Louisianans find themselves along the shore of the Gulf of Mexico because British Petroleum's Deep Water Horizon drill, baby, drill oil rig exploded, caught on fire, capsized, and began to leak - at least 5,000 barrels of oil a day, possibly as much as 100,000 barrels of oil a day. That oil is now coming ashore in Louisiana, killing wildlife and destroying the marshes and wetlands on which uncounted numbers of animal species and tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of people depend for their livelihoods.
"We're literally talking about defending a way of life down here in Louisiana,'' Governor Jindal said. Yes, Governor, a way of life, but much, much more is now at stake because of the "drill, baby, drill" greed endorsed by the Republican Party.
But, all that is obvious. What was surprising was where Governor Jindal put the blame. He expressed his opinion that the response - by the federal government - had been inadequate. He listed a long list of things, "resources," he called them, that he, as governor had asked the federal government to provide to help Louisiana fight the effects of "drill, baby, drill." He then listed the really paltry list of the things he had asked for that he had, as of today, received.
Clearly, his premise was that the federal government had failed to provide the resources the people of his state needed to fight the results of his party's energy solution.
But, this was the same Governor Jindal who said that the strength of America was not found in our government, that what we needed was "more drilling for oil and gas," that his party did not place their hope in the federal government, and that Americans should not increase their dependence on the federal government.
Yet, when disaster strikes - disaster which was, in fact, inevitable if we pursued the Republicans' policy of "drill, baby, drill" - Governor Less-Dependence-on-Washington Jindal turns to ... Washington. And, when the federal government can't respond with everything he is depending on the federal government to provide to help the people of his state, he blames ... the federal government.
Look, Governor, either we depend on the federal government to do things we cannot do individually - and we give the federal government the resources necessary to do those things, i.e., tax revenue - or we don't whine and complain when the federal government doesn't have the resources needed to do things we cannot do individually.
You can't have it both ways. You can't strip the federal government of the resources to do the things the American people need it to do, then complain when it doesn't have the resources to do the things the American people need it to do.
And, when a smart man like you does exactly that, and does it for political reasons, that's called ... hypocrisy.
"Woe unto you, scribes and pharisees! Hypocrites!" - Jesus of Nazareth.
"Woe unto you, Bobby Jindal! Hypocrite!"
"The strength of America is not found in our government."
"To strengthen our economy, we need urgent action to keep energy prices down. All of us remember what it felt like to pay $4 at the pump -- and unless we act now, those prices will return. To stop that from happening, we need to increase conservation, increase energy efficiency, increase the use of alternative and renewable fuels, increase our use of nuclear power and increase drilling for oil and gas here at home." [Emphasis added.]
"Democratic leaders in Washington place their hope in the federal government. We place our hope in you -- the American people."
"We oppose the national Democrats' view that says the way to strengthen our country is to increase dependence on government."
Lousiana Governor Bobby Jindal, of the party whose candidates for President and Vice President in the last U.S. presidential election campaigned on the slogan, "Drill, baby, drill!" Bobby Jindal, of the party of "less government." Bobby Jindal, whose most recent Vice Presidential candidate recently said in a speech in his state of Louisiana, that we did not need more studies, we needed more drilling.
That Bobby Jindal.
Today, he held a press conference, together with U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. In that press conference he eloquently described the desperate circumstances in which his fellow Louisianans find themselves along the shore of the Gulf of Mexico because British Petroleum's Deep Water Horizon drill, baby, drill oil rig exploded, caught on fire, capsized, and began to leak - at least 5,000 barrels of oil a day, possibly as much as 100,000 barrels of oil a day. That oil is now coming ashore in Louisiana, killing wildlife and destroying the marshes and wetlands on which uncounted numbers of animal species and tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of people depend for their livelihoods.
"We're literally talking about defending a way of life down here in Louisiana,'' Governor Jindal said. Yes, Governor, a way of life, but much, much more is now at stake because of the "drill, baby, drill" greed endorsed by the Republican Party.
But, all that is obvious. What was surprising was where Governor Jindal put the blame. He expressed his opinion that the response - by the federal government - had been inadequate. He listed a long list of things, "resources," he called them, that he, as governor had asked the federal government to provide to help Louisiana fight the effects of "drill, baby, drill." He then listed the really paltry list of the things he had asked for that he had, as of today, received.
