"Beware the fury of a patient man.”
John Dryden
British Poet, Dramatist and Critic of Literacy
1631-1700
“Thou call'st me dog before thou hadst a cause, But since I am a dog, beware my fangs”
William Shakespeare
English Dramatist, Playwright and Poet
1564-1616
"Beware of him that is slow to anger; for when it is long coming, it is the stronger when it comes, and the longer kept. Abused patience turns to fury.”
Francis Quarles
English religious Poet
1592-1644
When I was a young teenager, 13 or 14, my parents took our family on a trip west to Montana and Wyoming. We visited Glacier and Yellowstone Parks, and another stop included a visit to a working (not 'dude') ranch. My father had been indulging my horse interest, which easily rivaled if not exceeded my love of dogs, since I was around 9 or 10. When I had been very small, my special time with my father was Saturday mornings, sitting in our pajamas on the floor of his den watching cartoons and old movies on television while my mother slept in, eating cereal out of the box while both of us drank large glasses of milk and laughed at having milk mustaches.
As I outgrew cartoons, riding on Saturday had replaced our mornings together, although dad preferred to catch up on his reading while I rode. It was the hour or so drive each way that comprised our time together. While I was actually in the saddle, my non-animal loving parent preferred not to watch me 'break my neck'. I preferred riding very large thoroughbred hunter jumpers, and thought hurtling over very large jumps on a very tall horse was the next best thing to riding hell for leather across country, hurtling over large fences and other natural obstacles like fallen tree trunks on very tall horses. The faster, the higher, the bigger the better as far as I was concerned, and the devil take the hindmost.
So while we stayed at the ranch, it seemed perfectly normal to my parents that I would choose to get up at crack of dawn or even before sunrise, in the mountains, volunteering to help bring in the horses to be ridden that day, before breakfast. What they hadn't known, and I hadn't thought necessary to tell them, was that we rode out to get the horses doubling up, and then those of us who were double riders, grabbed horses, and helped round up the rest and rode them in. This meant that maybe you used a bridle, and rode bareback, but more often just a hackamore or a halter and lead rope, relying on leg cues and neck reining for control. A few times, I rode with just a handful of mane and nothing else, including at least one occasion where I rode thundering past my parents waving to them madly, but they apparently didn't notice my lack of tack, given the clouds of dust and the commotion. Fair enough I suppose, given I was on the opposite side from them with some thirty horses in between, and they hadn't had breakfast or even coffee yet.
But it did surprise me when they drove up after a minor shopping trip to the nearest town which was some 60 or 70 miles away, each way, and became extremely upset to find me riding unbroken ranch horses in a corral, while a handful of the ranch hands sat around on the rails drinking beer, smoking cigars and chewing tobacco. I was having a very good time, the best time I had the entire vacation, doing something I enjoyed. The ranch hands got a break from their work. The horses had a lighter rider with gentler hands and voice; it seemed a win win situation to me. Given that the ranch hands tended to go for quicker, rougher training methods, which included not only drinking beer but breaking the bottles over the heads of the more unruly horses when they reared back, as evidenced by all of the broken brown glass in the corral sand and their own admissions. So, I thought I was doing a good thing. Now I will admit my derriere got bounced around a bit, but I knew how to ride. There is a slang term in riding, called 'daylight', that refers to an undesirable gap between saddle leather and rider's nether anatomy. I allowed precious little 'daylight', and I was never thrown either. I was able to get nearly as rapid a result as the more violent techniques, and had ridden more than a few horses before my parents uproar, without incident. While my parents objected to what they thought was dangerous, after the ranch hands explained what I had been doing rounding up horses every morning, it didn't seem nearly as bad as charging through mountainous terrain in dawn lighting for miles at speed. Although there was a...conversation about that later.
I was allowed to continue, but that...conversation, a rather one sided conversation, objected to my behaving inappropriately. They didn't think it was a good thing for a young woman to be hanging out with crusty ranch hands all afternoon, much less to be doing their dangerous jobs. To be fair to the ranch hands, I had first had to prove my abilities to their satisfaction, then begged like crazy. They were surprisingly self-censoring, compared to their usual earthier, cruder language, and delightfully courteous and solicitous of my well-being. This all took place in a very central location, the corral, with people coming and going, watching for awhile, leaving, coming back, so I didn't see the problem with spending a quantity of time with a group of older men. Well, to be more precise, I had calculated the risk pretty fairly to my abilities, and decided it was manageable, and I wasn't going to be a snob instead of having a good time doing what I liked, and was good at doing. I think I had much more fun than the rest of my family on that trip. I have made a habit of having a fun time doing my own thing, on family trips.
While out rounding up horses for the day, I came across a big red thoroughbred that someone out east had 'dumped' with the ranch owner. He hadn't been ridden in at least three years, and I was intrigued. We brought him back in and got him saddled up; to be fair, it took two strong men holding his head for me to get in the saddle. We tried using only one strong man, but he was lifted clean off his feet. My dear mother was having hysterics on cue. But after a bit of riding, he turned out to have excellent manners (rather like the ranch hands) and I fell in love with him. I brushed him, found and soothed his sore spots and where he liked to be rubbed. By the second day he was following me around without even a lead rope or halter, more like a dog than a horse, and I could ride him at will. I wanted to bring him back with us but mother won out with "he's too big, he's dangerous, he scares me". One of my dogs couldn't have been more protective of my safety than that horse was; he became quite territorial.
So, a few years later it did not surprise my parents to find that when my debate coach was 'stuck' covering the journalism class while the usual teacher was on sabbatical, he signed up a group from the debate team for the class. The journalism class produced the school paper, which immediately became massive litter; it deserved to be trash, it was so badly written it was garbage. The first I knew I was taking 'journalism' was when my fall schedule arrived, a few weeks before school. My then-boyfriend, from the debate team, the same brave soul who chastised me for going off like a grenade on the bully, and I, were the co-editors; it wasn't a choice. We were simply told. We were also given the direction to make this rag worth reading, make it interesting, make it relevant, or you flunk.
Another member of our debate team, great guy, worked part time at the local McDonald's. Due to unseasonable weather, lots of rain, high water levels, the Mickey D's had developed a problem with their garbage dumpsters and sewer rats. He and the other guys who worked late night shifts, especially on weekends, objected to having to brave the rats, and were fired.
I thought that was unfair, I was even angry on his behalf. So I decided that the newspaper would do a full front page color photo expose of the rats. The staff were students, the customers were students, students from the nearby parochial schools were customers too. It was perfect. We gave them the chance to correct the garbage problem, but they were too cheap. We gave them the chance to hire back our debate team friend and the others, with a raise, but they had already replaced them with more 'compliant' students they could bully because they needed the money. So, we ran the edition, copied the health department, and copied the local metro big papers. Knight Ridder ran with it, B-section, prominently.
My co-editor boy- friend was a good sport about it all; he didn't leave me to face any of it alone, even though I was far more the driving force behind the whole thing than he was. We drastically exceeded our allotted budget for the entire journalism class, with our little project. I was never able to verify that the difference was made up from a collection in the teacher's lounge, but that was the rumor. The debate coach wouldn't say; he just grinned a lot, and told us to "carry on", and leave the rest to him.
The first my parents learned that their darling daughter had been taking photos in close proximity at 2 a.m. to piles of garbage swarming with many quite large sewer rats was when McDonald's, the Corporate, not the mere franchised McDonald's, threatened to sue our school district, if we didn't print a retraction. It was the only time in my entire life I was called to the office because I was in trouble, along with the poor dear boyfriend, and our journalism teacher/debate coach. We were threatened with expulsion, which particularly troubled me as I had already taken my college boards as a junior, and applied to the only college I planned on attending. I was accepted during my journalism adventure, my junior year of high school. High school graduation was not strictly required by that college; but it was definitely required of me by my parents.
The debate coach declined the retraction. We just shut up and nodded; we had faith, but it wasn't an easy faith. The debate coach was correct, although the school district's lawyers squirmed for a good few days. It turned out, or so it was explained to us, that because the Knight Ridder newspapers had run our story - giving us full credit for the information - that the McDonalds Corporation would have to sue them also, if they sued our school district. The suit was dropped, an offer was extended to our debate team friends and the other students who were fired to be rehired, at a raise. My boyfriend, poor darling, and I continued to strip-mine the story veins of students employed by area restaurants for exposes that made us very readable - and led to at least one more health department intervention. We got our 'A's for the class, the paper was well read, a boycott developed among not only our students, but other students from schools in the area until things improved, not only at the McDonalds but at the other restaurants that used student-aged labor. Most of all I learned the important lesson that I already knew about dogs and horses, that also with adversaries, size shouldn't intimidate.
My poor parents learned that their children (my red-headed younger sibling subsequently followed a similar course of independent minded indignation) tended to do things our parents never could anticipate forbidding us to do; things that seemed very logical to us but rather unexpected to them, especially when we were angry, and worst when we were angry on behalf of others, two legged, four legged,....others.
I have become angry again recently, on behalf of others.....
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Affinity Scams, Part 1, an Introduction
"Finance is the art of passing money from hand to hand until it finally disappears."
Robert W. Sarnoff
President of NBC, President and Chairman of RCA
1918 - 1997
"Too many of us look upon Americans as dollar chasers. This is a cruel libel, even if it is reiterated thoughtlessly by the Americans themselves."
Albert Einstein
Theoretical Physicist, Nobel Prize winner 1921
1879 - 1955
"There is some magic in wealth, which can thus make persons pay their court to it, when it does not even benefit themselves. How strange it is, that a fool or knave, with riches, should be treated with more respect by the world, than a good man, or a wise man in poverty!"
Ann Radcliffe
Gothic Novelist, The Mysteries of Udolpho,
1764 - 1823
Affinity Scams are a form of fraud that employs unique and unexpected ways of gaining people's trust in order to rob them. A variation of white collar crime, it masquerades under a facade of respectability that the street thug who belongs to a gang, or a Sopranos-like mafia criminal lack. It is a crime of lies, and of theft. It is not any less criminal for the lack of violence; the harm it does is as great.
The most well-publicized instance in recent months was the long-running Ponzi scheme of Bernie Madoff. There are many others, large and small, including the alleged scam profiled by investigative reporter Dan Browning on the front page of the Sunday edition (8/30/09) of the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Although this story is only fully available in their print edition, they do provide this link which has some additional information online: http://www.startribune.com/local/55723222.html?elr=KArksUUUycaEacyU
Madoff's victims included charitable organizations, and the rich and famous; but not all victims of Affinity scams come from the wealthy or from among celebrities. There are many, many others on smaller scales of investment, people who lose everything they have to these swindlers. The appearance of affluence and their representations of expertise are their weapons to commit theft, instead of threats of violence, guns, or knives. It is easier to get people to like you, to trust you, to believe you care about them for these people. Unlike the violent criminal who operates in brief encounters, they operate over extended periods of time, sometimes over periods of years before the fraud comes to light.
Affinity scams have all kinds of ways to connect with people. Community access cable television, 'educational' library seminars, informational presentations at senior citizens centers and homes, so-called 'free lunch' seminars organized by cold calls. Other scam artists use the print media of newsletters, and syndicated columns on the economy and finance; some use various forms of broadcasting - programs on AM and FM stations, short wave broadcasts, internet broadcasting and podcasts. These scam artists appear in re-broadcasts on places like facebook and youtube, and are promoted on a multitudewebsites; hi-tech and low-tech are equally represented.
WHO do these scams target? People whose trust they gain, people they can impress with their credentials and claims, people who are less savy about how to check out their assurances, their expertise and their claims. They attack entire groups of people rather than individuals, groups who can be defined by ethnicity, by age, by politics, by religion, by profession, by cultural group identification, even by hobby or interests. The typical affinity scheme operates as a pyramid structure, often referred to as a ponzi scheme. In a ponzi or pyramid scheme, someone who has the trust of a group of people is solicited, stroked, lured into a venture with the affinity scammer.
That first individual is, every time, provided with returns that are larger than legitimate, but the recipient doesn't know that. Because the first 'investor', or participant by another name (the variations on the theme are nearly endless) is seen to be successful, others are encouraged to participate. The money from those secondary participants continues to pay returns for the fist, and the money from the third round of participants pays for the second. Always those profits, or other returns, are less -usually much less - than the totals handed over to the scammers. Some of these scams run for decadeds, like Madoff; others last only weeks, months, or a few years - more like the alleged affinity scam described locally by Dan Browning in the Star Tribune series of articles.
In this case, here in Minnesota, the individuals who handed over their money and their trust to individuals to 'invest' for them in foreign currency, which is unfortunately one of the most common types of transactions for abuse, are now filing a range of complaints, and civil litigation. As reported by Browning, there are a number of investigations into their business dealings by the SEC, the FBI, and other entities which could lead to criminal actions for fraud.
The promotion for that scam used a combination of christian broadcasting and ultra-right wing politics which focused on fear and conspiracy theories to enlist their investors. The money appears to have disappeared. Some of the individuals named in the -alleged - scam have gone to ground, away from contact. Others continue to operate under new investment promotions, continuing to use politically conservative radio programming to enlist new participants, even as the litigation and investigation proceeds on their previous dealings.
When we read the newspapers, and see individuals like Madoff hauled away in handcuffs, it seems incomprehensible to most of us how these scams could happen without being detected and prevented by regulation. It seems even more incomprehensible that intelligent people could be, frankly, conned so completely. Once you meet the victims, once you hear their stories, once these become real people with faces and families, it becomes more understandable how their trust was enlisted. It becomes less understandable than it was when I read the stories in the newspapers how the scam artists could swindle people without their conscience haunting them, without fear of the consequences stopping them; but they do, over and over and over.
Robert W. Sarnoff
President of NBC, President and Chairman of RCA
1918 - 1997
"Too many of us look upon Americans as dollar chasers. This is a cruel libel, even if it is reiterated thoughtlessly by the Americans themselves."
Albert Einstein
Theoretical Physicist, Nobel Prize winner 1921
1879 - 1955
"There is some magic in wealth, which can thus make persons pay their court to it, when it does not even benefit themselves. How strange it is, that a fool or knave, with riches, should be treated with more respect by the world, than a good man, or a wise man in poverty!"
