Out of Our Depth

The Titan incident has spawned a fascinating variety of responses from an unusual variety of people. From people on social media openly mocking those who have died, to Matt Walsh lauding the Titan five as the ilk of renown historical adventurers and explorers, to James Cameron's objective and technical critique of the sub design, there just seems to be a strange quality to the entire episode. It's fascinating in what it highlights about current sensibilities.

I have great sympathy for the families of the dead, and no ill will for the dead themselves, for the most part. I have great contempt for the OceanGate CEO, who was clearly a man of staggering hubris and foolishness. Though it ultimately cost him his life, the consequences of it were not limited to him. The unfortunate thing is that his mindset is becoming more common in the world, and we are confronted here with the fact that the scientific world isn't immune.

Reality doesn't bow to ideology in the physical systems used by mankind. Science demands respect. It is unforgiving and unmalleable. It will kill if wielded irresponsibly, on any scale imaginable. There are reasons that real science is built on a foundation of science, layer by layer, in a progression as old as human civilization. Rejecting the lessons of past experience in dangerous endeavors is the act of fools. It is also a trend.

We live in a time of astounding hubris. It goes far beyond science. Across the board, we reject the constancy of human nature and declare every step of those who went before "outdated". We replace experience with conviction and self declared virtue. We devalue the life lessons and expertise of the experienced still among us. We push mature, proven, technologies aside to make a space to "create". And people die. Unnecessarily.

There is a science to safety. Ensuring it requires testing and validation, just like any STEM development requires testing and validation. Rejecting previously tested and proven safety methods, processes, and systems, is dangerous. Whether it's creating a completely new materials approach to designing deep sea vehicles, or lowering the requirements for safety critical jobs (like pilots) to change corporate social score ratings, or adopting a new vaccine technology and administering it on a global scale without long term testing, or modifying viruses and bacteria without adequate safeguards, it's dangerous.

We will get away with it sometimes. Getting away with something doesn't mean it's not dangerous. People are dabbling with seriously dangerous things in our modern world. Maintaining respect for the engineers and scientists who charted the course through scientific history is important for keeping us safe. There is no controlling authority in the middle of the ocean who will keep your sub design safe, or your bio lab. Safety has to be in the heart and mind of everyone who works in a dangerous field.

All reactions:

33

Tools don't do work, they get used

In his forum with Shelley Luther last night, Reggie, with great flare, took credit for a number of things that the legislature did to address government overreach in the Covid response.  Unfortunately, the reality is that a response to the crisis from Reggie was non-existent. Greg Abbott delivered his first shutdown order in March of 2020. The 87th legislative session convened on January 12, 2021. For 10 months, Reggie Smith was completely silent on this issue while constituents were asking their representative to call for a special session so the people's voice could be heard on the topic.

Reggie's umbrage at the accusation that he didn't do enough was as clear as it was ironic in face of the reality that he did literally nothing for those 10 months. Zero is not enough. When the legislature convened in January of 2021, Reggie took his place as a loyal follower of the House establishment leadership. We would have been as well served by any empty suit who could follow orders. It is disappointing to see his fire reserved solely for the concerns of those constituents who have been begging their representative to direct it at obstacles in Austin.

The political establishment defends itself and represents itself against the concerns of the people. This isn't just about a political campaign event between two candidates. Shelley Luther is voicing concerns that many of Reggie's constituents have regarding how their voice is being heard, or silenced, in Austin. It should not be unreasonable to expect the fire and passion Reggie displayed last night on behalf of Austin to follow him to Austin on behalf of his constituents. Yet, he couldn't find it within him to muster such passion a single time in 10 months of Abbott's serial misuse of his emergency powers.

Many of us have been calling for a fourth special session for months now. Reggie has given no indication that he has any interest in joining that call. Our state has extremely serious and time sensitive issues that urgently need to be addressed by our representatives. It is appalling to see that these will simply be ignored until 2023, but that is the course we are on. If Reggie wins this race I am sure that he will brag again about the accomplishments of the session, while once again ignoring the wreckage wrought by the long intervening delays.

