Blog 8 Commentary

I’m responding to my fellow classmate’s blog posting, “Proposition L8er!” in which he comments on the California Proposition 8 issue, and a subsequent recent ruling by a federal judge to overturn the law ruling that it is unconstitutional. Proposition 8 was on the November of 2008 a legislative initiative to ban same-sex marriages in California. Over 7 million citizens voted and passed the measure with a significant majority.

Last Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Vaugh Walker, one of three openly gay federal judges in the country, overturned the California ban on same-sex marriage, ruling that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional. The ruling gave opponents of the controversial Proposition 8 ballot a major victory, and opened the doors for gay marriages to resume in California.

The thrust of his commentary is in support of the federal judge’s decision and he presents a variety of supporting arguments for his position, including the civil rights movement of the 1960’s and his personal opinion that homosexuality is not a choice, and that everyone should enjoy equal protection under the law. He compares the issue of same-sex marriage to the civil rights movements of blacks, women, and Mexican-Americans, and suggests that a ban on gay marriage is in his words, “an imposition of church on state and would be against the collective pursuit of American interests.”

Given that this involves subjective viewpoints, I don’t find fault with his assertions, nor his position on the issue. As he approaches this subject from the standpoint of fair and equal treatment, his comparison to other civil rights movements lend credibility to his argument. He drafts his article in such a way that it focuses on the moral aspect of whether same-sex couples deserve the same rights as other American citizens and places the issue under the context of equal protection under the law. He is not attempting to be objective about whether same-sex couples should be allowed to be married, and as such applauds the ruling to overturn Prop 8 despite any potential legal arguments that the judge may have overstepped his bounds. In the end, his argument is valid, as his article serves to promote his opinions on those moral grounds, and he does a very good job of substantiating his position.

He chose not to present the opposing viewpoints on this issue, or use those arguments to further solidify his position, and that is fine. Editorial commentary does not require unbiased reporting. However, in my response , I’d like to delve into some of these opposing arguments and then bring those into contrast with Ashty’s statements.

Opponents to this ruling invariably cite judicial activism as their primary objection, and at first glance, I admit that I was in agreement with them. I am concerned about activist judges implementing their own ideals into law while ignoring the voting rights of citizens. Why do we even vote for initiatives if some slick lawyers will just go from judge to judge, court to court, until they find one to overturn it? It doesn’t seem that our votes matter in lieu of the big money legal maneuvering that trump our wishes. In any event, proponents of same-sex marriage herald Walker’s ruling as a victory as it serves their interests, and they don’t seem to care if it violates the will of the people. Over 7 million citizens cast votes in a legal election for a proposition only to have a judge throw out their votes. To many, that is in itself, unconstitutional, and smells of improper use of the judiciary. Now, as for Prop 8 being unconstitutional, that ascertion is suspect, as the law went through proper channels and a constitutionality test prior to being placed on the ballot. It seems like any judge can offer a different opinion on the constitutionality of any issue, regardless if other bodies have already determined it to be valid. So in the end, it’s judicial “opinion” and the underlying agendas of that particular judge that determine whether something is constitutional.

Many experts feel that the judge’s ruling is simply not sound legal deduction, in that he cited in his ruling that Prop 8 held “no rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.” Really? No rational basis? None? What about the fact that a majority of the people have expressed their wishes for this not to be legal? The proposition was voted upon by the citizens of that state, and I see nothing in the constitution that allows judges to throw out legally cast ballots. Furthermore, our nation has no historical foundation for allowing or accepting same-sex marriages, and as such it holds no precedent in our society as being an accepted practice. It flies in the face of traditional cultural norms. Finally, the fact that the judge is openly gay and that he has expressed that the ruling would personally benefit him financially as it would provide additional fiscal advantages to him and his partner, there are reasonable grounds that he should have recused himself from the case. How can an obviously biased judge rule objectively?