Ann Radcliffe
Gothic Novelist, The Mysteries of Udolpho,
1764 - 1823
Affinity Scams are a form of fraud that employs unique and unexpected ways of gaining people's trust in order to rob them. A variation of white collar crime, it masquerades under a facade of respectability that the street thug who belongs to a gang, or a Sopranos-like mafia criminal lack. It is a crime of lies, and of theft. It is not any less criminal for the lack of violence; the harm it does is as great.
The most well-publicized instance in recent months was the long-running Ponzi scheme of Bernie Madoff. There are many others, large and small, including the alleged scam profiled by investigative reporter Dan Browning on the front page of the Sunday edition (8/30/09) of the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Although this story is only fully available in their print edition, they do provide this link which has some additional information online: http://www.startribune.com/local/55723222.html?elr=KArksUUUycaEacyU
Madoff's victims included charitable organizations, and the rich and famous; but not all victims of Affinity scams come from the wealthy or from among celebrities. There are many, many others on smaller scales of investment, people who lose everything they have to these swindlers. The appearance of affluence and their representations of expertise are their weapons to commit theft, instead of threats of violence, guns, or knives. It is easier to get people to like you, to trust you, to believe you care about them for these people. Unlike the violent criminal who operates in brief encounters, they operate over extended periods of time, sometimes over periods of years before the fraud comes to light.
Affinity scams have all kinds of ways to connect with people. Community access cable television, 'educational' library seminars, informational presentations at senior citizens centers and homes, so-called 'free lunch' seminars organized by cold calls. Other scam artists use the print media of newsletters, and syndicated columns on the economy and finance; some use various forms of broadcasting - programs on AM and FM stations, short wave broadcasts, internet broadcasting and podcasts. These scam artists appear in re-broadcasts on places like facebook and youtube, and are promoted on a multitudewebsites; hi-tech and low-tech are equally represented.
WHO do these scams target? People whose trust they gain, people they can impress with their credentials and claims, people who are less savy about how to check out their assurances, their expertise and their claims. They attack entire groups of people rather than individuals, groups who can be defined by ethnicity, by age, by politics, by religion, by profession, by cultural group identification, even by hobby or interests. The typical affinity scheme operates as a pyramid structure, often referred to as a ponzi scheme. In a ponzi or pyramid scheme, someone who has the trust of a group of people is solicited, stroked, lured into a venture with the affinity scammer.
That first individual is, every time, provided with returns that are larger than legitimate, but the recipient doesn't know that. Because the first 'investor', or participant by another name (the variations on the theme are nearly endless) is seen to be successful, others are encouraged to participate. The money from those secondary participants continues to pay returns for the fist, and the money from the third round of participants pays for the second. Always those profits, or other returns, are less -usually much less - than the totals handed over to the scammers. Some of these scams run for decadeds, like Madoff; others last only weeks, months, or a few years - more like the alleged affinity scam described locally by Dan Browning in the Star Tribune series of articles.
In this case, here in Minnesota, the individuals who handed over their money and their trust to individuals to 'invest' for them in foreign currency, which is unfortunately one of the most common types of transactions for abuse, are now filing a range of complaints, and civil litigation. As reported by Browning, there are a number of investigations into their business dealings by the SEC, the FBI, and other entities which could lead to criminal actions for fraud.
The promotion for that scam used a combination of christian broadcasting and ultra-right wing politics which focused on fear and conspiracy theories to enlist their investors. The money appears to have disappeared. Some of the individuals named in the -alleged - scam have gone to ground, away from contact. Others continue to operate under new investment promotions, continuing to use politically conservative radio programming to enlist new participants, even as the litigation and investigation proceeds on their previous dealings.
When we read the newspapers, and see individuals like Madoff hauled away in handcuffs, it seems incomprehensible to most of us how these scams could happen without being detected and prevented by regulation. It seems even more incomprehensible that intelligent people could be, frankly, conned so completely. Once you meet the victims, once you hear their stories, once these become real people with faces and families, it becomes more understandable how their trust was enlisted. It becomes less understandable than it was when I read the stories in the newspapers how the scam artists could swindle people without their conscience haunting them, without fear of the consequences stopping them; but they do, over and over and over.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
The Exotic Art of RNC Poll Dancing
"What caricature is in painting, burlesque is in writing; and in the same manner the comic writer and painter correlate to each other; as in the former, the painter seems to have the advantage, so it is in the latter infinitely on the side of the writer. For the monstrous is much easier to paint than describe, and the ridiculous to describe than paint. "
- Henry Fielding
Satire is the right hand of burlesque.
- Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
( Burlesque is)The keenest of political weapons.
- William Cullen Bryant
Strippers gyrate on brass poles to exploit lust for money.
The RNC position on the Steele Poll is just as provocative (some would say dirty), equally unsubtle, except it exploits fear for money, instead of sex. So many of their targeted audience seems to reward attempts to frighten them by turning over their hard earned cash, that it suggests they must enjoy it, seeking out being told scary, albeit improbable stories.
Not as good perhaps as Stephen King stories or Hitchcock movies, but spinning off as many sequels as the multi-part Halloween saga, or the endless Nightmare on Elm Street series. Bloody slasher horror fiction has finally come to the sphere of contemporary Republican fundraising. Or you could read the questions as comedy, like the vaudeville question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?", or maybe the old "Who's on first?" routines.
One such story was the mass mailing sent out recently that asked the following 'in artfully worded' questions.
Wouldn't you think that when someone expends the time, energy and $$$ to send out a mass mailing, they would take a little more time, expend a little more energy to word the poll 'artfully' before they spend the money to make all those copies of it? Wouldn't you expect a little more care before they have them placed in envelopes that are then addressed - presumably with some further effort to guarantee they reach the 'right' people (in every sense of the word) - and pay for the postage?
You would think Michael Steele, if he is any good at his job as the chair of the RNC, would read what it is he signs, and read what he has mailed along with the letters carrying his signature. Of course he does that. As chair of the RNC, he does his job. He words darn hard to make sure the RNC is 'artful' in its fundraising; not honest, not factual, but artful. He is a master of the art of fear.
Here are the questions which were declared 'in artfully worded' by the RNC; declared in artfully worded ONLY AFTER they received attention by at least one of them going to an in artfully selected recipient.
Decide for yourself how artful or in artful they are:
1. Do you believe the state of America's health care is in crisis? YES NO UNDECIDED (12 word question, 3 word choice answer)
2. What is your biggest concern regarding health care in America as it is today?
COST QUALITY AVAILABILITY OTHER __________ (14 word question, 4 word choice answer)
3. Does it concern you that the liberal media has gone to unprecedented levels to only give Obama's views on health care and no one else's?
YES NO UNDECIDED (25 word question, 3 word choice answer)
4. It has been suggested the government could use voter registration to determine a person's political affiliation, prompting fears that GOP voters might be discriminated against for medical treatment in a Democrat-imposed health care rationing system. Does this possibility concern you?
YES NO UNDECIDED (41 word question, 3 word choice answer)
5. Do you believe it is justified to ration health care regardless of whether an individual has contributed to the cost of treatment?
YES NO UNDECIDED (22 word question, 3 word choice answer)
6. Do you believe that your health care decisions should be made by you and your doctor, and not government bureaucrats in Washington D. C.?
YES NO UNDECIDED (23 word question, 3 word choice answer)
7. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has that the Democrats' plan could cost upward of $1.6 trillion dollars. Do you believe that America can afford this added debt when the deficit has already reached record levels?
YES NO UNDECIDED (36 word question, 3 word choice answer)
8. If you have private health insurance, please rate your level of satisfaction with your coverage:
EXCELLENT GOOD SATISFACTORY UNSATISFACTORY N/A (15 word question, 5 word choice answer)
9. Rationing of health care in countries with socialized medicine has led to patients dying because they were forced to wait too long to receive treatment. Are you concerned that this would be inevitable in the U.S. under the Democrats' plan?
YES NO UNDECIDED (41 word question, 3 word choice answer)
10. Do you approve of the Republican plan to give small businesses tax breaks to cover the cost of their employees' health care insurance?
YES NO UNDECIDED (23 word question, 3 word choice answer)
11. Over 120 million Americans currently receive health care insurance through their employment. Should this private sector health coverage be preserved in any health care reform plan?
YES NO UNDECIDED (26 word question, 3 word choice answer)
12. Does it concern you that Democrats will try to ram health care legislation through Congress before the August recess to limit the public's opportunity to evaluate it?
YES NO UNDECIDED (27 word question, 3 word choice answer)
13. Do you believe it is right for the government to use age and life expectancy as criteria for determining access to health care?
YES NO UNDECIDED (23 word question, 3 word choice answer)
All of which is followed by paragraph after paragraph, page after page, soliciting money IMMEDIATELY following a good 'booga booga BOO!' scare effort. That is artful, carefully organized, appealing to emotion, building steadily to a deliberate big climax, the big finale.
Buried near the end was the denouement, a single two sentence paragraph requesting completion and mailing of the Steele poll. That doesn't suggest the poll answers are very important to anyone. It suggests that the only poll result the RNC is interested in is in the form of cash, check, money order, or credit card. You can count on it; count it word by word, paragraph by paragraph, page by page.
This was very carefully crafted poll, where each question was deliberately worded for effect of creating fear for the purpose of raising money, at the expense of fact. The order of the questions were as calculated as any ecdysiast's gyrations to get money out of the readers pockets and tucked into Michael Steele's G(OP) strings. For the RNC to claim this was accidental, that it was 'in artfully worded', is as reasonable as equating bump-and-grind with ballet.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Facing Off
“His face bespoke his soul”
Voltaire
French Philosopher and Writer
1694-1778
“A man's face is his autobiography. A woman's face
is her work of fiction.” *
Oscar Wilde
Irish Poet, Novelist, Dramatist and Critic
1854-1900
Facebook has become a rallying place for those opposing the career of Alberto Gonzales, who will teach his first class as a visiting professor at Texas Tech on August 31st. Some of the groups originate from Texas Tech, like the 150 member "Alberto Gonzales Doesn't Belong at Texas Tech" started by "TT" alum Jason Rhodes.
Another similar group is the one started by Texas Tech alum David Ring , who is a former student of Professor Walter Schaller, the professor who originated the petition against the hiring of Gonzales. The petition, signed by some 88 professors at Texas Tech, as of last check, is in protest to his visiting professorship, at the salary of $100,000 for one year. The unusually lucrative visiting professorship for Gonzales, who has never taught a college class before in his life and who will be teaching a single class of 15 undergraduate students, could have paid for two far more highly qualified visiting professors with actual teaching experience and academic credentials.
Others who object to Gonzales and are organizing through face book are more generic in their opposition. Groups like the 56 member "Alberto Gonzales should spend the rest of his worthless life in prison".
Groups address not only disapproval of Gonzales himself, but of those individuals who served as his staff, joining him in participating in what many view to be unethical, and possibly illegal conduct, like the groups which seek to have Gonzales right-hand man Ted Ullyot fired from his position on the legal staff of Facebook, "We demand that Facebook fire Alberto Gonzales' right hand man, Ted Ullyot" and the 14 member "Justice Starts Here, Tell Facebook to fire Alberto Gonzales Lap Dog".
As specific as the antipathy is to Ted Ullyot, it is sparklingly clear that the objection is even greater to the actions of Alberto Gonzales. Then there is the 3,425 member group "Demand that Facebook General Counsel Ullyot resign'" and the group "Free Facebook: No Alberto Gonzales, No Ted Ullyot as General Counsel".
There are even more groups on Facebook which object to Gonzales not only individually, or to the unusually cushy teaching position given to him by his close political friend Chancellor Kent Hance. These groups are a bit more broadly based in their opposition to Gonzales, and are even sometimes a bit scurrilous. With titles like (I ask the readers pardon) the 12 member "Alberto Gonzales Can Suck my Dick" and the 3 member "Alberto Gonzales Is A Demented Child Rapist", these myriad groups more generally are in opposition to ALL of the Bush administration alums, and therefore prominently include opposition to Gonzales.
It remains to be seen in the coming weeks, especially beginning with Gonzales' first day of class at TT at the end of the month, how effective these Facebook organized movement will be at influencing Gonzales future career at Texas Tech. Unconfirmed rumors abound that Chancellor Hance has hopes of extending the term of Gonzales term as a professor, after the speculation that there was strong faculty opposition against hiring him to teach within the law school, and possibly a failure as well to see him installed as Dean. The scope of the Facebook groups alone in opposition to him is extensive. If it will also be effective in countering the clout of Chancellor Hance on Gonzales’s behalf remains to be seen - but it should be fun to watch.
* I have always enjoyed this quotation, and couldn't resist using it here, although perhaps less apt than other quotations.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Words Are Not Always as They Seem
These days, two words are becoming increasingly part of the vocabulary when discussing the health care debate looming in the US Congress. These words are Filibuster and Reconciliation. Both only directly apply to the US Senate, but some constitutional and historical background is in order.
The Constitution of the US, Article I, Section 5 states, inter alia, "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member." This means that both the House of Representatives and the Senate have their own set of rules for the conduct of debate.
In the House of Representatives, debate for each bill is decided in the rules committee and then the majority in the House then passes the Rule for that particular bill. Debate is often quite limited, and there hasn't been a filibuster in the US House of Representatives in over 150 years.
The US Senate is another matter. The US Senate has its own set of rules, which includes Rule XIV (The rule prescribing the conduct of debate, and stating that a Senator may not speak more than twice on a legislative day (which is not the same thing as a calendar day)). Rule XIV does not provide for any way to end debate, and it is that lack of an ending which allows a filibuster to continue as a way to obstruct or totally defeat legislation, even legislation which would pass if put to a simple majority vote. Filibusters used to require that the senator engaging in a filibuster stay on the floor and keep speaking during the term of the filibuster. However, that rule has been removed, and now a filibuster can simply be declared by a senator and it requires a cloture vote to remove. It would probably reduce considerably the number of filibusters engaged in by both parties if the senators were actually required to stay in attendance, on the floor of the senate, for the entire time of the filibuster.
Rule XXII, however, provides for a procedure known as cloture, whereupon the written motion of 16 senators, a vote upon cloture will be held. If 3/5 of the members of the senate vote in favor, then debate ends. Technically, debate can continue for up to another 30 hours, but members are then limited to 1 hour to speak on a bill. In actual practice, debate on the bill ends when cloture is approved, and the matter is then scheduled for a vote.