It is crystal clear which of these two candidates has the sense of urgency, and basic empathy, that matches the enormity of the issues facing Texas and HD62. Please join me supporting Shelley Luther.

Shelley Luther on the Campaign Trail

 A video of  Shelley Luther Speaking for folks who may not have access to facebook. (Click on Shelley's name to see the video)

Inaction or surrender?

Inaction in the Texas House does not simply maintain the status quo. The Texas legislature meets only once every two years. Between now and the next opportunity our legislators will have to address our concerns we will see our property taxes raised twice, the broken school finance system will continue to do its damage, the life of someone's loved will be cut short by the woefully short 10-day-law, and more schools and municipalities will promote social engineering over the privacy of Texans. Inaction by the House Republican leadership is support of the progressive agenda, and it is an insult to the thousands upon thousands of Texans who delivered a near super majority to House Republicans in expectation that these issues would be addressed.

The bill limiting the ability of doctors and hospitals to place do-not-resuscitate orders on patients without their consent or the consent of their loved ones did not pass in the regular session. Thankfully it passed in the final hours of the special session. How many lives would have been cut short by the status-quo over the next two years if Governor Abbott had not prioritized this issue for action during the special session? Where was the sense of urgency during the first 140 days of the session? Why did House leadership delay this action to the second to last day of the special session?

I recently had the opportunity to listen to my incumbent opponent explain that several issues were not addressed because of competing approaches to solving these problems within the house. I followed the session pretty closely this year, but don’t remember grand battles on the floor of the House between competing ideas for addressing Texans’ property tax concerns. I don’t recall the passionate struggle over which method was best for protecting the privacy of our daughters in their school locker rooms. I do recall a group of representatives trying to address the privacy issue for their constituents, and the Speaker of the House telling concerned Texans that their concerns were “manure” while his leadership team made sure the issue would not be addressed for at least two more years.

Complacency is just a word for describing a lack of conviction. It is too easy for two years of inaction to become four years of inaction. Before you know it the Republican majority has the Democrat choice for Speaker of the House for ten years, and a decade of opportunity is lost. It is time for the complacent administrators of government to step aside. We need Representatives who have the same sense of urgency as the constituents who send them to Austin.

Selecting Texas' Speaker

There is a phenomenon in politics, so routine that it has become cliché. We even make jokes about it by saying things like “There must be something in the water in Austin.”, or Washington, or virtually any seat of government throughout the United States. That phenomenon is, of course, the example of a politician who is carried across the finish line on election day by voters excited to have a champion on their side, only to see those voters eventually confronted with the reality that the politician is a champion for an opposing team.

It is a mystery why such people are so frequently drawn to become politicians. It is no mystery why voters become disillusioned. One often offered explanation for the phenomenon is that Austin changes and corrupts previously principled people. A more plausible theory is that the magical properties of Austin’s water reveal unprincipled politicians for who they have always been.

One of the most significant events for Texas politics in recent years is scheduled to occur on August 17^th. The Texas House Republican caucus is scheduled to convene to discuss or adopt the process for selecting the Speaker of the House for the 2019 legislative session. This is the opportunity for House Republicans to take the selection process out of the hands of the Democrats and their few GOP allies. Thankfully, it is looking increasingly likely that a quorum will be formed and that the meeting will take place. What is almost surreal is that a significant number of House Republicans are dragging their feet on committing to attend. Why are House Republicans not overwhelmingly leaping at the chance to let Republicans choose the Republican nominee for Speaker?

In 2016 a plank was added to the Republican Party of Texas platform recommending the following process for selecting Speaker:

“Texas Speaker of the House- We oppose the use of pledge cards and call for the Republican members to caucus after each November general election to determine by secure secret ballot, their candidate for Speaker. We also call for the Republican members to vote as a unified body for their selected speaker candidate when the legislature convenes in regular session.”

This is not an unreasonable request. The grassroots that has worked countless hours to bring the House Republican caucus from the slimmest possible majority in 2009(when Joe Straus became Speaker), to a near super-majority in 2017 simply wants their Republican majority to be able to function as a Republican majority. On August 17^th the opportunity that grassroots Republicans have been working for, and pleading for since Joe Straus became Speaker of the House will arrive.