Clearly, his premise was that the federal government had failed to provide the resources the people of his state needed to fight the results of his party's energy solution.
But, this was the same Governor Jindal who said that the strength of America was not found in our government, that what we needed was "more drilling for oil and gas," that his party did not place their hope in the federal government, and that Americans should not increase their dependence on the federal government.
Yet, when disaster strikes - disaster which was, in fact, inevitable if we pursued the Republicans' policy of "drill, baby, drill" - Governor Less-Dependence-on-Washington Jindal turns to ... Washington. And, when the federal government can't respond with everything he is depending on the federal government to provide to help the people of his state, he blames ... the federal government.
Look, Governor, either we depend on the federal government to do things we cannot do individually - and we give the federal government the resources necessary to do those things, i.e., tax revenue - or we don't whine and complain when the federal government doesn't have the resources needed to do things we cannot do individually.
You can't have it both ways. You can't strip the federal government of the resources to do the things the American people need it to do, then complain when it doesn't have the resources to do the things the American people need it to do.
And, when a smart man like you does exactly that, and does it for political reasons, that's called ... hypocrisy.
"Woe unto you, scribes and pharisees! Hypocrites!" - Jesus of Nazareth.
"Woe unto you, Bobby Jindal! Hypocrite!"
Friday, May 21, 2010
This Is What I'm Talking About
In an earlier article, I argued that we ... and by "we" I mean all us Americans ... need to be honest about what Arizona Senate Bill 1070 says. I posted a link to the actual bill. It's not that hard to find and not that long to read. Anyone writing a news article about the bill should, at the very least, have read the actual bill.
This morning, in the Austin American-Statesman, there is an article entitled "Mexican president's address to Congress spotlights divide." In that article Mr. David Lightman, the reporter, writes:
"Calderon offered blistering comments about the Arizona law, which would require law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of people they stop for other reasons."
Mr. Lightman, I cannot tell if you are lying or just misinformed, but that is not what the law requires. It does not "require law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of people they stop for other reasons."
Here's what the law actually says, and it is different from what Mr. Lightman claims it says. Significantly different.
"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON."
[Emphasis added.]
(I have quoted the law in all capital letters, not because I'm shouting, but because that's the way the bill is actually written.)
Read it, Mr. Lightman! It does not "require law enforcement officers to [do anything with regard to] people they stop for other reasons." It only requires law enforcement officers to do something regarding someone "where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States." That is a far cry from requiring them to do something when they stop people "for other reasons."
It does not "require law enforcement officers to check the immigration status" of anyone. It requires them, under the circumstances previously described, to "make a reasonable attempt ... when practicable" to determine a person's immigration status. That means, sometimes, at least, they won't have to even try to determine a person's immigration status, because it won't be practicable. And they never have to even try to determine their immigration status - they don't have to even check their immigration status - just because they stop them "for other reasons."
When you say that, Mr. Lightman, it just isn't true.
And the law very definitely, very unequivically, does not require a law enforcement officer to arrest someone either because they are illegally in the country or because they don't have papeers to prove they are in the country. (I know Mr. Lightman didn't say that, but so many of us are!) Can a law enforcement officer make an arrest for such reasons in Arizona? Yes, definitely. Are they required by Arizona S.B. 1070 to make an arrest for such reasons in Arizona? No, definitely not.
We have to stop lying to ourselves and others about this law. It is a bad law. I firmly believe it is a bad law. But, the truth about the law is enough to make me believe it is a bad law without telling myself or anyone else a bunch of lies about what it does!
I get really, really frustrated when my adversaries on the right lie about things. For instance, everytime I hear Dick Cheney say that Iraq had some connection to the September 11th attacks, when I am confident that he knows it's a lie, it infuriates me. For instance, when I hear someone (and I still hear people say it) say that there is a requirement for "death panels" in the recently passed health care reform bill, it infuriates me. That's a lie! Flat out. Unvarnished.
But, because people who ought to be trustworthy said those things, there are gullible folks who believe them to be true. Now those gullible folks join the mass of people who cannot possibly make well-reasoned, well-informed choices about important issues facing our republic, because they believe things that simply aren't true! Which, I fear, may be exactly the goal of people who keep telling these whoppers, whether they be on the right or the left.
We have to stop lying! We can not continue to exist as a democratic republic if we keep telling ourselves a bunch of lies!
Stop it! Now! All of you!