Until the passing of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, the Democratic party held a 60 vote majority in the senate, which meant that an almost certain Republican filibuster of the health care reform bill would supposedly fail. Yet, that is by no means certain. The Democratic majority in the Senate is not as united as the Republicans. This is due, in large part, to there being both conservative, moderate and liberal Democrats. There are also a number of fiscally conservative democrats who have grave questions about the health care proposal (as does this author). The Republican party, however, seems to be constantly getting more conservative, almost rabidly so, despite the claim of some of its leaders that its a party of inclusion. However, that is for a different topic. Its questionable at this time whether even were Sen. Kennedy still alive, that a vote on cloture would succeed. The Republican minority has, for the most part, been very vocal against the Democratic health care proposal, spreading a huge amount of misinformation and outright lies, and President Obama has not exhibited good leadership in pushing health care reform by placating wavering Democrats.
I do believe however, if a simple majority vote were taken, that the health care reform act, (some version of it anyway) would pass the US Senate.
The other word being brought forth from time to time is Reconciliation. Now, most of us, when we hear that word, understand its common meaning of to bring together. In the context of the current debate over health care reform, reconciliation would strip the Republicans of the ability to filibuster the health care reform bill(s). Thus, it would do anything except bring together, and would undoubtedly serve to further polarize the two parties.
Congress, acting under its authority in Article I, Section 5 to enact the rules of each house, introduced the concept of reconciliation in the Congressional Impoundment and Budget Control Act of 1974. The process is fairly simple: A concurrent resolution is passed which directs that a committee shall consider a bill that contains the provisions ordered in the resolution. Following that, the committee reports the bill to the Senate, and debate on the bill is then limited to no more than 20 hours. This effectively removes the ability to filibuster and guarantees a further vote on the bill. All bills are still subject to a simple majority vote in the US Senate.
Reconciliation was originally intended to allow budget matters to be passed over the objection of the minority party to help prevent budget impasse (Recall California's nightmare of recent memory) . However, any bill which is affecting revenues can be introduced under reconciliation, its not uncommon for bills to deal with a multitude of topics. The Byrd Rule (2 USC 644) provides areas which will normally allow an objection to parts of a bill under reconciliation. If crafted carefully, however, I believe that a health care reform bill could still be passed under reconciliation and survive the legislative process. The predicted court challenge to the bill would probably be denied by the courts as a political question, and our judiciary doesn't answer political questions such as this.
The Senate Democratic leadership has already given notice to the Republicans that reconciliation is an option if the Republicans do not cooperate. The Republicans, who will undoubtedly cry foul, will recall that it was the Republicans who have used, repeatedly, the process of reconciliation to pass matters relating to huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, which little if any tax relief for the middle class. Further, fair notice was provided in April, 2009 when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) informed the Senate Minority leader that he would consider reconciliation if the Republicans were not willing to compromise and to cooperate on health care reform. To date, the Republicans have seem to adopted a strategy they have tried to foist on millions of young Americans about drugs and alcohol: Just Say No! I can always hope that the Republicans will eventually realize that they must deal with this and not stick their fingers in their ears while screaming NO much longer, but I won't hold my breath waiting for it.
_________________________________________
Definitions: Inter alia Latin: Among other things
The Constitution of the US, Article I, Section 5 states, inter alia, "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member." This means that both the House of Representatives and the Senate have their own set of rules for the conduct of debate.
In the House of Representatives, debate for each bill is decided in the rules committee and then the majority in the House then passes the Rule for that particular bill. Debate is often quite limited, and there hasn't been a filibuster in the US House of Representatives in over 150 years.
The US Senate is another matter. The US Senate has its own set of rules, which includes Rule XIV (The rule prescribing the conduct of debate, and stating that a Senator may not speak more than twice on a legislative day (which is not the same thing as a calendar day)). Rule XIV does not provide for any way to end debate, and it is that lack of an ending which allows a filibuster to continue as a way to obstruct or totally defeat legislation, even legislation which would pass if put to a simple majority vote. Filibusters used to require that the senator engaging in a filibuster stay on the floor and keep speaking during the term of the filibuster. However, that rule has been removed, and now a filibuster can simply be declared by a senator and it requires a cloture vote to remove. It would probably reduce considerably the number of filibusters engaged in by both parties if the senators were actually required to stay in attendance, on the floor of the senate, for the entire time of the filibuster.
Rule XXII, however, provides for a procedure known as cloture, whereupon the written motion of 16 senators, a vote upon cloture will be held. If 3/5 of the members of the senate vote in favor, then debate ends. Technically, debate can continue for up to another 30 hours, but members are then limited to 1 hour to speak on a bill. In actual practice, debate on the bill ends when cloture is approved, and the matter is then scheduled for a vote.
Until the passing of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, the Democratic party held a 60 vote majority in the senate, which meant that an almost certain Republican filibuster of the health care reform bill would supposedly fail. Yet, that is by no means certain. The Democratic majority in the Senate is not as united as the Republicans. This is due, in large part, to there being both conservative, moderate and liberal Democrats. There are also a number of fiscally conservative democrats who have grave questions about the health care proposal (as does this author). The Republican party, however, seems to be constantly getting more conservative, almost rabidly so, despite the claim of some of its leaders that its a party of inclusion. However, that is for a different topic. Its questionable at this time whether even were Sen. Kennedy still alive, that a vote on cloture would succeed. The Republican minority has, for the most part, been very vocal against the Democratic health care proposal, spreading a huge amount of misinformation and outright lies, and President Obama has not exhibited good leadership in pushing health care reform by placating wavering Democrats.
I do believe however, if a simple majority vote were taken, that the health care reform act, (some version of it anyway) would pass the US Senate.
The other word being brought forth from time to time is Reconciliation. Now, most of us, when we hear that word, understand its common meaning of to bring together. In the context of the current debate over health care reform, reconciliation would strip the Republicans of the ability to filibuster the health care reform bill(s). Thus, it would do anything except bring together, and would undoubtedly serve to further polarize the two parties.
Congress, acting under its authority in Article I, Section 5 to enact the rules of each house, introduced the concept of reconciliation in the Congressional Impoundment and Budget Control Act of 1974. The process is fairly simple: A concurrent resolution is passed which directs that a committee shall consider a bill that contains the provisions ordered in the resolution. Following that, the committee reports the bill to the Senate, and debate on the bill is then limited to no more than 20 hours. This effectively removes the ability to filibuster and guarantees a further vote on the bill. All bills are still subject to a simple majority vote in the US Senate.
Reconciliation was originally intended to allow budget matters to be passed over the objection of the minority party to help prevent budget impasse (Recall California's nightmare of recent memory) . However, any bill which is affecting revenues can be introduced under reconciliation, its not uncommon for bills to deal with a multitude of topics. The Byrd Rule (2 USC 644) provides areas which will normally allow an objection to parts of a bill under reconciliation. If crafted carefully, however, I believe that a health care reform bill could still be passed under reconciliation and survive the legislative process. The predicted court challenge to the bill would probably be denied by the courts as a political question, and our judiciary doesn't answer political questions such as this.
The Senate Democratic leadership has already given notice to the Republicans that reconciliation is an option if the Republicans do not cooperate. The Republicans, who will undoubtedly cry foul, will recall that it was the Republicans who have used, repeatedly, the process of reconciliation to pass matters relating to huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, which little if any tax relief for the middle class. Further, fair notice was provided in April, 2009 when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) informed the Senate Minority leader that he would consider reconciliation if the Republicans were not willing to compromise and to cooperate on health care reform. To date, the Republicans have seem to adopted a strategy they have tried to foist on millions of young Americans about drugs and alcohol: Just Say No! I can always hope that the Republicans will eventually realize that they must deal with this and not stick their fingers in their ears while screaming NO much longer, but I won't hold my breath waiting for it.
_________________________________________
Definitions: Inter alia Latin: Among other things
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Ted Kennedy
Last evening, a man who worked tirelessly for a better America, died. Whether you liked or hated his politics, it is hard to envision one man who better defined the idea of having a compassionate heart. I admired this man's genuine Christian charity and his willingness to face problems head on. I will miss his unique voice, and feel we will not see his like again for a long time.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Father's Little Dividend - part 2
"Be not afraid of life. Believe that life is worth living, and your belief will help create the fact."
Henry James
"Do not be too timid and squeamish about your reactions. All life is an experiment. The more experiments you make the better."
Ralph Waldo Emerson
When I was three years old, I had a conversation with my mother about losing baby teeth as I grew older, and how permanent teeth would replace them. My mother began to tell me about how the tooth fairy would visit. I was very interested in learning the details about losing my 'baby teeth', which ones would come out first, and so on. But when my mother tried to explain to me about the tooth fairy, I was mischievous. I had friends with older siblings who had 'visits' from the tooth fairy. A sweet but none the less mercenary child, I paid very close attention to the differing amounts that the older siblings received. I had observed that different kids got different amounts of cash for the same teeth.
I asked my mother to explain why that was. In fact, I did not for one moment believe in the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny, or Santa Clause either. I had worked it out quite logically; it had never seemed to me to be the slightest bit plausible, and as nearly as I can tell, I was born a skeptic. Being a somewhat mercenary child, as I have already mentioned, I also worked out, logically, that so long as the adults were enjoying themselves it was more likely that revealing that I did not believe the fantasies would end them: no more Santa Claus presents under the tree, no more Easter baskets, and clearly no loot for outgrown teeth. Bringing up the different amounts received initially seemed like an interesting negotiating tactic. But as the actual loss of teeth was a few years away, it was premature to haggle as to how much the tooth fairy MIGHT bring then, and leave under my pillow. So, instead, wicked child that I was, I led my poor, dear mother through a series of questions intending to tie her up in logical knots trying to explain the discrepancies. (Cut me some slack here, we were in the car, and I'd been well behaved for hours and hours of shopping; I was BORED out of my mind.) After I had tortured my wonderful mother long enough with my series of leading questions, I finally just folded my arms across my chest, and in dramatic exasperation, I told my mother point blank that I knew full well there was no Santa, no Easter bunny and no Tooth Fairy, along with a few other myths that I felt needed exploding. My mother tried to persuade me, passionately, but all she got from me was the big blue eyed stare that clearly indicated I wasn't buying it, and no amount of persuading was going to sell it to me. I made it clear to her that I had never at any time believed. Her concern was that older children had perhaps spoiled the fun for me. I was quite stern when I told her that I did not think it was a bit funny to exploit the trust of little kids, most of whom believed what adults told them - unlike me. And I expressed my considered opinion that those 'cute little stories' were actually lies, and those kids who did believe would just feel stupid and disappointed later.
So, I proposed a deal to my mother, that I still get all the loot from the various holidays, and the proceeds from losing my teeth, but I didn't have to pretend any more. I felt quite strongly my intelligence had been insulted in being expected to swallow those childish traditions, and I was not shy in expressing it. In exchange, I promised NOT to tell any other children, accepting my mother's premise that it was a matter between parents and their children. The no Santa Clause negotiation, the getting rid of babysitters I didn't like, a certain misadventure going visiting some distance away from home on my tricycle, all suggested to my poor unsuspecting parents that I might differ, significantly, from their expectations of child rearing. Life for my parents was one long roller coaster ride of 'guess what (the hell) she did now'.
Actually, I did once make my own roller coaster, and even persuaded my friends to join me riding on it, until my mother rather hysterically made us stop. My father had bought my mother a beautiful new car, which was parked in the garage. She loved that car. I and my friends each had the usual little red 'coaster' wagons. I had seen roller coasters on television, but my parents were convinced that I was too young to ride them; I was pre-kindergarten age at the time.
So, it was very logical to construct my own instead. I figured out that if you opened the car door, you could climb up on the seat, and from there if you were agile enough you could get on the car roof. Friends working together could lift up the coaster wagon so you could set it on the roof of the car. The roller coaster ride part came from getting into the wagon on the roof of the car, riding it down the windshield, across the hood, and becoming air born. Being a logical child I had carefully, thoughtfully contrived a safe landing by positioning the bags of sand and concrete that my father had bought for the field stone patio and stone terrace walls that were to be installed, where they were stacked against the garage wall. My friends and I had taken turns quite a few times, without any injury, although there were some marks from the wagon tires on the new car, when my mother came out of the house, curious about the loud thudding noises in the garage.
Either she realized very quickly that I and my little friends were none the worse for wear, or this was the one occasion in my entire life when my mother put a greater value on an inanimate object than she did on my well being. Whatever went through her mind, what came out of her mouth was an inarticulate scream at the top of her lungs. I and my friends left in a hurry, and I did not return home until dinner time that evening. Growing up, I had great faith in the existence of my own personal guardian angel; apparently they come in regular, AND industrial strength. Mine must have been the latter, if only to explain how I escaped justifiably being strangled by my loving parents. Fear has never been a big part of my decision making process; the things which frighten other people have never resulted in my receiving so much as a scratch.
When I was eleven, I had begun to make money babysitting my younger sibling. (I believe we have already established that I had a certain mercenary streak in the composition of my character.) My parents would allow me to baby sit for other people, if they were at home so they would be available if something happened. I was allowed to baby sit my younger sibling, if they were going to be going somewhere near by, and it was not going to be very late. I liked the money; there was a serious shortage of willing sitters, so I had augmented my chore-based allowance considerably. On a Friday night, my parents had considered going out to dinner, but kept changing their minds to stay in, which struck me as a bit unusual. I actively lobbied them to go out for the evening, and reluctantly they finally decided to go, but not very far, and not for very long. When I had begun babysitting, I had been very emphatic that I could handle anything that would come up; I was eager to prove my maturity and self-reliance to adults. My father was concerned that I was still rather young to be baby sitting, however smart, or mature I was for my age. He was at great pains to impress on me that home security did not include whatever notions I might have to improvise keeping out bad people. This insistence on his part significantly ruined my subsequent enjoyment of the McCauley Culkin "Home Alone" series of movies. My father assured me that if anyone was hurt because of oh, say an improvised man trap, that we could lose everything we owned. Likewise, he was at great pains to impress on us that we had to at all times keep the fence to our swimming pool locked, because of the laws regarding attractive nuisances, regardless of whether or not that seemed fair to us.