In recent discussions with grassroots Republicans, some former leaders in their local Party, I have been struck once again with how much frustration there is over the disconnect between representatives and the sincere concerns of the Republican base. I have watched in awe as a variety of representatives have offered up excuses for why they might not make it to the meeting this Thursday. An opportunity to show real concern and a connection with the cares and interests of their constituents is replaced with another subliminal declaration that what they represent has everything to do with Austin, and very little to do with the folks back home.

There is a real struggle taking place in Austin between representatives of the Republican grassroots and representatives of the Joe Straus caucus. It is unfortunate, and painful to see this divisiveness within our own Party, but it is the state of Texas politics. There will be few better opportunities for GOP House members to demonstrate whether they represent the Texans in their district, or an institution of politics in the state capitol. On August 17^th a clear message will be sent to the Republican base - one way, or another.

Warped powers

America's founding fathers were not isolationists. They recognized that there were connections between the nations of the world and American interests, but history is clear that they considered it vital to connect American interests to any action against the interests of other nations.

Our very first president sent military aid to belligerents in a foreign land. He was not an isolationist. This point needs to be stressed because there are quite a few toward the right end of the American political spectrum that have a sanitized view of the founders philosophy regarding our place on the globe. It is equally important to stress the point that Washington did not unilaterally send US troops to follow that military aid to Haiti.

Much debate has ensued in recent days regarding President Trump's unilateral cruise missile barrage on an air base in Syria. Some say the President is within his constitutional limits to strike out on his own in cases like this, some say he is not. How can the Constitution support both sides of this argument?

In some cases the Constitution is unfortunately vague, or leaves a gap for others to fill in. The Constitution touches on war making powers in descriptions of the powers of the legislative and executive branches. The powers of congress are covered in Article 1 Section 8, and the most quoted salient point grants Congress the power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

The President's authority is described in Article 2 Section 2:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;

And that's pretty much all we have from the Constitution on the authority of warring. The gap in the descriptions is that the text contains no restraint on the President in his role as commander in chief. As a result, one side in the debate claims that no restraint was intended and that the President can command his forces beyond our borders as he chooses. The other side claims congress' war declaration power is intended to restrain the President. Which side of this argument a person, or politician, is likely to take generally depends on which party controls which branch of government at any given time.

What really shouldn't be in question is which side of this debate America's founders would be on if they were part of our contemporary discussion. It is clear from their historically recorded fundamental distrust of centralized executive authority, and from comments we have from the founders themselves that the elected representatives of the people were to decide when American blood and treasure would be placed at risk in foreign war. The following quote from James Madison is long, but it covers a variety of points on this subject:

In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture to heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man; not such as nature may offer as the prodigy of many centuries, but such as may be expected in the ordinary successions of magistracy. War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will, which is to direct it. In war, the public treasures are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war, the honours and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered, and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honourable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace.

While the argument that the President's strike on Syria doesn't fit some specific definition of "war" is made in many statements in the ongoing debate, it is clearly not an act of peace. War and peace are ends of a spectrum that Madison identifies here as falling under the control of congress. Here the President is offered the authority to declare neither war nor peace - or anything in between. The contempt that Madison held for executive power is crystal clear in these comments he made to Hamilton. The idea that he would support giving carte blanche power to strike at foreign lands to the person described in this quote is preposterous on its face.

In the young United States there was very little in the way of a standing army. In the early days federal troops were raised with specific things in mind, like protecting the frontier from Indian raids. An oddly consistent talking point for supporters of executive war powers includes using the Barbary wars as examples of unilateral executive war making in the time of America's founders. Problems with the Barbary states were nothing new to our young nation. This conflict began as soon as the British dropped their umbrella of protection from American ships at the beginning of the revolutionary war. The idea that Congress was not part of the war making process on the Barbary states after the drafting of the Constitution is a hollow talking point with no historical validity.