This morning, in the Austin American-Statesman, there is an article entitled "Mexican president's address to Congress spotlights divide." In that article Mr. David Lightman, the reporter, writes:
"Calderon offered blistering comments about the Arizona law, which would require law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of people they stop for other reasons."
Mr. Lightman, I cannot tell if you are lying or just misinformed, but that is not what the law requires. It does not "require law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of people they stop for other reasons."
Here's what the law actually says, and it is different from what Mr. Lightman claims it says. Significantly different.
"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON."
[Emphasis added.]
(I have quoted the law in all capital letters, not because I'm shouting, but because that's the way the bill is actually written.)
Read it, Mr. Lightman! It does not "require law enforcement officers to [do anything with regard to] people they stop for other reasons." It only requires law enforcement officers to do something regarding someone "where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States." That is a far cry from requiring them to do something when they stop people "for other reasons."
It does not "require law enforcement officers to check the immigration status" of anyone. It requires them, under the circumstances previously described, to "make a reasonable attempt ... when practicable" to determine a person's immigration status. That means, sometimes, at least, they won't have to even try to determine a person's immigration status, because it won't be practicable. And they never have to even try to determine their immigration status - they don't have to even check their immigration status - just because they stop them "for other reasons."
When you say that, Mr. Lightman, it just isn't true.
And the law very definitely, very unequivically, does not require a law enforcement officer to arrest someone either because they are illegally in the country or because they don't have papeers to prove they are in the country. (I know Mr. Lightman didn't say that, but so many of us are!) Can a law enforcement officer make an arrest for such reasons in Arizona? Yes, definitely. Are they required by Arizona S.B. 1070 to make an arrest for such reasons in Arizona? No, definitely not.
We have to stop lying to ourselves and others about this law. It is a bad law. I firmly believe it is a bad law. But, the truth about the law is enough to make me believe it is a bad law without telling myself or anyone else a bunch of lies about what it does!
I get really, really frustrated when my adversaries on the right lie about things. For instance, everytime I hear Dick Cheney say that Iraq had some connection to the September 11th attacks, when I am confident that he knows it's a lie, it infuriates me. For instance, when I hear someone (and I still hear people say it) say that there is a requirement for "death panels" in the recently passed health care reform bill, it infuriates me. That's a lie! Flat out. Unvarnished.
But, because people who ought to be trustworthy said those things, there are gullible folks who believe them to be true. Now those gullible folks join the mass of people who cannot possibly make well-reasoned, well-informed choices about important issues facing our republic, because they believe things that simply aren't true! Which, I fear, may be exactly the goal of people who keep telling these whoppers, whether they be on the right or the left.
We have to stop lying! We can not continue to exist as a democratic republic if we keep telling ourselves a bunch of lies!
Stop it! Now! All of you!
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
"One-fifth of the oil captured"
I hate to have to keep coming back to this, but it is important to keep the issue at the forefront, and to continue to highlight the duplicity of British Petroleum.
You remember their well that has been leaking 5,000 barrels of oil a day into the Gulf of Mexico?
Well, they made some progress. A couple of days ago, they managed to insert a smaller pipe into the broken well pipe and then use a collar around the smaller pipe to seal it off inside the larger one. There was a hose that lead from the smaller pipe to an oil tanker on the surface. Neither British Petroleum nor the U.S. government ever thought or claimed that this would solve the leak, but if it worked, it would at least reduce the amount of oil escaping into the ocean.
Unfortunately, two of their remotely controlled submarines collided and knocked the smaller pipe loose. Yesterday, they finally got the smaller pipe working again.
So, British Petroleum announced that, while it wasn't a solution, and they were still working, they were now siphoning off one-fifth - twenty percent - of the oil that was leaking. They still needed to try the same procedure with two other leaks, and the real solution - drilling a slant well that would intersect with the damaged pipe - was, of course, still months away. August, to be precise. It is May now.
One-fifth of the oil? Well, that assertion was based on the fact that with this siphon pipe they were siphoning off 1,000 barrels of oil a day, and the claim that the well was leaking only - only - 5,000 barrels a day.
However, independent scientists, studying the underwater video they have of the oil gushing out of the broken well pipe, have come to the conclusion that the well is not leaking 5,000 barrels of oil a day, but something between 25,000 to possibly as much as 80,000 barrels of oil a day!