So, that evening, determined to show how well I could handle any eventuality, I found myself dealing with two men outside the house that didn't belong there. I directed my younger sibling to a place of hiding, for safety, and with the advantage of lights out, I enlisted the assistance of our vicious miniature schnauzer bitch. Under current laws, she easily would be considered a dangerous dog; but she was a useful deterrent to trespassers jumping the fence and using the pool. The two men had spent a considerable period of time outside the windows to my father's den. Armed with the Schnauzer, and a baseball bat, I calculated that they would be stuck in a sort of tactical bottle neck as they came through the window, leaving them distinctly vulnerable, especially in the dark. As they were struggling with removing the screen, I let go of the family dog, who as expected went thoroughly 'Cujo' on the window, snarling and growling and flinging herself around trying to get a solid bite of the first guy between her teeth. I had intended to back up her efforts with a few good swings of the bat, but never got the chance. The two intruders fled. In retrospect, I was probably a little too quick letting go of the dog.
I then got my sibling from hiding, called my parents, and then proceeded after that to call the police. My worst fear was that I was going to be in BIG trouble for the damage to the screen and the surrounding woodwork. The screen was in shreds, not even the frame surviving the dog's efforts to reach the intruders.
So when not only my parents arrived minutes later, but also the local police car, a police car from the adjoining municipality (they had a reciprocal arrangement), a county sheriff's car, a highway patrol vehicle, and an unmarked vehicle with two men in it, I happily concluded that there was more going on than a simple burglary attempt, and was relieved to be off the hook for the window damage. (I said I was mercenary, or at least, profit oriented.) I walked out the front door, with the Schnauzer firmly under one arm growling away at the officers in the front yard, and the baseball bat under my other arm, and sat down in my long ruffled flannel nightgown on the front step, waiting for an explanation.
I carefully told everyone all of the details about the men I had observed - and I HAD taken care to observe them before deciding to set the dog on them. And then I extracted from my father the information that in his capacity as an investment banker, he was cooperating with the federal authorities (apparently the FBI) in prosecuting some bad men for money laundering and stock fraud. I have a strong dislike for crime in general, and for white collar crime in particular dating back to that moment.
A few weeks later, my father came to the dinner table after coming home from the office, with a badly bruised right hand. Being very serious, he explained to my mother, my younger sibling, and I that the men who we believed had tried to break into his den had been at some kind of legal meeting that afternoon. One of them had made the threat to my father that it would be a shame if something bad happened to those two cute red headed kids of his; and that there were even worse things that could happen than dying. My father's quiet explanation for his injured hand was that he had lost his temper and hit the man. What he didn't tell me that I learned many years later was that before anyone could stop my father, he had laid the bigger of the two men out flat on the floor, and that it had taken three federal officers considerable effort to peel my father off of him.
My father asked each of us how we wanted to proceed. I recall it being unanimous that we didn't want him to give in to the pressure of threats. The down side was that after that we had to endure certain protective measures for a period of months that were ... well, lets just say they look like a lot more fun on television and in the movies. There were no further incidents, the bad guys were put behind bars. I'm sure it came as no surprise to my parents when I expressed the opinion that if the bad guys got past the protective people, given they were larger than I was, logically it made more sense to kill them, than to try to subdue them and subsequently to try to restrain them. Father still wouldn't let me take fire arms training however. He did venture the advice that if it ever came down to it, if I got someone down, to make sure they didn't get up again. I have no idea to this day if that was a euphemism or a generalization.
The same colleagues of my father who told me about the feds pulling my father off the crook did share with me that my father was quite amused at, and encouraged, by my intention to stop the bad guys if necessary, and that if the occasion arose, he believed I might actually succeed. I'm also very sure that the last thing my father ever wanted was for his darling 'precious princess' daughter to kill someone, even in self defense. I hope it helped him that fear was never part of my decision making, given the grief that gave him on other occasions.
All of which is the long way round leading up to my more recent adventures in uncovering an affinity crime. To be addressed in the next installment.
Henry James
"Do not be too timid and squeamish about your reactions. All life is an experiment. The more experiments you make the better."
Ralph Waldo Emerson
When I was three years old, I had a conversation with my mother about losing baby teeth as I grew older, and how permanent teeth would replace them. My mother began to tell me about how the tooth fairy would visit. I was very interested in learning the details about losing my 'baby teeth', which ones would come out first, and so on. But when my mother tried to explain to me about the tooth fairy, I was mischievous. I had friends with older siblings who had 'visits' from the tooth fairy. A sweet but none the less mercenary child, I paid very close attention to the differing amounts that the older siblings received. I had observed that different kids got different amounts of cash for the same teeth.
I asked my mother to explain why that was. In fact, I did not for one moment believe in the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny, or Santa Clause either. I had worked it out quite logically; it had never seemed to me to be the slightest bit plausible, and as nearly as I can tell, I was born a skeptic. Being a somewhat mercenary child, as I have already mentioned, I also worked out, logically, that so long as the adults were enjoying themselves it was more likely that revealing that I did not believe the fantasies would end them: no more Santa Claus presents under the tree, no more Easter baskets, and clearly no loot for outgrown teeth. Bringing up the different amounts received initially seemed like an interesting negotiating tactic. But as the actual loss of teeth was a few years away, it was premature to haggle as to how much the tooth fairy MIGHT bring then, and leave under my pillow. So, instead, wicked child that I was, I led my poor, dear mother through a series of questions intending to tie her up in logical knots trying to explain the discrepancies. (Cut me some slack here, we were in the car, and I'd been well behaved for hours and hours of shopping; I was BORED out of my mind.) After I had tortured my wonderful mother long enough with my series of leading questions, I finally just folded my arms across my chest, and in dramatic exasperation, I told my mother point blank that I knew full well there was no Santa, no Easter bunny and no Tooth Fairy, along with a few other myths that I felt needed exploding. My mother tried to persuade me, passionately, but all she got from me was the big blue eyed stare that clearly indicated I wasn't buying it, and no amount of persuading was going to sell it to me. I made it clear to her that I had never at any time believed. Her concern was that older children had perhaps spoiled the fun for me. I was quite stern when I told her that I did not think it was a bit funny to exploit the trust of little kids, most of whom believed what adults told them - unlike me. And I expressed my considered opinion that those 'cute little stories' were actually lies, and those kids who did believe would just feel stupid and disappointed later.
So, I proposed a deal to my mother, that I still get all the loot from the various holidays, and the proceeds from losing my teeth, but I didn't have to pretend any more. I felt quite strongly my intelligence had been insulted in being expected to swallow those childish traditions, and I was not shy in expressing it. In exchange, I promised NOT to tell any other children, accepting my mother's premise that it was a matter between parents and their children. The no Santa Clause negotiation, the getting rid of babysitters I didn't like, a certain misadventure going visiting some distance away from home on my tricycle, all suggested to my poor unsuspecting parents that I might differ, significantly, from their expectations of child rearing. Life for my parents was one long roller coaster ride of 'guess what (the hell) she did now'.
Actually, I did once make my own roller coaster, and even persuaded my friends to join me riding on it, until my mother rather hysterically made us stop. My father had bought my mother a beautiful new car, which was parked in the garage. She loved that car. I and my friends each had the usual little red 'coaster' wagons. I had seen roller coasters on television, but my parents were convinced that I was too young to ride them; I was pre-kindergarten age at the time.
So, it was very logical to construct my own instead. I figured out that if you opened the car door, you could climb up on the seat, and from there if you were agile enough you could get on the car roof. Friends working together could lift up the coaster wagon so you could set it on the roof of the car. The roller coaster ride part came from getting into the wagon on the roof of the car, riding it down the windshield, across the hood, and becoming air born. Being a logical child I had carefully, thoughtfully contrived a safe landing by positioning the bags of sand and concrete that my father had bought for the field stone patio and stone terrace walls that were to be installed, where they were stacked against the garage wall. My friends and I had taken turns quite a few times, without any injury, although there were some marks from the wagon tires on the new car, when my mother came out of the house, curious about the loud thudding noises in the garage.
Either she realized very quickly that I and my little friends were none the worse for wear, or this was the one occasion in my entire life when my mother put a greater value on an inanimate object than she did on my well being. Whatever went through her mind, what came out of her mouth was an inarticulate scream at the top of her lungs. I and my friends left in a hurry, and I did not return home until dinner time that evening. Growing up, I had great faith in the existence of my own personal guardian angel; apparently they come in regular, AND industrial strength. Mine must have been the latter, if only to explain how I escaped justifiably being strangled by my loving parents. Fear has never been a big part of my decision making process; the things which frighten other people have never resulted in my receiving so much as a scratch.
When I was eleven, I had begun to make money babysitting my younger sibling. (I believe we have already established that I had a certain mercenary streak in the composition of my character.) My parents would allow me to baby sit for other people, if they were at home so they would be available if something happened. I was allowed to baby sit my younger sibling, if they were going to be going somewhere near by, and it was not going to be very late. I liked the money; there was a serious shortage of willing sitters, so I had augmented my chore-based allowance considerably. On a Friday night, my parents had considered going out to dinner, but kept changing their minds to stay in, which struck me as a bit unusual. I actively lobbied them to go out for the evening, and reluctantly they finally decided to go, but not very far, and not for very long. When I had begun babysitting, I had been very emphatic that I could handle anything that would come up; I was eager to prove my maturity and self-reliance to adults. My father was concerned that I was still rather young to be baby sitting, however smart, or mature I was for my age. He was at great pains to impress on me that home security did not include whatever notions I might have to improvise keeping out bad people. This insistence on his part significantly ruined my subsequent enjoyment of the McCauley Culkin "Home Alone" series of movies. My father assured me that if anyone was hurt because of oh, say an improvised man trap, that we could lose everything we owned. Likewise, he was at great pains to impress on us that we had to at all times keep the fence to our swimming pool locked, because of the laws regarding attractive nuisances, regardless of whether or not that seemed fair to us.
So, that evening, determined to show how well I could handle any eventuality, I found myself dealing with two men outside the house that didn't belong there. I directed my younger sibling to a place of hiding, for safety, and with the advantage of lights out, I enlisted the assistance of our vicious miniature schnauzer bitch. Under current laws, she easily would be considered a dangerous dog; but she was a useful deterrent to trespassers jumping the fence and using the pool. The two men had spent a considerable period of time outside the windows to my father's den. Armed with the Schnauzer, and a baseball bat, I calculated that they would be stuck in a sort of tactical bottle neck as they came through the window, leaving them distinctly vulnerable, especially in the dark. As they were struggling with removing the screen, I let go of the family dog, who as expected went thoroughly 'Cujo' on the window, snarling and growling and flinging herself around trying to get a solid bite of the first guy between her teeth. I had intended to back up her efforts with a few good swings of the bat, but never got the chance. The two intruders fled. In retrospect, I was probably a little too quick letting go of the dog.
I then got my sibling from hiding, called my parents, and then proceeded after that to call the police. My worst fear was that I was going to be in BIG trouble for the damage to the screen and the surrounding woodwork. The screen was in shreds, not even the frame surviving the dog's efforts to reach the intruders.
So when not only my parents arrived minutes later, but also the local police car, a police car from the adjoining municipality (they had a reciprocal arrangement), a county sheriff's car, a highway patrol vehicle, and an unmarked vehicle with two men in it, I happily concluded that there was more going on than a simple burglary attempt, and was relieved to be off the hook for the window damage. (I said I was mercenary, or at least, profit oriented.) I walked out the front door, with the Schnauzer firmly under one arm growling away at the officers in the front yard, and the baseball bat under my other arm, and sat down in my long ruffled flannel nightgown on the front step, waiting for an explanation.
I carefully told everyone all of the details about the men I had observed - and I HAD taken care to observe them before deciding to set the dog on them. And then I extracted from my father the information that in his capacity as an investment banker, he was cooperating with the federal authorities (apparently the FBI) in prosecuting some bad men for money laundering and stock fraud. I have a strong dislike for crime in general, and for white collar crime in particular dating back to that moment.
A few weeks later, my father came to the dinner table after coming home from the office, with a badly bruised right hand. Being very serious, he explained to my mother, my younger sibling, and I that the men who we believed had tried to break into his den had been at some kind of legal meeting that afternoon. One of them had made the threat to my father that it would be a shame if something bad happened to those two cute red headed kids of his; and that there were even worse things that could happen than dying. My father's quiet explanation for his injured hand was that he had lost his temper and hit the man. What he didn't tell me that I learned many years later was that before anyone could stop my father, he had laid the bigger of the two men out flat on the floor, and that it had taken three federal officers considerable effort to peel my father off of him.
My father asked each of us how we wanted to proceed. I recall it being unanimous that we didn't want him to give in to the pressure of threats. The down side was that after that we had to endure certain protective measures for a period of months that were ... well, lets just say they look like a lot more fun on television and in the movies. There were no further incidents, the bad guys were put behind bars. I'm sure it came as no surprise to my parents when I expressed the opinion that if the bad guys got past the protective people, given they were larger than I was, logically it made more sense to kill them, than to try to subdue them and subsequently to try to restrain them. Father still wouldn't let me take fire arms training however. He did venture the advice that if it ever came down to it, if I got someone down, to make sure they didn't get up again. I have no idea to this day if that was a euphemism or a generalization.
The same colleagues of my father who told me about the feds pulling my father off the crook did share with me that my father was quite amused at, and encouraged, by my intention to stop the bad guys if necessary, and that if the occasion arose, he believed I might actually succeed. I'm also very sure that the last thing my father ever wanted was for his darling 'precious princess' daughter to kill someone, even in self defense. I hope it helped him that fear was never part of my decision making, given the grief that gave him on other occasions.
All of which is the long way round leading up to my more recent adventures in uncovering an affinity crime. To be addressed in the next installment.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Turning the Corner
Many reports, including that from a consortium of global bankers says, "We've turned the corner, things are getting better."
The economic meltdown precipitated by not just unwise, but probably illegal risk-taking in mortgage creation - apparently seems to be abating. Apparently.
However, those of us who look at employment number, look at public AND private debt, and look at wages holistically instead agree with the assessment of OTHER prominent economists, when we say, "No, we're just getting worse more slowly."