Judge Walker ruled that Proposition 8 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees “equal protection of the laws” to everyone. This precedent states that any law that” puts a group of people into a different class will be viewed with a certain amount of scrutiny”, although the amount of that scrutiny depends on numerous contributing factors. In his ruling, Walker stated that Prop 8 “under this calculus, deserved the strictest scrutiny.” However, many experts disagree. Chapman University Law Professor Ronald Rotunda, responded, “Judge Walker was acting on his own here — he didn’t have a lot of guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has not been unsympathetic to gay rights,” he said, “but it hasn’t ever told us what the test is. So reasonable judges can go either way.” Added Rotunda: “If this case gets to the Supreme Court, the justices will finally tell us.” So what we have here is a federal judge, one who is biased, acting to overturn the will of the voters to suggest a standard of unconstitutionality that does not yet exist, with the strategy to entice the higher courts to finally articulate that standard, and in the process push through a legislative precedent that he personally supports. Of course, I’m basing my theory on my assumption that the

9th “circus” court of appeals – the monkey court of all liberal courts – won’t overturn Judge Walker’s ruling. I used to live in the bay area prior to relocating to Austin and I’m not holding my breath that the 9th circuit court will do much more than help this along.

Okay, that is the brunt of the opposing viewpoint on this issue, give or take, and again, I am supportive of most of those points. One judge silencing 7 million voting citizens is not something I’d like to see in America, and it’s obvious that supporters of Judge Walker’s decision care only that their side wins and not whether judicial activism overtakes the will of the people. This is America and we only seem to care about winning – not how we go about winning. Now all that said, I need to come back full circle to Ashty’s commentary and his point about equal protection. Because after much personal deliberation, and even considering that I’m against biased activist judges, I have realized that I’m still entrenched in my opinion that we should adhere to the system our forefather’s put in place. Allow me expound.

Although many may disagree about whether Walker's ruling made the case that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, I don’t think there is any doubt about the authority of the federal judiciary to determine the constitutionality of the law. This is exactly how our constitutional democracy is supposed to work. I can’t blame Judge Walker for doing his job, as judicial review has been the foundation for our system of checks-and-balances since the landmark Marbury vs. Madison ruling in 1803. Regardless of whether congress, state legislatures, or voters pass a law, it has to comply with constitutional standards. With regards to Walker’s open statements of homosexuality, I don’t want to start going down that slippery slope. Membership to a particular group does not immediately disqualify someone from being unbiased. African-American judges preside over trials of other African-Americans, why shouldn’t gay judges be able to rule on laws that address gay issues? If we start setting those recusal standards, I’m fearful where that will lead us. As for the complaint of activist judges forcing social change when it is against the will of the people, well remember that it was the courts that desegregated the schools and ended bans on interracial marriage, not to mention numerous other equal rights issues. So this is nothing new, and in our system of government, no ballot measure or law should be out of the reach of the judiciary.

In closing, I find myself agreeing with assertions of Ashty’s blog commentary, albeit for different reasons. I’m standing on principle for what is the right thing to preserve liberty within the framework of our democracy and not merely what I want to happen. Others on the conservative right are not so keen to agree. Rush Limbaugh recently spouted, “This is tyranny," suggesting the judiciary had been overtaken by "leftist nut jobs." I’m not so sure I want to subscribe to that type of fear-based tyranny. I’m more personally concerned about protecting equal rights from the "tyranny of the majority" that James Madison warned of in the Federalist Papers.

In the end, I trust the courts to pass judgment on this issue, not because I support the measure, or because I think the courts are infallible or unbiased; but because this system of reasonable and due process to oversee what is fundamentally constitutional is the best and only governing system that can preserve liberty in the long run. In the end, I would rather preserve equality as a standard, despite all other considerations, than to get my way on any individual issue and lose touch with that basic principal of personal liberty.

