In two recent court trials, policemen who were charged with wrongdoing got off essentially scot-free.
One was the case where, in a video seen all over the country, a big, heavy Chicago policeman named Anthony Abbate allegedly beat up a female bartender half his weight when she refused to serve him any more drinks. In his trial, which was as I guess a couple of months ago, the cop got off on a legal technicality such that the core of the prosecution's case was thrown out.
Very recently another policeman also got off scot-free. This policeman, it was alleged, had been driving drunk and had a crash in which his vehicle hit another and the two occupants of the latter vehicle were killed.
I have to admit here that I might be a bit fuzzy on the facts, but it seems there was conflicting testimony as to whether this cop was drunk. Very strangely, his blood alcohol didn't get tested for seven or eight hours after the crash. On the other hand, there was video showing him in the bar.
This cop also tried to walk away from the crash--right down an expressway off-ramp--instead of staying at the scene (as is, in fact, required by law in the case of such an accident) to have his testimony taken. The relatives of the two young men who were killed are crying that justice was not done, and here I certainly agree with them.
It seems to me (and I wish I had some statistics on this) that policemen seldom get convicted. Or if they are found guilty, they get probation or a suspended sentence--in other words, nothing more than a basically meaningless slap on the wrist.
It seems to be hard to convict a cop. It's proverbial that cops support one another and almost never testify against one another. In the two cases above, it was the judges' rulings as to admissibility of evidence (or, rather, the lack thereof) that pulled the rug out from under the prosecutors' cases. So I wonder if the judges are impartial or biased in favor of the cops. If they are not predisposed to believe only the best of the police, they may cave in to pressure--from the police union, from the police commissioner, from politicians such as the mayor. None of these parties seems to want to own up that the police ever do any wrong.
The danger is that, whenever a cop escapes punishment for his wrong actions, that makes other cops feel invincible and convinces them that, whatever they do, they] need never worry about any consequences of their actions.
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Friday, June 4, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
The Oil Spill (Again)
I should edit my previous posts on that subject because it now appears that the oil-drilling platform had a device called a "blowout preventer" that has redundancies built in and supposedly is fail-safe; yet somehow it failed anyway, which supposedly is unprecedented.
However, what I said about the acoustical valve, which would have prevented the accident when and if the blowout preventer failed, was correct. This valve would have cost $500,000; and here (as in other cases now documented by the revelation of BP internal memos), BP opted to cut costs or save money. See the following article, which also suggests that BP could be using supertankers to help contain the oil spill and again, for cost reasons, is not doing so:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-05-25/shocking-bp-memo-and-the-oil-spill-in-the-gulf/full/
It's coming to light that there is lots of blame to go around. Supposedly some of the crew on the rig saw warning signs of impending problems, and the warnings were ignored. I don't have details on that.
However, what I said about the acoustical valve, which would have prevented the accident when and if the blowout preventer failed, was correct. This valve would have cost $500,000; and here (as in other cases now documented by the revelation of BP internal memos), BP opted to cut costs or save money. See the following article, which also suggests that BP could be using supertankers to help contain the oil spill and again, for cost reasons, is not doing so:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-05-25/shocking-bp-memo-and-the-oil-spill-in-the-gulf/full/
It's coming to light that there is lots of blame to go around. Supposedly some of the crew on the rig saw warning signs of impending problems, and the warnings were ignored. I don't have details on that.
What an Ass Rand Paul Is
Rand Paul thinks he is the new Sarah Palin, insofar as being the current darling of the Right Wing. However, the swollen head he's gotten from his primary-election victory seems to have cut off the flow of blood to his brain.
First he showed himself to be a major fool (I was tempted to use another word) over comments that seemed to say that private businesses should be allowed to discriminate, racially and otherwise.
Now, he has criticized President Obama because BP is being faulted for the Gulf oil spill. Paul said that's "un-American."
I wonder if Mr. Paul is aware that BP is not even an American company. Mr. Paul, BP stands for British Petroleum.
First he showed himself to be a major fool (I was tempted to use another word) over comments that seemed to say that private businesses should be allowed to discriminate, racially and otherwise.
Now, he has criticized President Obama because BP is being faulted for the Gulf oil spill. Paul said that's "un-American."
I wonder if Mr. Paul is aware that BP is not even an American company. Mr. Paul, BP stands for British Petroleum.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Patriotism, Identity, and Self-Worth
There seem to be two types of people, at least as regards one parameter. One group is those who would criticize America, or who at least do not feel America should be beyond criticism. The other group bristles at attacks on America and sees them as unpatriotic and even treasonous.