We spent nearly a decade funding an economy on home equity - and when that bubble burst, the house of cards that was the US economy came crashing down. We have FAR too many low paying service sector jobs, and too damned few jobs actually producing anything. We have FAR too much of the profit pie going to only the owners - a virtual flip-flop of slices of profits from 20 years ago (where 75% of profits went to labor during the Reagan years) to where 38% now goes there.
If we don't fix this employment curve, we don't fix the wage curve, and the debt curve with it - we are NOT getting better, we are simply dying more slowly.
The economic meltdown precipitated by not just unwise, but probably illegal risk-taking in mortgage creation - apparently seems to be abating. Apparently.
However, those of us who look at employment number, look at public AND private debt, and look at wages holistically instead agree with the assessment of OTHER prominent economists, when we say, "No, we're just getting worse more slowly."
We spent nearly a decade funding an economy on home equity - and when that bubble burst, the house of cards that was the US economy came crashing down. We have FAR too many low paying service sector jobs, and too damned few jobs actually producing anything. We have FAR too much of the profit pie going to only the owners - a virtual flip-flop of slices of profits from 20 years ago (where 75% of profits went to labor during the Reagan years) to where 38% now goes there.
If we don't fix this employment curve, we don't fix the wage curve, and the debt curve with it - we are NOT getting better, we are simply dying more slowly.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Ted Kennedy, Health Care and Replacements
Today, Ted Kennedy's office (on behalf of the Senator no doubt) asked the Massachusetts legislature to 'fast track' a replacement for him. It is undoubtedly due to Kennedy's dwindling number of days left him on God's earth.
In 2004, that same legislature required the replacement of a Senator to be done through a special election (with a campaign period of 5 months) - rather than appointment by the Governor (as is done in Minnesota, for example). This was done to avoid having Mitt Romney replace John Kerry with a conservative should Kerry have won the Presidency in 2004. It's certainly something which was crassly political, but also of course reflected the general opinion in Massachusetts. Kerry was very popular, replacing him with a conservative would not have been.
Now, Sen. Kennedy would like that process greatly accelerated. He wants it for a meaningful reason, he feels it may well take all 60 Democrats and Independents to carry forward Health Care Reform to closure.
However, that's not sufficient excuse to once again go back and amend the laws. The changes made in 2004 for political convenience, should not simply be undone for further political convenience. Tom Delay may have railroaded through gerrymandered changes in Texas in a crass and unscrupulous way, and in a way that Democrats rightly complained about, but if Mr. Kennedy doesn't want to appear to be a hypocrite (in the extreme), he should abide by a law he quite obviously favored in 2004.
He also should have been more forward looking and resigned his seat a while back, with sufficient time to have allowed for the special election to have concluded by the time he stepped down. Doing so now is too late, and Mr. Kennedy is wrong to try.
One of the key distinctions I see between conservatives and everyone else is that, for the most part, everyone else tries to live within the rules they set - Mr. Kennedy needs to stand up for the principals he otherwise believes in. Health care reform is extraordinarily important, but if it cannot pass without him, then he wasn't forward thinking enough, and frankly, perhaps it should not pass if his health is the lynch-pin of change.
In 2004, that same legislature required the replacement of a Senator to be done through a special election (with a campaign period of 5 months) - rather than appointment by the Governor (as is done in Minnesota, for example). This was done to avoid having Mitt Romney replace John Kerry with a conservative should Kerry have won the Presidency in 2004. It's certainly something which was crassly political, but also of course reflected the general opinion in Massachusetts. Kerry was very popular, replacing him with a conservative would not have been.
Now, Sen. Kennedy would like that process greatly accelerated. He wants it for a meaningful reason, he feels it may well take all 60 Democrats and Independents to carry forward Health Care Reform to closure.
However, that's not sufficient excuse to once again go back and amend the laws. The changes made in 2004 for political convenience, should not simply be undone for further political convenience. Tom Delay may have railroaded through gerrymandered changes in Texas in a crass and unscrupulous way, and in a way that Democrats rightly complained about, but if Mr. Kennedy doesn't want to appear to be a hypocrite (in the extreme), he should abide by a law he quite obviously favored in 2004.
He also should have been more forward looking and resigned his seat a while back, with sufficient time to have allowed for the special election to have concluded by the time he stepped down. Doing so now is too late, and Mr. Kennedy is wrong to try.
One of the key distinctions I see between conservatives and everyone else is that, for the most part, everyone else tries to live within the rules they set - Mr. Kennedy needs to stand up for the principals he otherwise believes in. Health care reform is extraordinarily important, but if it cannot pass without him, then he wasn't forward thinking enough, and frankly, perhaps it should not pass if his health is the lynch-pin of change.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Bob Novak
Yesterday, Bob Novak died from brain cancer.
Novak was a challenging figure for those of us left of George HW Bush. He was a competent foil, a sometimes blustering side-stepper, but more often than not, one of the few people willing to be honest about their own party as well as the other side's foibles.
I sometimes seethed watching Novak on Crossfire, feeling any competent commentator could shred his arguments, but I equally respected a man who in his later years especially was willing to speak out against excesses in financial services, in government overreaching, and generally in the ever shrinking quality of actual journalism (journalism where who, what, where, when and why were actually reported, without editorial commentary, and without succumbing to the idea that if there are two arguments, but one is not competent, it doesn't mean there is controversy).
I respected Novak in the later years of his life and wish his soul God'd speed on it's way, and offer my sympathies (for what they are worth) to his family and friends.
Novak was a challenging figure for those of us left of George HW Bush. He was a competent foil, a sometimes blustering side-stepper, but more often than not, one of the few people willing to be honest about their own party as well as the other side's foibles.
I sometimes seethed watching Novak on Crossfire, feeling any competent commentator could shred his arguments, but I equally respected a man who in his later years especially was willing to speak out against excesses in financial services, in government overreaching, and generally in the ever shrinking quality of actual journalism (journalism where who, what, where, when and why were actually reported, without editorial commentary, and without succumbing to the idea that if there are two arguments, but one is not competent, it doesn't mean there is controversy).
I respected Novak in the later years of his life and wish his soul God'd speed on it's way, and offer my sympathies (for what they are worth) to his family and friends.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Father's Little Dividend part1
There is poison in the fang of the serpent, in the mouth of the fly and in the sting of a scorpion; but the wicked man is saturated with it.
Chanakya
Indian strategist and writer,
350 BCE - 275 BCE
As a small child, when my parents would take me for walks, I was fascinated by the tragically flattened bodies of the road kill creatures: birds, squirrels, snakes and frogs. I felt sad for all of them that had lost their race with cars and trucks interrupting their natural world, but most of all I felt badly for the poor snakes that having no legs could never be quick enough. I suppose this was a foreshadowing of my lifelong fascination with comparative anatomy, noticing how the flat bits were alike and how they were different.
Feeling sympathy for the garter snakes in the yard, it hugely amused my parents that I would catch them, and put them in a galvanized steel pail kept in the garage for yard work. And when I had a bunch of them, I would get my parents to take me by the hand, and walk the snakes in the bucket across the street, dumping them out in the grass on the other side so they wouldn't get flattened by traffic on the street. Poor snakes, of course none of them really wanted to be caught by a child, and some of them probably had no desire to cross the road, and may very well have gotten flattened trying to get back, but I meant well. I learned not to be afraid of things that wriggle or slither, and to have a quick, gentle touch.
As an adult I have no fear of spiders, or rodents or reptiles, or predators; I do not have the 'Disney-esque' notion of 'good' animals in nature, and 'bad' animals. Nature is simply nature. It is a view that makes camping much less complicated. A few nights ago a bat, a 'flying mouse', found its way into the house for example, and instead of harming it, I ushered it back outside with the admonition to go eat more mosquitoes, many more mosquitoes. We could always use fewer mosquitoes.
My parents were less amused at my compassion for garden creatures when I realized at a tender age that while I was unafraid of snakes, it was a handy way to rid myself of crabby old ladies hired to be my babysitter. A few garter snakes stuffed in her purse; a little frog dropped in her soft drink, bye bye crabby old lady, and hello parents home early. Father being a stock broker found it important to attend a variety of social events like cocktail parties, and there were a few occasions where the answer to a fleeing baby sitter was to dress me up, threaten me within an inch of my life to be on my best behavior (checking no snakes were accompanying me), and to drag me along to very grown up events.
I was rigorously schooled, on threat of a serious spanking, to answer any conversation by an adult with the words "My mommy says children are to be seen and not heard", which I repeated as often as necessary, usually with a big, innocent smile for punctuation. I learned that you could wander around drinking a Shirley Temple, and old bald men smoking smelly cigars would sit you on their knee and think you were adorable, all the while talking in front of you as if you had the IQ of furniture if you just kept smiling. Old men and even some women will talk about things in front of a child they would never talk about in front of other adults. Old men tended to think all children are stupid, and that girl children were even less intelligent than boy children, in my experience. I didn't discourage that impression; I just enjoyed that a mop of red curls tied back with shiny ribbon, big blue eyes and freckles were disarming. Like many children, I figured out at an early age how to identify when adults were talking secretively, and that was the fun time to listen.
Not even my parents, who had some idea of what they were dealing with, expected that on the drive home from these events, their little precocious darling would spout out information picked up over the course of the evening about price earning ratios, IPOs, reverse stock splits, mergers and changes in boards of directors. Or short selling. Short selling was always very interesting. Dad had always encouraged me to ask questions, and always patiently explained; but even he hadn't really expected that I was paying the kind of attention to his answers that would translate into understanding other adults' conversations. Really good evenings out after ditching the sitter resulted in dad cutting loose on the drive home with a big string of euphoric expletives after one of my little recitations of things I'd heard, given that swearing was fairly strictly avoided at home.
When my dad took to referring to me a 'father's little dividend' as a term of endearment, he wasn't referring to the old Spencer Tracy / Liz Taylor movie. He was referring to real money, our little private joke. To his credit, he never, ever directed me to listen to anyone or for anything. I doubt my parents ever knew enough of what to expect from me to even consider that possibility; I tended to be full of the unexpected. My parents certainly never planned on my little babysitter removal events at all, they were always a total consternation. I doubt all of what I heard was useful, but some of it certainly was helpful, sometimes very helpful, and very profitable.
My parents took a lot of flack for spoiling me and being over-indulgent, but I discovered that wasn't all bad so long as I displayed precocious manners and was on my best behavior. Usually even the sternest grown ups could be won over, with a little effort. Most of them thought my feeling sorry for little garden snakes was sweet. A few old crabs were convinced that any child who would deliberately get rid of a babysitter the way I did must be some kind of incipient monster. I always figured those must be the people my mother meant when she said that there were people who didn't like and didn't trust you if you were too smart, so it was best not to show off, not to let them know what you were thinking. Best to smile, and move away from them.
I spent much more time with adults than I did with children; I suppose that had distinct effect on how I observed them. Very few adults really observe children very carefully, but children, being dependent on adults become very keen observers of them, of necessity, as are many animals. Even when they don't understand words, they understand subtleties of body language and tone of voice, and expression.
Chanakya
Indian strategist and writer,
350 BCE - 275 BCE
As a small child, when my parents would take me for walks, I was fascinated by the tragically flattened bodies of the road kill creatures: birds, squirrels, snakes and frogs. I felt sad for all of them that had lost their race with cars and trucks interrupting their natural world, but most of all I felt badly for the poor snakes that having no legs could never be quick enough. I suppose this was a foreshadowing of my lifelong fascination with comparative anatomy, noticing how the flat bits were alike and how they were different.
Feeling sympathy for the garter snakes in the yard, it hugely amused my parents that I would catch them, and put them in a galvanized steel pail kept in the garage for yard work. And when I had a bunch of them, I would get my parents to take me by the hand, and walk the snakes in the bucket across the street, dumping them out in the grass on the other side so they wouldn't get flattened by traffic on the street. Poor snakes, of course none of them really wanted to be caught by a child, and some of them probably had no desire to cross the road, and may very well have gotten flattened trying to get back, but I meant well. I learned not to be afraid of things that wriggle or slither, and to have a quick, gentle touch.
As an adult I have no fear of spiders, or rodents or reptiles, or predators; I do not have the 'Disney-esque' notion of 'good' animals in nature, and 'bad' animals. Nature is simply nature. It is a view that makes camping much less complicated. A few nights ago a bat, a 'flying mouse', found its way into the house for example, and instead of harming it, I ushered it back outside with the admonition to go eat more mosquitoes, many more mosquitoes. We could always use fewer mosquitoes.
My parents were less amused at my compassion for garden creatures when I realized at a tender age that while I was unafraid of snakes, it was a handy way to rid myself of crabby old ladies hired to be my babysitter. A few garter snakes stuffed in her purse; a little frog dropped in her soft drink, bye bye crabby old lady, and hello parents home early. Father being a stock broker found it important to attend a variety of social events like cocktail parties, and there were a few occasions where the answer to a fleeing baby sitter was to dress me up, threaten me within an inch of my life to be on my best behavior (checking no snakes were accompanying me), and to drag me along to very grown up events.
I was rigorously schooled, on threat of a serious spanking, to answer any conversation by an adult with the words "My mommy says children are to be seen and not heard", which I repeated as often as necessary, usually with a big, innocent smile for punctuation. I learned that you could wander around drinking a Shirley Temple, and old bald men smoking smelly cigars would sit you on their knee and think you were adorable, all the while talking in front of you as if you had the IQ of furniture if you just kept smiling. Old men and even some women will talk about things in front of a child they would never talk about in front of other adults. Old men tended to think all children are stupid, and that girl children were even less intelligent than boy children, in my experience. I didn't discourage that impression; I just enjoyed that a mop of red curls tied back with shiny ribbon, big blue eyes and freckles were disarming. Like many children, I figured out at an early age how to identify when adults were talking secretively, and that was the fun time to listen.
Not even my parents, who had some idea of what they were dealing with, expected that on the drive home from these events, their little precocious darling would spout out information picked up over the course of the evening about price earning ratios, IPOs, reverse stock splits, mergers and changes in boards of directors. Or short selling. Short selling was always very interesting. Dad had always encouraged me to ask questions, and always patiently explained; but even he hadn't really expected that I was paying the kind of attention to his answers that would translate into understanding other adults' conversations. Really good evenings out after ditching the sitter resulted in dad cutting loose on the drive home with a big string of euphoric expletives after one of my little recitations of things I'd heard, given that swearing was fairly strictly avoided at home.