A Texas Showdown Turns into a Political Letdown

The stage was set, and I for one, was looking forward to a showdown where rhetoric would give way to action regarding border protection. In the midst of the tumultuous Arizona immigration frenzy, Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry (wearing cowboy boots but no hat) applauded as President Obama came down the steps from Air Force One, and he welcomed Obama to the Lone Star State Monday with a hearty handshake, even managing to put forth a better-than-average fake smile. Perry has long been an outspoken Obama critic, and insiders report that there is no love lost between the two politicians. Still, Perry showed up with his best manners and a special delivery for Obama.

Shortly after meeting President Obama at Austin’s Bergstrom International Airport, Governor Perry smoothly pulled from his suit pocket a four-page letter warning the president about the "dire threat amassing on our southern border," and asking for 1,000 more National Guard troops to be stationed along the Texas border. At the risk of appearing opportunist, Perry was ready to press the border issue with a President who by all appearances is not willing to do much at all to protect American borders. Still, the showdown was there …. and then it wasn’t.

Their meeting only lasted 34 seconds (not very long even by today’s short attention span standards), and in move that trumped Perry's surpirse, Obama refused to accept the letter from Governor Perry. Bam! Take that Perry, who had to then hand the letter to presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett, who was right behind the president. Many observers see this as just another indication that Obama will not respond to neither the nation’s call for help nor will he to a republican sitting governor of the country’s largest southern state. This could have been a great opportunity for Obama to display leadership and open dialog with Perry. The country, and border states in particular, are desperate for leadership on this issue, yet little example of that is forthcoming. Perry is asking for help from Obama, and we don’t know if Obama is listening, but we do know that he’s not accepting correspondence at this time.

Obama’s dismissal did not dissuade Perry from inviting Obama to come back to Texas and tour the border with him to get a first hand look at what Perry describes as the threat from Mexican drug cartels. When asked for a response to Obama not accepting his letter, Perry responded, “Look, he's got the letter. I suspect he'll read it. I hope he responds to it. This is way past partisanship or politics." Gracious if not hopeful. I think all Americans are hopeful that democrats and republicans can finally come together to implement effective border policy. Perry at least showed up (his Democrat opponent Bill White was absent from this meeting), and Perry later commented, "It's the gracious thing to do. He's the president of the United States.” Now I think we’re all supportive of being gracious, but there are serious issues in play here, and ones that need to be addressed. We need better border protection, and the federal government is dragging their feet. For example, Perry said Obama's decision to “send 1,200 troops to the entire border with Mexico was inadequate, particularly since only 286 are coming to Texas.” Perry also said he would like a substantial meeting with Obama to discuss the need for 1,000 National Guard troops until 3,000 Border Patrol agents can be trained to take over. “We need a substantial amount of boots on the ground. We need the technology in the air. The predator drones. The other technologies we've talked about: night vision equipment, cameras, motion-detecting equipment," Perry said. He went on to add that immigration reform is "a waste of effort until you secure the border."

I can’t help but to be skeptical and suspicious of both parties’s maneuvering around the border issue. True, Perry brings up some valid points, however his four-page letter to Obama is about the threat of drug cartels and gangs, which are not the main immigration concerns of most Texans. Certainly the crime and violence from drug-runners is alarming, but I suspect that most Americans are more disturbed about the problem of the illegal immigrants who stream across our border in search of American jobs and welfare. That is the issue that nobody wants to admit. Politicians use crime and drug cartels to position their border reform proposals, yet the real truth is that it is more about Mexican immigrants (not Canadians) coming into the United States, and how different Americans feel about that. I commend Perry and other southern governors for trying to use any and all means to fight for border protection, but I feel that the Obama administration will never care about stopping that tide of immigrants, which it sees as a valuable underclass it can mine for future Democratic votes.

A Call to Action - Well Done!