The first group may be very aware of wrongs committed by the U.S. government. Examples might be the terrible treatment—some might even say genocide—of the Native Americans, a lot of it as the result of official policy of the national government. Other examples might be the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, or the so-called My Lai Massacre in which Vietnamese civilians were fired on and killed by American troops during the Vietnam War. Early reports of this last event were at one point labeled "Communist propaganda" and totally untrue—even though it turned out that there was good documentation that the events had indeed occurred.
During the Vietnam War, I personally learned how emotional some people would get over any suggestion that the war was wrong or that America or Americans were wrong in what was being done. I didn't get spat upon or clubbed, myself; but I received a lot of unkind words when my ideas, on the one pole of this issue, were heard by someone at the other pole.
People tend to derive at least some of their feelings of self-worth from institutions or entities that they identify with: their school, their community, their country, even a sports team. Maybe these identifications are substitutes for, or vestiges of, very ancient identification with one's clan.
Whatever the ultimate psychosocial origin of this need to identify, people may feel personally attacked when they perceive the things they identify with as being attacked.
Another way to view it would liken it to religion and one's deities. Look at the issue that has come up from time to time—again most notably during the Vietnam War years—of so-called "flag desecration." In the 1960s, protesters against the Vietnamese War burned American flags. Those who strongly opposed such acts tried to get a Constitutional amendment passed prohibiting flag burning. (The U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled in 1989 and 1990 that flag-burning was not punishable as a criminal act.)
The root of the word desecration is secr-, which is the same element as in the word sacred. In other words, if something can be desecrated, you are considering it to be sacred. Is the American flag sacred, or should it be? Note that the word sacred or desecrate seems to point to a blurring of country with religion. Some might argue that to make the state into a god is idolatry. (There may be a fine line between symbol and idol.) I think that many right-wing regimes have indeed tried to make the state a god, and the country's leader a near-divine figure. Think of giant portraits of Chairman Mao, or look at certain African countries where there is a cult of the national leader which strives to elevate him to the near-divine. Roman emperors and Egyptian pharaohs were regarded as divine.
In any event, our country might rank right up there with the religion or deity or church that we identify with (if in fact we do). These things are part of our identity. We derive our sense of worth from identifying with the best (strongest, etc.) country, with the true (or most charitable, oldest, etc.) religion.
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
The first group may be very aware of wrongs committed by the U.S. government. Examples might be the terrible treatment—some might even say genocide—of the Native Americans, a lot of it as the result of official policy of the national government. Other examples might be the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, or the so-called My Lai Massacre in which Vietnamese civilians were fired on and killed by American troops during the Vietnam War. Early reports of this last event were at one point labeled "Communist propaganda" and totally untrue—even though it turned out that there was good documentation that the events had indeed occurred.
During the Vietnam War, I personally learned how emotional some people would get over any suggestion that the war was wrong or that America or Americans were wrong in what was being done. I didn't get spat upon or clubbed, myself; but I received a lot of unkind words when my ideas, on the one pole of this issue, were heard by someone at the other pole.
People tend to derive at least some of their feelings of self-worth from institutions or entities that they identify with: their school, their community, their country, even a sports team. Maybe these identifications are substitutes for, or vestiges of, very ancient identification with one's clan.
Whatever the ultimate psychosocial origin of this need to identify, people may feel personally attacked when they perceive the things they identify with as being attacked.
Another way to view it would liken it to religion and one's deities. Look at the issue that has come up from time to time—again most notably during the Vietnam War years—of so-called "flag desecration." In the 1960s, protesters against the Vietnamese War burned American flags. Those who strongly opposed such acts tried to get a Constitutional amendment passed prohibiting flag burning. (The U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled in 1989 and 1990 that flag-burning was not punishable as a criminal act.)
The root of the word desecration is secr-, which is the same element as in the word sacred. In other words, if something can be desecrated, you are considering it to be sacred. Is the American flag sacred, or should it be? Note that the word sacred or desecrate seems to point to a blurring of country with religion. Some might argue that to make the state into a god is idolatry. (There may be a fine line between symbol and idol.) I think that many right-wing regimes have indeed tried to make the state a god, and the country's leader a near-divine figure. Think of giant portraits of Chairman Mao, or look at certain African countries where there is a cult of the national leader which strives to elevate him to the near-divine. Roman emperors and Egyptian pharaohs were regarded as divine.
In any event, our country might rank right up there with the religion or deity or church that we identify with (if in fact we do). These things are part of our identity. We derive our sense of worth from identifying with the best (strongest, etc.) country, with the true (or most charitable, oldest, etc.) religion.
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Monday, May 3, 2010
Some Random Thoughts
Maybe you've heard that Continental Airlines and United are going to merge. They're going to call the new company Con-U.