When my dad took to referring to me a 'father's little dividend' as a term of endearment, he wasn't referring to the old Spencer Tracy / Liz Taylor movie. He was referring to real money, our little private joke. To his credit, he never, ever directed me to listen to anyone or for anything. I doubt my parents ever knew enough of what to expect from me to even consider that possibility; I tended to be full of the unexpected. My parents certainly never planned on my little babysitter removal events at all, they were always a total consternation. I doubt all of what I heard was useful, but some of it certainly was helpful, sometimes very helpful, and very profitable.
My parents took a lot of flack for spoiling me and being over-indulgent, but I discovered that wasn't all bad so long as I displayed precocious manners and was on my best behavior. Usually even the sternest grown ups could be won over, with a little effort. Most of them thought my feeling sorry for little garden snakes was sweet. A few old crabs were convinced that any child who would deliberately get rid of a babysitter the way I did must be some kind of incipient monster. I always figured those must be the people my mother meant when she said that there were people who didn't like and didn't trust you if you were too smart, so it was best not to show off, not to let them know what you were thinking. Best to smile, and move away from them.
I spent much more time with adults than I did with children; I suppose that had distinct effect on how I observed them. Very few adults really observe children very carefully, but children, being dependent on adults become very keen observers of them, of necessity, as are many animals. Even when they don't understand words, they understand subtleties of body language and tone of voice, and expression.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Ted and Eunice Kennedy
Eunice Kennedy, the crusading sister of John, Robert and Ted Kennedy was laid to rest today.
Notably, Ted Kennedy, the senior Senator from Massachusetts was absent. His absence is ominous - and signals his life is doubtless drawing to a close as he succumbs to the brain cancer which afflicts him, and reduces his voice and vigor. (Full disclosure, I like Ted Kennedy, I worked for his campaign in 1980 (as a teenager)).
Whether you agree with the politics of the Kennedy's in general, it would be hard to argue that they have (as a set of siblings), championed a cause of compassion, much like Paul Wellstone did in Minnesota, throughout their entire lives. They sometimes had feet of clay, as most of us do under scrutiny - but they often stood for what is best in us, kindness, charity, humility and generosity without scorn, derision or judgment.
Eunice Kennedy spent such a life outside the realm of politics, and Ted spent it within it. When Ted passes, the world will be just a little cheaper and just a little meaner for their loss.
Notably, Ted Kennedy, the senior Senator from Massachusetts was absent. His absence is ominous - and signals his life is doubtless drawing to a close as he succumbs to the brain cancer which afflicts him, and reduces his voice and vigor. (Full disclosure, I like Ted Kennedy, I worked for his campaign in 1980 (as a teenager)).
Whether you agree with the politics of the Kennedy's in general, it would be hard to argue that they have (as a set of siblings), championed a cause of compassion, much like Paul Wellstone did in Minnesota, throughout their entire lives. They sometimes had feet of clay, as most of us do under scrutiny - but they often stood for what is best in us, kindness, charity, humility and generosity without scorn, derision or judgment.
Eunice Kennedy spent such a life outside the realm of politics, and Ted spent it within it. When Ted passes, the world will be just a little cheaper and just a little meaner for their loss.
Palin's 'Death Panel' Hypocrisy
“The zeal which begins with hypocrisy must conclude in treachery; at first it deceives, at last it betrays."
Francis Bacon
English Lawyer and Philosopher
1561-1626
“The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity."
Andre Gide
French writer, humanist and moralist,
1947 nobel prize for literature,
1869-1951
This was an instance where I felt it appropriate to say less, and to let the document say it more eloquently in my place.
www.gov.state.ak.us/proclamations.php?id=1094
Health Care Decisions Day
WHEREAS, Healthcare Decisions Day is designed to raise public awareness of the need to plan ahead for healthcare decisions, related to the end of life care and medical decision-making whenever patients are unable to speak for themselves and to encourage the specific use advance directives to communicate these important health care decisions.
WHEREAS, in Alaska, Alaska Statute 13.52 provides the specifics of the advance directives law and provides a model form for patient use.
WHEREAS, it is estimated that only about 20% of the people in Alaska have executed an advance directive. Moreover it is estimated that less than 50% of severely or terminally ill patients have an advance directive.
WHEREAS, it is likely that a significant reason for these low percentages is that there is both a lack of knowledge and considerable confusion in the public about Advance Directives.
WHEREAS, one of the principal goals of Healthcare Decisions Day is to encourage Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Assisted Living facilities, continuing care retirement communities, and hospices to participate in a statewide effort to provide clear and consistent information to the public about advance directives, as well as to encourage medical professionals and lawyers to provide their time and efforts to improve public knowledge and increase the number of Alaskan citizens with advance directives.
WHEREAS. the Foundation for End of Life Care in Juneau, Alaska and other organizations throughout the United States have endorsed this event and are committed to educating the public about the importance of discussing healthcare choices and executing advance directives.
WHEREAS, as a result of April 16, 2008 being recognized as Healthcare Decisions Day in Alaska, more citizens will have conversations about their healthcare decisions; more citizens will execute advance directives to make their wishes known; and fewer families and healthcare providers will have to struggle with making difficult healthcare decisions in the absence of guidance from the patient.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Sarah Palin, Governor of the state of Alaska, do hereby proclaim April 16, 2008, as: Healthcare Decisions Day in Alaska, and I call this observance to the attention of all our citizens.
Dated: April 16, 2008
Francis Bacon
English Lawyer and Philosopher
1561-1626
“The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity."
Andre Gide
French writer, humanist and moralist,
1947 nobel prize for literature,
1869-1951
This was an instance where I felt it appropriate to say less, and to let the document say it more eloquently in my place.
www.gov.state.ak.us/proclamations.php?id=1094
Health Care Decisions Day
WHEREAS, Healthcare Decisions Day is designed to raise public awareness of the need to plan ahead for healthcare decisions, related to the end of life care and medical decision-making whenever patients are unable to speak for themselves and to encourage the specific use advance directives to communicate these important health care decisions.
WHEREAS, in Alaska, Alaska Statute 13.52 provides the specifics of the advance directives law and provides a model form for patient use.
WHEREAS, it is estimated that only about 20% of the people in Alaska have executed an advance directive. Moreover it is estimated that less than 50% of severely or terminally ill patients have an advance directive.
WHEREAS, it is likely that a significant reason for these low percentages is that there is both a lack of knowledge and considerable confusion in the public about Advance Directives.
WHEREAS, one of the principal goals of Healthcare Decisions Day is to encourage Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Assisted Living facilities, continuing care retirement communities, and hospices to participate in a statewide effort to provide clear and consistent information to the public about advance directives, as well as to encourage medical professionals and lawyers to provide their time and efforts to improve public knowledge and increase the number of Alaskan citizens with advance directives.
WHEREAS. the Foundation for End of Life Care in Juneau, Alaska and other organizations throughout the United States have endorsed this event and are committed to educating the public about the importance of discussing healthcare choices and executing advance directives.
WHEREAS, as a result of April 16, 2008 being recognized as Healthcare Decisions Day in Alaska, more citizens will have conversations about their healthcare decisions; more citizens will execute advance directives to make their wishes known; and fewer families and healthcare providers will have to struggle with making difficult healthcare decisions in the absence of guidance from the patient.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Sarah Palin, Governor of the state of Alaska, do hereby proclaim April 16, 2008, as: Healthcare Decisions Day in Alaska, and I call this observance to the attention of all our citizens.
Dated: April 16, 2008
Thursday, August 13, 2009
That'll Teach 'Em?
“Let reverence for the laws be breathed by every American mother to the lisping babe that prattles on her lap. Let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges. Let it be written in primers, spelling books, and in almanacs. Let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in the courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation.”
Abraham Lincoln
16Th US President (1861-65),
1809 -1865
70 Professors Protest the Hiring of Alberto Gonzales at Texas Tech
(Update, as of 5 PM, 8/18/09, the number of petition signers is at 88)
Some 70 professors at Texas Tech University have signed a petition protesting the hiring of former U. S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The petition was started by long time ethics professor Walter Schaller, not unlike the earlier faculty protests against John Yoo being hired at Berkeley. Perhaps it is just me, but to have 70 potential colleagues protest in writing seems a pretty strong statement about how Gonzales is accepted, or more precisely rejected by his would be peers.
There are other unusual aspects to the hiring of Gonzales. For example, he is NOT being hired to teach law, which is his area of expertise. Gonzales former law firm would not take him back; and no one else in the private sector has expressed a desire to hire him, which certainly reflects on his abilities as a lawyer. Gonzales is writing a book, as are many former Bush administration alumni. Unlike those other administration alumni, so far no publisher is in a hurry to market Gonzales' story.
His one and only class, so far, consists of only 15 students, although there is talk about expanding the class size slightly. That class has already filled; this may be less of a kudos than it seems. In interviews, students have indicated they look forward to being able to put Gonzales on the spot with hard questions about his tenure with Bush. A number of students have expressed disapproval of having Gonzales on campus, on the basis of the ethical objections; they view it as a contradiction to the schools ethical policies, and to the school's motto "Do The Right Thing".
Gonzales is already having to decline to speak on some subjects because of ongoing investigations. Not, I would think, the most graceful excuse to decline to answer a difficult inquiry. And as the subject of Gonzales' class is in part to explain how things operated behind the scenes at the White House, it would suggest at the very least obstacles to Gonzales teaching this subject until after those investigations have been concluded.
Besides teaching, his other duties involve recruiting minority students. (Maybe it is just me who wonders this, but why would anyone seek the help or endorsement of a guy who left public service in such disgrace, who can't get a regular academic job, and who is so despised by the other professors.) Further, Gonzales was not even hired at Texas Tech through the normal channels; he was hired by the Chancellor, which is apparently highly unusual. This certainly suggests that the hire for the one class of fifteen students was some sort of 'good ol' boy network favor' employment.
While the signers of the petition do not realistically hope to see Gonzales removed from teaching this fall, the reason so many have signed is that there is a concern that Gonzales might be kept on for future teaching. The petition itself can be viewed at http://www.//:lubbockonline.com/pdfs/07-25petition.pdf
The objections in the petition fall into two categories, ethical objections, and academic objections.
According to the petition, for teaching the one class to only fifteen students, and the nebulous 'outreach' to minority students, Gonzales will be paid.... $100,000.00. It is noted in the petition that for that amount of money, "two top visiting professors could be hired from the best universities in the world." It should be noted, that so far as I can determine, and so far as the signers of the petition were aware, Gonzales apparently has never taught a class before, not a graduate class, not an undergraduate class. The petition specifically questions whether he even knows how to teach.
I find that an interesting fact in view of Gonzales receiving such a very large salary for teaching only 15 students.
Nice work if you can get it.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Give me your tired, your poor
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
-- From a Poem by Emma Lazarus on the pedestal, Statue of Liberty, New York
Nearly all of the people in the United States today are either immigrants or are descended from immigrants, no matter how far back one wants to go. With the exception of the indigenous population, from the beginning of colonization of the New World in the 1500’s, we or our forefathers came here from other places.
Now, in the late 20th and early 21st century, we are dealing with another problem that has come to the forefront of political debate from time to time, and a solution continues to vex American politicians of both parties. That is the problem of immigration reform. There is nearly universal agreement that the US immigration system has massive problems; the agreement on how to fix it is less clear.
First, let’s define terms. For the purposes of this discussion, I will use the following definition: An illegal alien is a person who is not a US Citizen and who in this country and who falls into one of two categories: Entry Without Inspection (meaning crossing a valid US Border checkpoint and being admitted by a customs inspector), or Entry With Inspection (but who has violated the terms of their visa permitting entry) Aliens who have entered without inspection are treated much more harshly than an alien who has entered with inspection and who has violated a term of their visa permitting them to remain in the US. There are at least 11 million illegal aliens, and this number is probably in error in that it is too low. The reason the number is probably too low is that there is no reliable way to count illegal aliens; most are not interested in showing up to be counted by the government for any reason.
Next, let’s examine what we do about illegal aliens currently. If someone is found to be in the US illegally, it can be because they were swept up in an ICE (Immigrations and Customs Enforcement) raid (such as the highly publicized raid in Iowa not too long ago), but more often, its due to a criminal conviction and/or jailing pending trial. Many jails routinely screen for immigration status and inform ICE if the person appears to be in the US in violation of immigration law. Once ICE has been advised, they normally place an “immigration hold” on the person. The tricky part is that if ICE doesn’t take custody of the person within 48 hours of completing the sentence (if the person is serving one) or being otherwise eligible for bail, the person has a right to petition for a writ of habeus corpus to be released from custody. Let’s assume, however, that ICE comes and takes custody.
The person will then be brought before an immigration judge, and asked if they agree that they are subject to removal from the US. If they agree, then they are either allowed to voluntarily remove themselves from the US or are deported back to their country of origin. (Sometimes a bond is required if they are allowed to voluntarily remove themselves) If they disagree, they may be held pending a hearing at which point the government must prove that they are ineligible to stay in the US for a variety of reasons (that I won’t discuss here for brevity’s sake)
The reasons that people enter the US illegally are complex, but include the fact that there are opportunities available in the US that do not exist in their home countries. This includes jobs, better working conditions, and higher pay. The argument has been made that illegal immigrants take jobs away from US citizens. A counter argument has been made that illegal immigrants generally take low paying jobs that US citizens won’t take. Both sides of the debate present data which tend to back up their claims, and the truth is probably closer to both sides being correct. Illegal immigrants may very well take some jobs away from US citizens, but at the same time, they also take jobs that US citizens won’t take.
I always think it is disingenuous to identify a problem without a solution. I don’t think this is a crisis by any means. I think there is room for improvement in our system, and I do not think its feasible to simply round up and deport the huge numbers of illegal immigrants that we have in the US as some on the far right have demanded. Nor do I propose granting amnesty.
I give some credit to President Bush for daring to take on the problem of illegal immigration and for proposing some solutions which were very against the majority of the Republican party. In the field of immigration law reform, the Republican party is between a rock and a hard place. The right-wing base seems to have the idea that it would be practical to try to deport at least 10 million people from the United States. This is not an idea grounded in reality. Others within the Republican party enjoy the idea of having illegal workers in the US, because they can be exploited to work for practically slave labor wages.