Blog 6 Assignment: Review of Jessica's Editorial

I read Jessica’s Blog 5 Assignment with keen interest, both because I’m very interested in the issue, and it is a very hot topic with many passionate viewpoints. As Jessica is a veteran who has served our country to preserve freedom, I was interested in her perspective. I found her arguments credible and well formulated. Rather than focusing on the question of immigrant rights, or taking a stand for or against immigration, she insightfully discusses the political battle underscoring this issue, and our government’s manipulation of immigration reform for their own advantages.

She points out the hypocrisy in politician’s promises to implement reform, only to back down or do nothing at all once they are elected. I find her arguments mirror what many American’s feel in that they are tired of rhetoric and inaction from elected leaders. We, the people, are well aware that both sides of the isle selfishly position immigration reform more to win votes rather than protect our nation. In her post, she calls out both Republicans and Democrats, and surmises that neither side seems to be truly addressing the problem, which now culminates with the new controversial Arizona law. She also infers that states are reduced to doing what the federal government won't do, and she does so without chastising Arizona.

What I find refreshing about her position, is that she calls both politcial parties to action asking them get together and do something meaningful about immigration, and to stop leveraging this highly volatile issue as a tool to plot against teach other. While she lends credibility to her position by citing Obama’s record on this issue, she doesn’t digress into mud slinging. She also infers that there is much more to this issue that border protection by suggesting that this would not be an issue if it involved the Canadian border. Again, she strikes to the heart of what many people feel, but few pundits or politicians will admit. That this is about race, and the power of their voting pool, and which party can capture their support. It’s not about protecting America – it’s about protecting their political careers.

Her title, “Work Together? Yeah Right!” hits the nail on the head, as far as I’m concerned, and I share her frustration, as I’m sure many American’s, on both sides of this issue, do as well. All we want is for our elected leaders to stop putting themselves first, and do what they were elected for, and with respects to immigration reform, the time to do something has come.

More Corruption Swept Under the Rug

I don’t know which I’m more distressed about, Rep. Charlie Rangel’s alleged tax and ethics violations, or the seemingly wafting sense of apathy throughout the public about these activities. Yes, the media has jumped aboard the “Scandal Train”, with their usual rehearsed shock and awe, yet I can’t help but feel that everyone is merely going through the motions, that we’re not even surprised any longer when our entrusted public servants use their privileges to line their pockets. It’s almost as if we have an implied understanding between all of us. The politicians pretend to be honorable, and say whatever they need to in order to get into office, then lie, cheat, and steal from us, then the media covers the story between sound bites of the latest celebrity gossip, people stand up and proclaim, “it’s an outrage” then we simply all go about our lives, business as usual. Nothing changes if nothing changes.

This circus begins with the announcement of a formal investigation of New York Rep. Charlie Rangel who is facing 13 allegations of violations relating to his tax filings for properties he owns in the Dominican Republic and the use of four rent-controlled apartments in pricey New York City. Apparently, these violations have been occurring for some time now, and Rangel had been in backroom negotiations along with his attorneys to strike a deal that would settle the matter without a public trial. Really? Is this the type of “transparent government” that Obama and the Democrats promised they would instill when they took office. The fact is that the House Ethics Committee is pushing for the least-punitive action against Rangel — a reprimand! Yes, that’s right, only a reprimand! Of the options available, a reprimand is the most lenient of the three, the other two being censure and expulsion. A Congressional Research Service report indicates that a "reprimand expressly involves a lesser level of disapproval of a Member than that of Censure, and is thus a less severe rebuke by the institution." If the full House votes for a reprimand, Rangel would have to stand in the well of the House and listen to his punishment being meted out by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Really! Is that punishment! If I cheat on my taxes and steal money can I stand up in the living room of my home and be chastised by my Mom?