Why is it that tornadoes always seem to hit Goobersville? My theory is that tornadoes just love to eat trailer parks. I guess they're tasty.
When I hear a noise, often I can't tell right away if it's me wheezing or an outside noise (ah, the joys of getting old).
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Why is it that tornadoes always seem to hit Goobersville? My theory is that tornadoes just love to eat trailer parks. I guess they're tasty.
When I hear a noise, often I can't tell right away if it's me wheezing or an outside noise (ah, the joys of getting old).
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Friday, April 30, 2010
More on Oil Spill from Gulf of Mexico Drilling Rig
Today the news said that Mr. Obama is halting any new offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Of course I regard that as good news.
Unfortunately, that won't do anything to solve the current very serious oil-spill problem, which is beginning to look very tragic. If you follow the news, you already know that the spilled oil is going to ruin the industries for fishing for shrimp, oysters, crabs, and so forth, and seriously impact the livelihood of the fishermen, not to mention Americans' dinner tables--plus it is going to be deadly for shore birds in the Louisiana wetlands.
What is maybe even more tragic is that the oil spill probably could have been prevented. Oil-drilling platforms can be equipped with a type of shut-off valve called an acoustic valve. Had the oil rig in question been equipped with this device, the flow of oil probably could have been stemmed before very much oil spilled into the water.
Some countries, such as Norway, require this device on all offshore oil-drilling rigs. The U.S. does not. Yet another instance where government non-interference with corporations has had disastrous consequences.
Note added: The oil rig did include an explosive device that was supposed to enable shutting down the flow of oil in an emergency. However, it did not function as intended. As of the last I heard, no one knew why, other than simply that it was faulty.
Here is a link to an interesting article. http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/bp-oil-crisis-and-massey-coal-disaster-bring-blame-home/19461901/
She blames our energy-hungriness as the ultimate cause of not only the oil rig accident and subsequent oil spill; but also the mining disaster that occurred a short while before. I agree with her but, in the main. But she says we should drive less and I say, stop driving those big SUVs. Of course some drivers--probably less than 10%--who want to cause less energy consumption and less creation of greenhouse gasses from their driving have purchased hybrid cars or very small cars. The rest don't give a damn. (True confession time: I don't have a hybrid, nor a very tiny vehicle, but my car still is probably more economical than most, and I drive very little.)
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Unfortunately, that won't do anything to solve the current very serious oil-spill problem, which is beginning to look very tragic. If you follow the news, you already know that the spilled oil is going to ruin the industries for fishing for shrimp, oysters, crabs, and so forth, and seriously impact the livelihood of the fishermen, not to mention Americans' dinner tables--plus it is going to be deadly for shore birds in the Louisiana wetlands.
What is maybe even more tragic is that the oil spill probably could have been prevented. Oil-drilling platforms can be equipped with a type of shut-off valve called an acoustic valve. Had the oil rig in question been equipped with this device, the flow of oil probably could have been stemmed before very much oil spilled into the water.
Some countries, such as Norway, require this device on all offshore oil-drilling rigs. The U.S. does not. Yet another instance where government non-interference with corporations has had disastrous consequences.
Note added: The oil rig did include an explosive device that was supposed to enable shutting down the flow of oil in an emergency. However, it did not function as intended. As of the last I heard, no one knew why, other than simply that it was faulty.
Here is a link to an interesting article. http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/bp-oil-crisis-and-massey-coal-disaster-bring-blame-home/19461901/
She blames our energy-hungriness as the ultimate cause of not only the oil rig accident and subsequent oil spill; but also the mining disaster that occurred a short while before. I agree with her but, in the main. But she says we should drive less and I say, stop driving those big SUVs. Of course some drivers--probably less than 10%--who want to cause less energy consumption and less creation of greenhouse gasses from their driving have purchased hybrid cars or very small cars. The rest don't give a damn. (True confession time: I don't have a hybrid, nor a very tiny vehicle, but my car still is probably more economical than most, and I drive very little.)
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Politics, Energy Policy, and Financial-System Reform
Anyone who pays attention to current news has heard about the environmental disaster in the making, due to an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. An offshore oil-drilling platform caught fire and then sank. This has resulted in loss of lives (I think 11 at latest estimate), plus some 40,000 gallons of oil per day are being spilled into the gulf waters.
Such accidents are a constant risk of offshore oil drilling. Yet President Obama recently issued an order to expand offshore oil drilling off the U.S. coast.
Yes, we need energy. For now, unfortunately, we need oil. But it still is surprising, disappointing, and saddening to Obama's liberal constituency and anyone concerned with the environment that he has done this. It seems to be a philosophy of "more oil at any cost." Well, I say, let people driving 3-ton SUVs pay more for their gas than they are currently. They don't care about the environment, and I'd like to see them bear more of a burden for their actions. (The U.S. still has gasoline for half of what it costs in Europe.)