My suggestion for the illegal immigration problem is two fold:Now, in the late 20th and early 21st century, we are dealing with another problem that has come to the forefront of political debate from time to time, and a solution continues to vex American politicians of both parties. That is the problem of immigration reform. There is nearly universal agreement that the US immigration system has massive problems; the agreement on how to fix it is less clear.
First, let’s define terms. For the purposes of this discussion, I will use the following definition: An illegal alien is a person who is not a US Citizen and who in this country and who falls into one of two categories: Entry Without Inspection (meaning crossing a valid US Border checkpoint and being admitted by a customs inspector), or Entry With Inspection (but who has violated the terms of their visa permitting entry) Aliens who have entered without inspection are treated much more harshly than an alien who has entered with inspection and who has violated a term of their visa permitting them to remain in the US. There are at least 11 million illegal aliens, and this number is probably in error in that it is too low. The reason the number is probably too low is that there is no reliable way to count illegal aliens; most are not interested in showing up to be counted by the government for any reason.
Next, let’s examine what we do about illegal aliens currently. If someone is found to be in the US illegally, it can be because they were swept up in an ICE (Immigrations and Customs Enforcement) raid (such as the highly publicized raid in Iowa not too long ago), but more often, its due to a criminal conviction and/or jailing pending trial. Many jails routinely screen for immigration status and inform ICE if the person appears to be in the US in violation of immigration law. Once ICE has been advised, they normally place an “immigration hold” on the person. The tricky part is that if ICE doesn’t take custody of the person within 48 hours of completing the sentence (if the person is serving one) or being otherwise eligible for bail, the person has a right to petition for a writ of habeus corpus to be released from custody. Let’s assume, however, that ICE comes and takes custody.
The person will then be brought before an immigration judge, and asked if they agree that they are subject to removal from the US. If they agree, then they are either allowed to voluntarily remove themselves from the US or are deported back to their country of origin. (Sometimes a bond is required if they are allowed to voluntarily remove themselves) If they disagree, they may be held pending a hearing at which point the government must prove that they are ineligible to stay in the US for a variety of reasons (that I won’t discuss here for brevity’s sake)
The reasons that people enter the US illegally are complex, but include the fact that there are opportunities available in the US that do not exist in their home countries. This includes jobs, better working conditions, and higher pay. The argument has been made that illegal immigrants take jobs away from US citizens. A counter argument has been made that illegal immigrants generally take low paying jobs that US citizens won’t take. Both sides of the debate present data which tend to back up their claims, and the truth is probably closer to both sides being correct. Illegal immigrants may very well take some jobs away from US citizens, but at the same time, they also take jobs that US citizens won’t take.
I always think it is disingenuous to identify a problem without a solution. I don’t think this is a crisis by any means. I think there is room for improvement in our system, and I do not think its feasible to simply round up and deport the huge numbers of illegal immigrants that we have in the US as some on the far right have demanded. Nor do I propose granting amnesty.
I give some credit to President Bush for daring to take on the problem of illegal immigration and for proposing some solutions which were very against the majority of the Republican party. In the field of immigration law reform, the Republican party is between a rock and a hard place. The right-wing base seems to have the idea that it would be practical to try to deport at least 10 million people from the United States. This is not an idea grounded in reality. Others within the Republican party enjoy the idea of having illegal workers in the US, because they can be exploited to work for practically slave labor wages.
1. We must stop the economic incentive that illegal aliens have for coming to the US. This means we must pass and enforce strict new laws concerning employers or contractors who hire illegal aliens. A suggested regulation or statute would read as follows:
A. Upon acceptance for hire, all employers in the United States who collect payroll taxes from employees must examine government issued photo identification and an original social security card upon which the name matches the photo identification. Anyone who operates on a contract or subcontractor relationship shall also comply with this Act. The social security number thus provided bust be provided to the USCIS (US Customs and Immigration Service) for verification against the USCIS database within 72 hours of acceptance of employment. The USCIS shall maintain a database of all persons eligible to work in the US. If the employer is notified by USCIS that the social security number thus provided does not match the name then:
(1) The employer must provide the prospective employee with this information and give the employee the name and address of the nearest social security office and the USCIS office.
(2) The employer may provisionally hire the prospective employee, but shall demand that they produce government issued photo identification and an original social security card and re-enter tha number thus provided into the USCIS database no less than 30 days nor more than 45 days after the initial entry. If the employer is notified by the USCIS that the social security number does not match the name or that the person is not eligible to work in the US, the employer must immediately terminate the employee until such time as USCIS can report that the social security number and name match and that the person is eligible to work in the US.
(3) The employer may not repeat the process in Section 1(A)(1) and (2) more than one time for any particular individual. The employer shall report to local law enforcement the name and last known address of any individual who produces more than 2 sets of identity documents showing different names.
B. If the employer is notified by USCIS that the social security number thus provided is not valid for employment, the employer must immediately terminate or refuse to hire the individual.
C. Any employer who fails to comply with Sections A or B shal be deemed for the purpose of this act to have knowingly hired a person not authorized to work in the United States.
D. Any employer who knowingly hires a person not authorized to work in the United States is guilty of a felony and upon conviction shall be punished as follows:
(1) For the first offense committed after this statute is effective, a fine in the sum of $25,000 per unauthorized person found in the employ of said employer.
(2) For the second offense committed within ten years of a first offense, a fine in the sum of $50,000 per unauthorized person found in the employ of said employer.
(3) For a third offense committed within ten years of a first offense, the employer shall be deeded to be operating a continuing criminal enterprise and all property of the employer, including real and personal, and any proceeds of the crime, shall be subect to forefeit to the United States. The Court shall determine, after hearing, the extent to which the property has been involved, but the Court shall include the physical location where the violation occurred in its determination.
The above proposed legislation would help with the people who are both here now, and are tempted to come in the future. Would it stop it entirely? No, it would not. There will always be some who are willing to come and gamble that they can find someone who would hire them and not pay any attention to the rules. It would help with the institutionalized hiring of illegal aliens that is routine in some American industries. Under this proposed legislation, any employer, not just large companies, would be required to comply with this requirement, as would anyone who hires "subcontractors" but who does not withhold payroll taxes.
2. As far as those who are currently here illegally, I would give the above legislation a chance to work, but would also given an opportunity for these people to bring themselves legal. I would show them that there is an opportunity in the US, but to earn the right to legally work in the US would not be easy, nor would it be free. Hopefully, many of those who are here illegally would decide to return home when they could not find work. For those who chose not to, beginning on the effective date of the statute and for a period of two years, those who are illegally in the US can apply for provisional residency status, with some provisions:
A. The illegal alien must show that they have been in the US for a period of at least five years prior to the effective date of the statute. The USCIS will develop a list of documentation which is acceptable for proof, including but not limited to employment records. Said employment records can only be used for proof of residency.
B. The illegal alien must undergo a criminal background check to determine if they are otherwise admissible for residency in the US.
C. The illegal alien must, within five years of being granted provisional residency status, complete the following:
(1) Pay a civil fine of $2,500 for every year that the illegal was in the US prior to application. Such civil fine is not discharged in bankruptcy.
(2) Declare, file and pay any income taxes due and owing for every year the illegal alien was in the US prior to application. If no W-2 can be obtained, the illegal alien must declare all income as self employment. The Internal Revenue Service shall share such income tax returns with USCIS upon request.
(3) Maintain continuous employment for the five year period of provisional residency. If unemployed during this time, such period of unemployment may not exceed 6 months nor may there be an aggregate of more than 1 year of unemployment. No person under 18 shall be required to maintain employment if a dependent or dependent spouse of a provisional resident. A person under 18 years who reaches the age of 18 years during the period of provisional residency shall, if not enrolled full time in a bona fide institution of post-secondardy education, be employed during the remaining period of provisional residency. No one above the age of 72 years or disabled pursuant to the Social Security Disability Act shall be required to maintain employment, but no provisional resident shall be eligible for payments under the Social Security Disability Act unless they otherwise qualify based upon eligible periods of employment.
(4) Demonstrate continuing compliance with all US and state laws and tax provisions.
D. If, after the five year period of provisional residency has expired, all requirements have been met, the provisional resident shall apply for and be granted permanent resident status. Failure to apply for permanent resident status within one year of the ending of provisional resident status shall terminate provisional residency and the provisional resident must leave the US.
The above may seem harsh, and a high burden to overcome, but it is better than deportation and it is far from granting amnesty. This proposal allows for those who find they truly wish to stay in the US to apply for permission to be here legally, but that the process of doing so will not be cheap and it won't be easy. It should not be. They chose to break our law and enter illegally, and they can comply with our law or go home.
A. Upon acceptance for hire, all employers in the United States who collect payroll taxes from employees must examine government issued photo identification and an original social security card upon which the name matches the photo identification. Anyone who operates on a contract or subcontractor relationship shall also comply with this Act. The social security number thus provided bust be provided to the USCIS (US Customs and Immigration Service) for verification against the USCIS database within 72 hours of acceptance of employment. The USCIS shall maintain a database of all persons eligible to work in the US. If the employer is notified by USCIS that the social security number thus provided does not match the name then:
(1) The employer must provide the prospective employee with this information and give the employee the name and address of the nearest social security office and the USCIS office.
(2) The employer may provisionally hire the prospective employee, but shall demand that they produce government issued photo identification and an original social security card and re-enter tha number thus provided into the USCIS database no less than 30 days nor more than 45 days after the initial entry. If the employer is notified by the USCIS that the social security number does not match the name or that the person is not eligible to work in the US, the employer must immediately terminate the employee until such time as USCIS can report that the social security number and name match and that the person is eligible to work in the US.
(3) The employer may not repeat the process in Section 1(A)(1) and (2) more than one time for any particular individual. The employer shall report to local law enforcement the name and last known address of any individual who produces more than 2 sets of identity documents showing different names.
B. If the employer is notified by USCIS that the social security number thus provided is not valid for employment, the employer must immediately terminate or refuse to hire the individual.
C. Any employer who fails to comply with Sections A or B shal be deemed for the purpose of this act to have knowingly hired a person not authorized to work in the United States.
D. Any employer who knowingly hires a person not authorized to work in the United States is guilty of a felony and upon conviction shall be punished as follows:
(1) For the first offense committed after this statute is effective, a fine in the sum of $25,000 per unauthorized person found in the employ of said employer.
(2) For the second offense committed within ten years of a first offense, a fine in the sum of $50,000 per unauthorized person found in the employ of said employer.
(3) For a third offense committed within ten years of a first offense, the employer shall be deeded to be operating a continuing criminal enterprise and all property of the employer, including real and personal, and any proceeds of the crime, shall be subect to forefeit to the United States. The Court shall determine, after hearing, the extent to which the property has been involved, but the Court shall include the physical location where the violation occurred in its determination.
The above proposed legislation would help with the people who are both here now, and are tempted to come in the future. Would it stop it entirely? No, it would not. There will always be some who are willing to come and gamble that they can find someone who would hire them and not pay any attention to the rules. It would help with the institutionalized hiring of illegal aliens that is routine in some American industries. Under this proposed legislation, any employer, not just large companies, would be required to comply with this requirement, as would anyone who hires "subcontractors" but who does not withhold payroll taxes.
2. As far as those who are currently here illegally, I would give the above legislation a chance to work, but would also given an opportunity for these people to bring themselves legal. I would show them that there is an opportunity in the US, but to earn the right to legally work in the US would not be easy, nor would it be free. Hopefully, many of those who are here illegally would decide to return home when they could not find work. For those who chose not to, beginning on the effective date of the statute and for a period of two years, those who are illegally in the US can apply for provisional residency status, with some provisions:
A. The illegal alien must show that they have been in the US for a period of at least five years prior to the effective date of the statute. The USCIS will develop a list of documentation which is acceptable for proof, including but not limited to employment records. Said employment records can only be used for proof of residency.
B. The illegal alien must undergo a criminal background check to determine if they are otherwise admissible for residency in the US.
C. The illegal alien must, within five years of being granted provisional residency status, complete the following:
(1) Pay a civil fine of $2,500 for every year that the illegal was in the US prior to application. Such civil fine is not discharged in bankruptcy.
(2) Declare, file and pay any income taxes due and owing for every year the illegal alien was in the US prior to application. If no W-2 can be obtained, the illegal alien must declare all income as self employment. The Internal Revenue Service shall share such income tax returns with USCIS upon request.
(3) Maintain continuous employment for the five year period of provisional residency. If unemployed during this time, such period of unemployment may not exceed 6 months nor may there be an aggregate of more than 1 year of unemployment. No person under 18 shall be required to maintain employment if a dependent or dependent spouse of a provisional resident. A person under 18 years who reaches the age of 18 years during the period of provisional residency shall, if not enrolled full time in a bona fide institution of post-secondardy education, be employed during the remaining period of provisional residency. No one above the age of 72 years or disabled pursuant to the Social Security Disability Act shall be required to maintain employment, but no provisional resident shall be eligible for payments under the Social Security Disability Act unless they otherwise qualify based upon eligible periods of employment.
(4) Demonstrate continuing compliance with all US and state laws and tax provisions.
D. If, after the five year period of provisional residency has expired, all requirements have been met, the provisional resident shall apply for and be granted permanent resident status. Failure to apply for permanent resident status within one year of the ending of provisional resident status shall terminate provisional residency and the provisional resident must leave the US.
The above may seem harsh, and a high burden to overcome, but it is better than deportation and it is far from granting amnesty. This proposal allows for those who find they truly wish to stay in the US to apply for permission to be here legally, but that the process of doing so will not be cheap and it won't be easy. It should not be. They chose to break our law and enter illegally, and they can comply with our law or go home.
Monday, August 10, 2009
He Read A Book, Once
"Woe be to him that reads but one book. "
George Herbert
Welsh Orator, Poet, Anglican Priest
(1593 - 1633)
"I think it is good that books still exist, but they do make me sleepy."
Frank Zappa
Composer, Musician, Record Producer, Film Director
(1940 - 1993)
"I read part of it all the way through."
Samuel Goldwyn
Movie Mogul
(1882 - 1974)
Recently, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals kicked a law suit brought against the United States by 'birther' Stephen Lee Craig. Craig had alleged he was the victim of 'involuntary expatriation', because the Congress had failed to define to his satisfaction the term natural born citizen.