To clarify, the House has utilized reprimands in the past, but only occasionally. The House voted to reprimand Rep. Barney Frank in 1990 for using his office to "fix" parking tickets for Steve Goble, a male prostitute who used Frank's home (don't get me started). Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was also reprimanded and fined in 1997 for his ethics transgressions (which some have dubbed his Contract ON America). Recently, the House did NOT reprimand Rep. Joe Wilson for his shout "You lie" at President Obama last year during the State of the Union Address, however in an attempt to evoke the “I know you are but what am I” rule of mud slinging, the House did vote to "disapprove" of his actions. Well played House Members, you really put him in his place with that one. I’m sure that the public was glued to CSPAN during those proceedings.

Now, if I may be so bold, I wish to call the kettle black here and suggest that all these House Democrats who coddled and sheltered Charlie Rangel all these years are nothing short of two-faced “swamp creatures”, a term I borrow directly from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In case you don’t recall, Pelosi is the one who claimed top spot in the House with rhetoric about how she would promise to “drain the swamp” and preside over the “most ethical Congress in history”? She essentially rode the Bush-Donkey into office citing every sneaky, shady, and back-door dealings that former President Bush ever engaged in (and many more than he never did), proclaiming that the “new Democratic Party” would raise the stakes of integrity in government. Don’t take my word for it, let Nancy speak for herself.

Jan. 12, 2006: “It is long past time for the Congress to address the systemic Republican culture of corruption that has undermined the American people’s confidence in this institution,”Pelosi said. “I am proud that some of the best minds in our Caucus will be leading the Democratic effort to clean up the corrupt Republican Congress. These great leaders will work to restore truth and trust to the People’s House.”

Oct. 13, 2006: Pelosi said, “Maybe it will take a woman to clean up the House and a new speaker to restore civility."

Haven’t we heard all this before? Politicians latch onto anything they can about the “other side” and then use it to promise change and elevate themselves into power, only to engage in the same underhanded dishonest practices for their own personal gain. We hear it so often, that we are almost unfazed anymore. We almost expect it. Nancy Pelosi and the House knew of Rangel’s violations, yet they did nothing, they kept quiet. Then, when the stench of it all finally hits the fan so that it can no longer be ignored, does Nancy come out with guns blazing at her party counterpart, does she put the integrity of the office and the needs of the people first – no. Instead, Pelosi stood at a press conference attempting to preempt the House Ethics Panel’s announcement of 13 ethics and federal regulation charges against Rangel, and actually claimed credit and “great pride” in her swamp-draining record. Like a drone in the headlights of oncoming adulation, Nancy Pelosi suggested that the House trial against Rangel is proof that the “process” is working, even while admitting that they dragged their feet for two full years and that they are understaffed and ill-equipped to handle such cases. Ever the programmed “Manchurian Candidate” politician, Pelosi, with a straight face (no doubt the result of years of practice with pretending to believe her party’s blind rhetoric) could not help but fall back on the old standby: Bush Bashing. A full eighteen months after his presidency ended, and in the midst of her own party’s ethics scandal, Nancy actually carped about Bush-era GOP corruption in the same press conference. Can someone get Nancy a calendar so she knows what date it is. Through the fog of distraction being put up by the Democrats, Nancy was surprisingly silent about Charlie Rangel’s lobbyist-funded attorneys frantic negotiations behind the scenes to avoid a congressional trial. Of course, a public trial, we can’t have that can we? A public trial would thoroughly air his self-dealing, habitual bad-faith failures to report income, multiple House gift ban and solicitation ban violations, flouting of franking privilege, and a blatant disregard for the laws of this nation, but hey, that’s not that big a deal, right?

Bush-bash all you want, and lecture us (the blind public – isn’t American Idol on tonight?) all you want about ethics and how you plan to “clean up the mess”. Nancy, you, Charlie Rangel, and your cronies are the very reason why so many Americans have so little trust in our government. Say what you will, but the Rangel stench is overwhelming. Over the past several months, while he quietly leveraged every possible tactic to avoid scrutiny, he failed to produce documents, he obstructed House investigators, and he hid behind a wall of apathy and protection from the other House Democrats, his partners in crime as they sling mud at the Republicans, all the while ignoring the plank in their own eye. Entitlement politics is nothing short of an arrogance that you are above the law, and I for one am disgusted with the “business as usual” practices of Washington when it comes to dealing with this type of blatant criminal activity. And to Nancy and her friends, I suggest that there is nothing noble in the Democratic enablers who display their long pattern of indifference for honest, open, and transparent government.