Lest I seem to be attacking Democrats and a (supposedly) liberal president, let me hasten to lay some blame at the door of Republicans. The energy problem goes back at least 30 years. Or rather, 30 years ago, when things could have been done, they were not. The day of his inauguration, Ronald Reagan halted all U.S. Department of Energy funding for research on alternative energy. (I know this because I was working for a nonprofit engineering research group that did a lot of research into fuel from biomass, ocean thermal energy, fuel cells, and so forth. This institution depended very heavily on DOE contracts and was extremely impacted by Reagan's actions, and had to cut, eventually, two-thirds of their staff.) Other commentators have said that we have lost 30 years out of the alternative-energy program.
Ronald Reagan even stamped out or undid what was viewed as Jimmy Carter's last legacy: a solar water-heating system Carter had installed on the White House roof. I don't know what reason, if any, Reagan gave for this action. It was not publicized at the time, if I recall. I have to think it was just thumbing his nose at Carter, liberal policies, and environmentalism.
Also on the subject of Republicans: Right now they are opposing legislation in the Senate that would reform the financial system. During the years of laissez-faire, some of the reforms of the post-Depression era—such as the Glass-Stiegel Act, which separated banking from investment business--were repealed. That was a cause of the recent economic mess. (I think some of this occurred, in fact, under Clinton. Any reader, please correct me if I am wrong here.)
The Republican approach clearly is, "If the Democrats want it, we're going to oppose it." That's called obstructionism. In fact they are filibustering, which is nothing more nor less than an obstructing tactic.
But there is lots of evidence that the people want these reforms. The Republicans in Congress surely are professional politicians; we will see if they are astute politicians as well. To oppose the will of the people should result in their being voted out of office. That message probably is just now starting to penetrate their osseous skulls.
Note added April 29: The news on the oil spill continues to get worse. Yesterday they said it is much worse than originally estimated. Today they said that 210,000 gallons of oil are leaking into the Gulf every day. This promises to be one of the worst environmental disasters ever.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Such accidents are a constant risk of offshore oil drilling. Yet President Obama recently issued an order to expand offshore oil drilling off the U.S. coast.
Yes, we need energy. For now, unfortunately, we need oil. But it still is surprising, disappointing, and saddening to Obama's liberal constituency and anyone concerned with the environment that he has done this. It seems to be a philosophy of "more oil at any cost." Well, I say, let people driving 3-ton SUVs pay more for their gas than they are currently. They don't care about the environment, and I'd like to see them bear more of a burden for their actions. (The U.S. still has gasoline for half of what it costs in Europe.)
Lest I seem to be attacking Democrats and a (supposedly) liberal president, let me hasten to lay some blame at the door of Republicans. The energy problem goes back at least 30 years. Or rather, 30 years ago, when things could have been done, they were not. The day of his inauguration, Ronald Reagan halted all U.S. Department of Energy funding for research on alternative energy. (I know this because I was working for a nonprofit engineering research group that did a lot of research into fuel from biomass, ocean thermal energy, fuel cells, and so forth. This institution depended very heavily on DOE contracts and was extremely impacted by Reagan's actions, and had to cut, eventually, two-thirds of their staff.) Other commentators have said that we have lost 30 years out of the alternative-energy program.
Ronald Reagan even stamped out or undid what was viewed as Jimmy Carter's last legacy: a solar water-heating system Carter had installed on the White House roof. I don't know what reason, if any, Reagan gave for this action. It was not publicized at the time, if I recall. I have to think it was just thumbing his nose at Carter, liberal policies, and environmentalism.
Also on the subject of Republicans: Right now they are opposing legislation in the Senate that would reform the financial system. During the years of laissez-faire, some of the reforms of the post-Depression era—such as the Glass-Stiegel Act, which separated banking from investment business--were repealed. That was a cause of the recent economic mess. (I think some of this occurred, in fact, under Clinton. Any reader, please correct me if I am wrong here.)
The Republican approach clearly is, "If the Democrats want it, we're going to oppose it." That's called obstructionism. In fact they are filibustering, which is nothing more nor less than an obstructing tactic.
But there is lots of evidence that the people want these reforms. The Republicans in Congress surely are professional politicians; we will see if they are astute politicians as well. To oppose the will of the people should result in their being voted out of office. That message probably is just now starting to penetrate their osseous skulls.
Note added April 29: The news on the oil spill continues to get worse. Yesterday they said it is much worse than originally estimated. Today they said that 210,000 gallons of oil are leaking into the Gulf every day. This promises to be one of the worst environmental disasters ever.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