One of my circles of friends has a turn of phrase for the self-styled expert who is bone ignorant on a subject, but does not hesitate to pontificate as if he knew more than he does. That turn of phrase is "I read a book once,” as in the one book, read the one time, (not even the same book several times) making someone an instant expert.
It is a phrase which, in the right company, speaks volumes with few words.
Mr. Craig, who was so unwise as to act as his own lawyer - at least, that is my understanding of the term 'pro se' - tried to enlist the three appellate judges in his efforts to define the term natural born citizen. You see, Mr. Craig wanted to define the term natural born citizen according to a book The Law of Nations, by Swiss political philosopher, Emmrich de Vattel. In the prefece of this old tome written in 1758, first paragraph, the author himself states:
"THE Law of Nations, though so noble and important a subject, has not, hitherto, been treated of with all the care it deserves. The greater part of mankind have, therefore, only a vague, a very incomplete, and often even a false notion of it. The generality of writers, and even celebrated authors, almost exclusively confine the name of "Law of Nations" to certain maxims and treatises recognised among nations, and which the mutual consent of the parties has rendered obligatory on them. This is confining within very narrow bounds a law so extensive in its own nature, and in which the whole human race are so intimately concerned; it is, at the same time, a degradation of that law, in consequence of a misconception of its real origin."
In other words, even de Vattel himself didn't believe anyone really read the darn thing before using it to support their political positions, despite all of the references to it in his own time. In a new twist on the phrase "I read a book once," Craig is asserting his meaning of natural born citizen because....wait for it... the founding fathers read a book once, this book, so it must be true that de Vattel's definition was what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the constitution. When I was trying to understand the 'birther' arguments, rather than simply assuming they were wrong, the "Law of Nations" argument was one that was accepted even more unquestioningly as absolute truth and justification than some others by the birthers.
Ah, but the court, the court says NO, a court where two of the three judges on the panel were appointed by one of the Bushes - one each for George H. W., and George W., a detail which should - should - put a wrench in conspiracy theories about this particular judiciary being in the pocket of Obama.
Of course, the founding fathers didn't SAY that de Vattel's definition of natural born citizen, which formed the basis for the principle of jus sanguinous used by some countries for THEIR citizenship, was what they were using, not in so many words. No, the very clear words they DID use are in the very first article of the constitution, that Congress should define citizenship; and Congress did, in numerous pieces of legislation over the years.
I couldn't make this up; I have a good imagination, but not THAT good. I wonder how long before it sinks in just how discredited the birther "Law of Nations" argument really is; and how quickly after that another crackpot birther notion will take its place.
Now I openly admit, I only made it through a few pages, including the preface, of "The Law of Nations". It is to say the least, heavy going. I don't think I could drink enough coffee to stay awake just through the whole first chapter of the four books that comprise de Vattel's opus, and I try to discipline myself to do regular 'drudge' reading. But then, I'm not trying to unseat the President of the Unites States by making claims from the content.
The kicker is, that I doubt that Craig or the majority of the other birthers ever read "Law of Nations" either.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Naturally
"I think if the people of this country can be reached with the truth, their judgment will be in favor of the many, as against the privileged few.”
- Eleanor Roosevelt
American United Nations Diplomat, Humanitarian and First Lady (1933-45), wife of Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd US president.
1884-1962
Article I of the Constitution, Section 8, gives the Congress the right to establish and define who is a citizen, and naturalization is 4th item down on the list:
"Article 1 - The Legislative Branch Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, "
For those who slept through American History, the Constitution was ratified in 1788, effective in 1789, with the various amendments expanding it over a number of years. The subject of who is and who is not eligible to be a citizen came promptly under the Naturalization Act of 1790; they weren't wasting any time defining who was and was not a citizen. (No surprise, it was pretty much white immigrants of European origins; people of other races and ethnicities, indigenous Americans, and so on were 'tagged in' later, in some cases, surprisingly later than you might expect.)
Here is one of the places where Orly Taitz has something; the Naturalization Act of 1790 defined citizenship as automatic at birth if born abroad rather than inside the U.S. for the children of FATHERS, but NOT MOTHERS, who were U. S. citizens.
EXCEPT that this has been amended in 1934 legislation to give equal acquisition of citizenship through a child's mother; and was further specified in 1952 legislation, well before Obama was born. That legislation was the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Title III addresses acquisition of citizenship - the correct term for what is under discussion. Title III also addresses the issue raised about John McCain's legal right to be President, as he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.
CHAPTER 1-NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND BY COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION
301 NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH
for Obama:
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or20(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24 , 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
The section applicable to McCain:
303 PERSONS BORN IN THE CANAL ZONE OR REPUBLIC OF PANAMA ON OR AFTER FEBRUARY 26, 1904SEC. 303. [8 U.S.C. 1403]
(a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.
(b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the20time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.
McCain is old, but he is not pre-1904 old; he comes from a family of famous admirals on his father's side, and his mother was born in Oklahoma. Had he been elected, he would have been 'legal' for the office of president, under these provisions. Interestingly, this is not a new topic; other presidents, notably Chester Arthur for one, also have faced the issue of presidential natural citizenship qualification.
So... why would Orly Taitz, herself from a foreign country, keep insisting that Obama is not eligible to be President? I decided to do a bit of research into that, since my own civics class days were a while ago. There are two conflicting legal premises involved, "jus soli", which roughly translates as "law of ground" and "jus sanguinous", the concept of "law of blood" which requires both parents to be considered citizens of the country, for natural at-birth citizenship purposes. Birthers seem fond of quoting the Law of Nations; the Law of Nations, which favors jus sanguinous, is not the law of the United States. In Europe, different countries opted for either citizenship based on jus soli, or jus sanguinous; in the U.S., we have more of a hybrid citizenship-by-birth, and we have over the course of our history passed laws in Congress defining that hybrid form.
It is fairly obvious that those in the House and Senate who have not taken a firm stand in support of President Obama in response to the Birther movement are not sincere. None of them appear to genuinely believe this is an issue. Others seem equally disingenuous in their statements. However, there are those who are perhaps more gullible, certainly misguided individuals who seem to sincerely believe that Obama is not our legal president. These people have the frantic kind of fear that is unique to ignorance. They are desperate to believe that however unlikely, it makes some kind of sense that we do not have a bi-racial black man legitimately occupying the oval office.
We cannot any of us know what their motivation is, although racism seems the most likely explanation. In watching the news footage, I have yet to see anyone who appears to be a person of color who is in terror of the results of the 2008 election. It is possible that fact and reason might succeed with these frightened birthers, but not probable.
There are few options to resolve the divide other than to try. The alternative is to laugh at them, but that doesn't solve the problem of segments of our political whole breaking off into little extremist shards. That process, the fragmenting of our political spectrum, ultimately weakens the whole, the opposite of unifying divergent views. Education is the only possible solution, beginning with our own information, and our own education.
- Eleanor Roosevelt
American United Nations Diplomat, Humanitarian and First Lady (1933-45), wife of Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd US president.
1884-1962
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
(and)
"No man who ever held the office of president would congratulate a friend on obtaining it."
-John Adams, Founding Father, Statesman and Diplomat, 2nd President of the United States (1797-1801) 1735-1826
Orly Taitz is the crazy blond lawyer who has been popping up on both serious and comedic media all over the place, presenting the birther case why Obama is not a valid citizen. But did you ever wonder where Taitz and the birthers get their info?
Now, apparently the Birther followers failed to take the usual Civics classes that I would hope the rest of us have passed. It does not matter where Obama was born, although clearly he has documented to a fare-thee-well that he was born in Hawaii. It does not matter WHERE Obama was born; because no one is disputing that his MOTHER was born in the United States, and was a valid U.S. citizen at the time of Obama's birth; or his maternal grandparents. Our laws require ONLY one parent be a citizen for their offspring to be born natural citizens, and in most instances, acquisition of natural born citizenship is also available through either set of grandparents who are citizens.Article I of the Constitution, Section 8, gives the Congress the right to establish and define who is a citizen, and naturalization is 4th item down on the list:
"Article 1 - The Legislative Branch Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, "
For those who slept through American History, the Constitution was ratified in 1788, effective in 1789, with the various amendments expanding it over a number of years. The subject of who is and who is not eligible to be a citizen came promptly under the Naturalization Act of 1790; they weren't wasting any time defining who was and was not a citizen. (No surprise, it was pretty much white immigrants of European origins; people of other races and ethnicities, indigenous Americans, and so on were 'tagged in' later, in some cases, surprisingly later than you might expect.)
Here is one of the places where Orly Taitz has something; the Naturalization Act of 1790 defined citizenship as automatic at birth if born abroad rather than inside the U.S. for the children of FATHERS, but NOT MOTHERS, who were U. S. citizens.
EXCEPT that this has been amended in 1934 legislation to give equal acquisition of citizenship through a child's mother; and was further specified in 1952 legislation, well before Obama was born. That legislation was the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Title III addresses acquisition of citizenship - the correct term for what is under discussion. Title III also addresses the issue raised about John McCain's legal right to be President, as he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.
CHAPTER 1-NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND BY COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION
301 NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH
for Obama:
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or20(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24 , 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
The section applicable to McCain:
303 PERSONS BORN IN THE CANAL ZONE OR REPUBLIC OF PANAMA ON OR AFTER FEBRUARY 26, 1904SEC. 303. [8 U.S.C. 1403]
(a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.
(b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the20time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.
McCain is old, but he is not pre-1904 old; he comes from a family of famous admirals on his father's side, and his mother was born in Oklahoma. Had he been elected, he would have been 'legal' for the office of president, under these provisions. Interestingly, this is not a new topic; other presidents, notably Chester Arthur for one, also have faced the issue of presidential natural citizenship qualification.
So... why would Orly Taitz, herself from a foreign country, keep insisting that Obama is not eligible to be President? I decided to do a bit of research into that, since my own civics class days were a while ago. There are two conflicting legal premises involved, "jus soli", which roughly translates as "law of ground" and "jus sanguinous", the concept of "law of blood" which requires both parents to be considered citizens of the country, for natural at-birth citizenship purposes. Birthers seem fond of quoting the Law of Nations; the Law of Nations, which favors jus sanguinous, is not the law of the United States. In Europe, different countries opted for either citizenship based on jus soli, or jus sanguinous; in the U.S., we have more of a hybrid citizenship-by-birth, and we have over the course of our history passed laws in Congress defining that hybrid form.
It is fairly obvious that those in the House and Senate who have not taken a firm stand in support of President Obama in response to the Birther movement are not sincere. None of them appear to genuinely believe this is an issue. Others seem equally disingenuous in their statements. However, there are those who are perhaps more gullible, certainly misguided individuals who seem to sincerely believe that Obama is not our legal president. These people have the frantic kind of fear that is unique to ignorance. They are desperate to believe that however unlikely, it makes some kind of sense that we do not have a bi-racial black man legitimately occupying the oval office.
We cannot any of us know what their motivation is, although racism seems the most likely explanation. In watching the news footage, I have yet to see anyone who appears to be a person of color who is in terror of the results of the 2008 election. It is possible that fact and reason might succeed with these frightened birthers, but not probable.
There are few options to resolve the divide other than to try. The alternative is to laugh at them, but that doesn't solve the problem of segments of our political whole breaking off into little extremist shards. That process, the fragmenting of our political spectrum, ultimately weakens the whole, the opposite of unifying divergent views. Education is the only possible solution, beginning with our own information, and our own education.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Justice (for) Sotomayor
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/06/politics/main5220735.shtml?tag=stack
In a somewhat party-line vote, the Senate (finally) approved Sonia Sotomayor today as the first Latina, and only second women ever to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States.
Congratulations to the Hon. Justice Sotomayor.
As a personal comment. The issues raised about Ms. Sotomayor were mostly smoke-screen. Each of us, during our lives have uttered words on rare occassion we would prefer to have said differently - the examination of her judicial record showed a very even-handed approach, moreso than the likes of Roberts, Scalia and Alito, FAR more so than Bork.
Yet, I supported the approval of Roberts, Scalia and Alito, as the President, by and large, should get to choose his or her Supreme Court Justices barring the presentment for review of wholly unqualified people. I have no issue with questions, I have no issue with reservations, but barring a smoking gun, the vote should be 'aye.' While I may not like every decision, the discretion of whom to appoint for consideration is the President's alone. It is not the right of the Senate to dictate the 'type' of person who they feel is suitable for approval, and certainly not based on political feelings.
Prior to 1998, and REALLY prior to GW Bush, the votes have normally (with the noted exceptions of Bork and Thomas) been pretty unanimous. That ceased with Bush, and it is not to the Democrats credit. The Republicans comported themselves better during Clinton than the Democrats did during Bush '43.
I am glad that this is settled, and would that we could return to our conversations the days of more civicly responsible conduct, including restoring a sense of duty to the conduct and conversations of our elected officials.
In a somewhat party-line vote, the Senate (finally) approved Sonia Sotomayor today as the first Latina, and only second women ever to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States.
Congratulations to the Hon. Justice Sotomayor.
As a personal comment. The issues raised about Ms. Sotomayor were mostly smoke-screen. Each of us, during our lives have uttered words on rare occassion we would prefer to have said differently - the examination of her judicial record showed a very even-handed approach, moreso than the likes of Roberts, Scalia and Alito, FAR more so than Bork.
Yet, I supported the approval of Roberts, Scalia and Alito, as the President, by and large, should get to choose his or her Supreme Court Justices barring the presentment for review of wholly unqualified people. I have no issue with questions, I have no issue with reservations, but barring a smoking gun, the vote should be 'aye.' While I may not like every decision, the discretion of whom to appoint for consideration is the President's alone. It is not the right of the Senate to dictate the 'type' of person who they feel is suitable for approval, and certainly not based on political feelings.
Prior to 1998, and REALLY prior to GW Bush, the votes have normally (with the noted exceptions of Bork and Thomas) been pretty unanimous. That ceased with Bush, and it is not to the Democrats credit. The Republicans comported themselves better during Clinton than the Democrats did during Bush '43.
I am glad that this is settled, and would that we could return to our conversations the days of more civicly responsible conduct, including restoring a sense of duty to the conduct and conversations of our elected officials.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)