Stop talking and start doing. Maybe then it would be easier to take you seriously.

Kerry Saying One Thing, then Doing Another

I find Doug Power’s Blog article: John Kerry Gets a Long Face When Reporters Confront Him About Taxes on the SS Rhode Island, interesting because the implications of this news story reach beyond the acts themselves. The story is about how Massachusetts Senator and former Presidential Democratic Nominee avoided paying his state’s luxury taxes on his 73-foot yacht by keeping it in Rhode Island. In his blog, Doug Powers alludes to Kerry’s discomfort and apparent back peddling when asked about the issue by reporters. He even includes the news video footage itself, which I find lends credibility to his assertions. It allows the reader to see for them self what point the author is making by introducing the source directly.

Given that he’s writing for a conservative blog, his audience is obviously right leaning. However, Powers does a good job at holding back any flurry of anti-liberal attacks, giving his post an air of objective news reporting, at least for a blog. Still, he does write with a slant, even ending his blog with a “swift boat” reference obviously intended to lay a connection between Kerry’s yacht incident to the past Presidential election’s allegations that Kerry lied and flip-flopped on important issues about his past. That said, I found the main theme of the post credible because Powers listed several facts about the tax issues relating to this incident which helps make his point, without relying on passionate argument. For example, Powers points out that Kerry’s claim that placed his boat in Rhode Island for repairs seems questionable because the boat repair industry in his own state is in desperate need. He further illustrates that the Massachusetts luxury tax policy – which Kerry championed – actually drives business away to other states. The effect of all this is that the blog post touches upon a sensitive unspoken issue of distrust that citizens have for politicians and their policies. The real thrust in Power’s writing is that he allowed me to form my own emotions about what I feel about politician’s saying one thing, then doing another – without telling me how to feel. Powers effectively allows Kerry to bury himself, letting the facts speak for themselves, and in doing so, I feel he makes a stronger point versus simply yelling and hurling hatred at Kerry and the left. Sometimes less is more, and facts speak for themselves, and you can only diminish their impact with more words and more rhetoric.

Finally, I felt the strongest statement in Power’s post was his call to action to Kerry. You would think that such a blatant move to avoid the very taxes he so vocally postured for would bring forth Power’s allegations that Kerry was a liar, a slick, corrupt politician, or a loophole schemer. Instead, Powers does what I feel is too-often overlooked in blog reporting: he puts the attacks aside and gets to the truth that many people already feel. Powers simply suggest that instead of paying the taxes which Kerry sneakily avoided, that he just admit that those types of taxes are unfair and in essence, don’t work, and they have the opposite of the intended effect. He asks Kerry to admit that overly taxing people, even for luxury items, sounds good in election speeches but fails as public policy. Overall, I would say that Powers succeeds in pandering to his base audience, while also presenting a subtle, semi-objective blog post that few can argue with.

Protect Free Speech or the Public Interest?

My critique is about an editorial published in the Austin Statesman on Friday, July 16, titled, Some public officials just don't get it, do they? The focus of the editorial is to express outrage about a recent lawsuit filed by 17 elected officials from 4 cities in Texas, including Pflugerville. The lawsuit claims that the Texas Open Meeting Act violates their First Amendment rights to free speech, as the law prevents them from holding private meetings about public business. The author of the editorial targets the general public in an attempt to both draw attention to the possibility of elected officials holding private meetings about public business, and to solicit support for opposing the lawsuit.