That, however, didn't seem possible. This is because, when you look at the oil slick(s) on the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, there just isnt' that much oil. So, how could it be that the well is actually leaking 25,000 to 80,000 barrels of oil a day, not 5,000 like British Petroleum claimed?
Explanation: Scientiest have discovered several sub-surface oil plumes. One is about ten miles - yes, miles - long and three miles wide and 300 feet deep. That's where the difference between 5,000 and 25,000 to 80,000 is - below the surface.
Why isn't the oil in these plumes rising to the surface, like oil normally does? Scientists think it is because of the chemical dispersant that British Petroleum is spraying into the stream of leaking oil almost a mile below the surface. That dispersant is causing the oil to float below the surface, instead of rising to the top.
Why is this a problem? Because the combination of the oil and the dispersant is sucking the oxygen out of the ocean water. The water around the underwater plumes already has 30% less oxygen than normal.
If the oxygen levels fall too low, sea life canot survive in the areas. This is called a "dead zone," for obvious reasons. This spill could create huge dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico.
So, British Petroleum is not only polluting the environment on the surface, and along the coast, it is polluting the environment far below the surface, in ways that the ocean life may never recover from. On the surface, it looks like the oil slick(s) are now moving toward the Florida keys - and the fragile, beautiful coral reefs there.
Meanwhile, there is another rig, just like the Deep Water Horizon that drilled this well, exploded, burned, and capsized, drilling another well even farther out and even deeper down. If something happens there, it will be even harder to fix than the mess British Petroleum has caused currently. And ... one of the employees from that well says the rig has not been fully inspected for safety and does not have any "as-built" plans. So, if something goes wrong, no one will actually know exactly how the rig is built when they go in to try to fix it.
When will it ever end? Not until we insist that it ends. Not until we stop shouting, "drill, baby, drill!"
You remember their well that has been leaking 5,000 barrels of oil a day into the Gulf of Mexico?
Well, they made some progress. A couple of days ago, they managed to insert a smaller pipe into the broken well pipe and then use a collar around the smaller pipe to seal it off inside the larger one. There was a hose that lead from the smaller pipe to an oil tanker on the surface. Neither British Petroleum nor the U.S. government ever thought or claimed that this would solve the leak, but if it worked, it would at least reduce the amount of oil escaping into the ocean.
Unfortunately, two of their remotely controlled submarines collided and knocked the smaller pipe loose. Yesterday, they finally got the smaller pipe working again.
So, British Petroleum announced that, while it wasn't a solution, and they were still working, they were now siphoning off one-fifth - twenty percent - of the oil that was leaking. They still needed to try the same procedure with two other leaks, and the real solution - drilling a slant well that would intersect with the damaged pipe - was, of course, still months away. August, to be precise. It is May now.
One-fifth of the oil? Well, that assertion was based on the fact that with this siphon pipe they were siphoning off 1,000 barrels of oil a day, and the claim that the well was leaking only - only - 5,000 barrels a day.
However, independent scientists, studying the underwater video they have of the oil gushing out of the broken well pipe, have come to the conclusion that the well is not leaking 5,000 barrels of oil a day, but something between 25,000 to possibly as much as 80,000 barrels of oil a day!
That, however, didn't seem possible. This is because, when you look at the oil slick(s) on the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, there just isnt' that much oil. So, how could it be that the well is actually leaking 25,000 to 80,000 barrels of oil a day, not 5,000 like British Petroleum claimed?
Explanation: Scientiest have discovered several sub-surface oil plumes. One is about ten miles - yes, miles - long and three miles wide and 300 feet deep. That's where the difference between 5,000 and 25,000 to 80,000 is - below the surface.
Why isn't the oil in these plumes rising to the surface, like oil normally does? Scientists think it is because of the chemical dispersant that British Petroleum is spraying into the stream of leaking oil almost a mile below the surface. That dispersant is causing the oil to float below the surface, instead of rising to the top.
Why is this a problem? Because the combination of the oil and the dispersant is sucking the oxygen out of the ocean water. The water around the underwater plumes already has 30% less oxygen than normal.
If the oxygen levels fall too low, sea life canot survive in the areas. This is called a "dead zone," for obvious reasons. This spill could create huge dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico.
So, British Petroleum is not only polluting the environment on the surface, and along the coast, it is polluting the environment far below the surface, in ways that the ocean life may never recover from. On the surface, it looks like the oil slick(s) are now moving toward the Florida keys - and the fragile, beautiful coral reefs there.
Meanwhile, there is another rig, just like the Deep Water Horizon that drilled this well, exploded, burned, and capsized, drilling another well even farther out and even deeper down. If something happens there, it will be even harder to fix than the mess British Petroleum has caused currently. And ... one of the employees from that well says the rig has not been fully inspected for safety and does not have any "as-built" plans. So, if something goes wrong, no one will actually know exactly how the rig is built when they go in to try to fix it.
When will it ever end? Not until we insist that it ends. Not until we stop shouting, "drill, baby, drill!"
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Compromise
When the delegates to the convention that produced the United States Constitution arrived, many of them didn't want a new constitution at all. In fact, some of the states' delegations had orders from their state legislatures to oppose a new constitution and support only amending the Articles of Confederation.
Of those who did want a new constitution, many came with their own ideas of what sort of constitution we ought to have, and what ought to be in it.
I've been doing a lot of reading about that time period in history, and several of the men who attended the convention. Unless I've missed something, as far as I can tell, no delegate got everything they wanted in the new constitution. Far from believing they had produced one of the seminal documents of democratic history, most, if not all, of the delegates left the convention greatly, but privately, displeased about the final product. Many harbored great reservations about whether a republic based on the new constitution had any chance of success. Many of their private letters expose this pretty intense level of dissatisfaction.
Yet, they all signed it, at least all of them who remained at the convention to the end.
As far as I can tell, none of the ideas Benjamin Franklin proposed at the convention actually made it into the final version, though I may have missed something. None the less, Dr. Franklin wrote this about the new constitution:
"I confess that I do not entirely approve this Constitution at present; but sir, I am not sure I shall never approve it: For, having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that, the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgement and pay more respect to the judgement of others.
"Most men, indeed as well as most sects in religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them, it is so far error. Steele, a Protestant, in a dedication, tells the Pope that the only difference between our two churches in their opinion of the certainty of their doctrine is, the Romish Church is infallible, and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But, though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain French lady, who, in a little dispute with her sister said: 'I don't know how it happens, sister, but I meet with nobody but myself that is always in the right.'
"In these sentiments, sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults - if they are such - because I think a general government necessary for us. ... I doubt, too, whether any other convention we can obtain may be able to make a better Constitution; for, when you assemble a number of men, to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly, can a perfect production be expected?
"It therefore astonishes me, sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the builders of Babel, and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure that it is not the best."
"[O]ur enemies are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded ... ."
Friends, we must once again adopt Ben Franklin's spirit of humble compromise if we expect our republic to continue. Really, we must.
Of those who did want a new constitution, many came with their own ideas of what sort of constitution we ought to have, and what ought to be in it.
I've been doing a lot of reading about that time period in history, and several of the men who attended the convention. Unless I've missed something, as far as I can tell, no delegate got everything they wanted in the new constitution. Far from believing they had produced one of the seminal documents of democratic history, most, if not all, of the delegates left the convention greatly, but privately, displeased about the final product. Many harbored great reservations about whether a republic based on the new constitution had any chance of success. Many of their private letters expose this pretty intense level of dissatisfaction.
Yet, they all signed it, at least all of them who remained at the convention to the end.
As far as I can tell, none of the ideas Benjamin Franklin proposed at the convention actually made it into the final version, though I may have missed something. None the less, Dr. Franklin wrote this about the new constitution:
"I confess that I do not entirely approve this Constitution at present; but sir, I am not sure I shall never approve it: For, having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that, the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgement and pay more respect to the judgement of others.
"Most men, indeed as well as most sects in religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them, it is so far error. Steele, a Protestant, in a dedication, tells the Pope that the only difference between our two churches in their opinion of the certainty of their doctrine is, the Romish Church is infallible, and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But, though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain French lady, who, in a little dispute with her sister said: 'I don't know how it happens, sister, but I meet with nobody but myself that is always in the right.'
"In these sentiments, sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults - if they are such - because I think a general government necessary for us. ... I doubt, too, whether any other convention we can obtain may be able to make a better Constitution; for, when you assemble a number of men, to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly, can a perfect production be expected?
"It therefore astonishes me, sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the builders of Babel, and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure that it is not the best."
"[O]ur enemies are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded ... ."
Friends, we must once again adopt Ben Franklin's spirit of humble compromise if we expect our republic to continue. Really, we must.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)