The author uses inflammatory language and imagery to suggest that these elected officials will get together in private and discuss government business, make laws, and decide important issues – all “in secret”. He does present details about the Texas Open Meeting Act, approved in 1967, stating that “a quorum of any government body cannot talk about official business in private”, with violators being subject to six-months in jail and a $500 fine. However, I felt that the author presented only one side of this argument, and he could have been more objective about the plaintiff’s viewpoint for their lawsuit.

Essentially, the editorial paints a picture of conniving politicians meeting in secret to make decisions against the common good, with the public powerless to stop them. He lays out several potential scenarios about lawmakers “huddled up in their living rooms” deciding budgets, or school board members pulling “a closed-door all nighter to rejigger” the boundary lines that determine where your child attends school. None of these meetings are actually taking place, yet the writer uses them to establish a precedent of opposition against the lawsuit filed by the elected officials. However, upon closer examination, it’s fair to say that the lawsuit only seeks to banish the criminal penalties and not the law itself. They plaintiffs claim that any law which prevents or monitors when choose to speak is an infringement on their freedom of speech. The editorial offers no acknowledgement for the importance of protecting free speech, and dismisses the claim by proclaiming that the lawsuit is not “about protecting free speech, but protecting secret speech”. He also reminds readers that public officials serve at the will of the people, that they volunteered to serve, and they are welcome to step aside at any time if they don't like the law. In closing, the author does a good job of including statements for the plaintiff’s lawyers as well as the Texas Attorney General who is defending the statute, as both sides have public statements strongly supporting their viewpoints.

Overall, I can’t find fault in the editorial message about protecting the public’s interest through transparency in government, and the author does a good job of calling people to action to pay attention to this lawsuit and what possible implications can arise from a ruling either way. While it may seem to be only a minor adjustment to remove the criminal penalties for meeting in private to discuss public business, the author suggests that without any penalties there really is nothing to deter such occurrences. There are two major political implications for how this lawsuit plays out. The first being the obvious protection of the public’s right to have full access to government proceedings, which is the thrust of the editorial’s message. However, I see a second possible outcome for impacting the First Amendment interpretations, as a ruling for or against the lawsuit establishes a precedent for free speech that may be called upon to support other causes in the future. While I don’t find fault with the editorial’s one-sided message to it’s intended audience, I would suggest that anyone wanting a clearer picture on the veracity of this lawsuit, do more research themselves.

Cautious Optimism about Stopping the Oil Leak

The Los Angeles Times posted an article today stating that BP claims to have stopped the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The claim stems from BP’s assertion that a test valve they have placed over the well has finally stopped the oil from flowing. Initial response from, BP executives and other experts were positive yet cautious, as these types of value measures can often uncover hidden leaks in pipes buried deep underground and yet unrealized.

In the article, President Obama called Thursday’s successful test by BP to cap the well that has been spewing oil into the Gulf of Mexico since late April “good news,” however BP Senior Vice President Kent Wells summed up everyone’s hesitant optimism, “As you can imagine, it felt good not to see any oil going into the Gulf of Mexico,” before going on to add, “What I’m trying to do is maintain my emotions. Remember, this is the start of our test.”

The bottom line is that the cap may or may not completely stop the flow of oil permanently, and only more data, time, and testing will reveal how successful the fix is. All parties involved, including BP, regulatory officials, and the White House have used this announcement to timidly claim victory while at the same time laying the groundwork for back-peddling when and if the cap fails. President Obama packaged his statement with an announcement that he and his family are planning to travel to Maine for a weekend getaway.

This is an important article to read for a couple reasons. First, the oil crisis might, just might be heading to a close, at least with relation to the spill itself. Secondly, it’s important to observe just how each party might leverage this news to their advantage. If the well is capped, will everyone who passed the buck around during the crisis suddenly claim victory? Will aggressive action be taken to repair the environmental destruction? Will people and businesses affected by this tragedy finally get some reprieve? We can only watch and see. I’m trying to remain optimistic, but it’s getting harder every day.