In Jefferson's first inaugural address he made it clear that he considered his authority to end at defensive action, unless authorized by Congress to go on the offensive. Though they did not issue a formal declaration of war, Congress provided approval for the first Barbary war at President Jefferson's request. They commissioned the building of our first naval vessels for this purpose. Congress did declare war in the second Barbary war. Nothing in these examples implies that there was an expectation that US Presidents had the authority to unilaterally strike foreign nations - even those that had declared war on us. To use this as an example of executive authority to strike without congressional consultation at foreign nations that are in no way threatening US interests is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

The issue of unilateral belligerent presidential escapades in foreign lands came to a head at the end of the Viet Nam conflict. Congress passed the War Powers Resolution (commonly referred to as "Act") in 1973. President Nixon vetoed the resolution and it became law when Congress voted to override Nixon's veto. The Resolution reconciles the ambiguities in the constitutional text with the spirit of the founder's intent. This is a legitimate role of our legislature.

The strength of the War Powers Resolution has never been tested in court. Unfortunately it has been used as a tool of the opposition to attack President's from both parties for political purposes. President's of both parties consistently ignore the law, while Congressional majorities from both parties refuse to make an effort to enforce it, or bring it to court for a ruling.

The question of whether it was right or wrong to strike at Syria is a subjective question and opinions will vary. The question of whether the President had the authority to strike at Syria should not be a subjective question. This should be a matter of law plainly resolved for the guidance of Presidents and Representatives irrespective of political party. The question of which causes the men and women of our armed forces should be asked to risk their lives for is not a question that one man should answer for an entire nation. In a republic, these are decisions that should be made by a republican process - as the founders intended.

Flynn Flammed

You can tell when a Republican is in the White House. Every potential misstep is Watergate, and every potential misstepper is Adolf Hitler. The day when this finally wears thin and people wise up to the media and democrat theatrics can't come too soon. At least we're all getting brushed up on the finer points of obscure 218 year old never once used laws. How about that Logan act eh? What would we do without it?

Michael Flynn is gone. I say good riddance. Trump can do better. Flynn now has the distinction of having been hired by two presidents in a row and let go by two presidents in a row (Obama and Trump). Bye Felicia.

There are a few possible scenarios about Mr. Flynn's wild, and brief, ride and mostly they all end with it being the right thing to do to let him go. Yes there are other miscreants in the mix, but that doesn't absolve Flynn of his sin.  A few possibilities;

Scenario 1 - Accepting the public narrative

• A reporter reveals Flynn engaged in conversations with Russia's ambassador to the US, Sergey Kislyak, on December 29th (the day Obama announced sanctions).
• Reporter wonders "What did Flynn say, and did it undercut the U.S. sanctions?".
• Flynn told VP Pence that he did not talk about improper stuff with Sergey.
• Pence supported his guy and publicly made false statements based on the bad info that Flynn gave him about not discussing the stuff.
• Routine FBI surveillance of Sergey revealed that Flynn did talk about the stuff with Sergey.
• Flynn confessed, apologized, and resigned.

Best case with this scenario is that the Trump admin has a NSA that will lie to them to cover his backside. It shouldn't have taken days to ask for his resignation in this scenario. Your NSA lies to you, you fire him. Once is once too much.

Scenario 2 - Conspiracy theory 1

Start with scenario 1 and add the possibility that Pence actually knew that Flynn had talked about the stuff at the time he was defending Flynn. In this scenario Pence's public presentation was a bluff. When it got called, scenario 2 became scenario 1 for all intents an purposes. The appearance that you have an NSA that lies to you becomes the public's reality and the NSA still gets fired.

Scenario 3 - Conspiracy theory 2

Add to scenario 2 the possibility that the December message to Sergey was sent on behalf of Trump/Pence. Here Flynn hasn't actually done anything on his own to put the administration in a tough spot. The ensuing theater around the issue still presents some difficulty in keeping Flynn, but there is the possibility that the administration might have stood by a loyal team member and just rode it out.

Scenario 4 - The big conspiracy theory

Consider the possibility that Mike Flynn was actually a focus of the surveillance. Flynn is a US citizen and stuff isn't supposed to be collected on him without a warrant. The information that was leaked shouldn't have been available to be leaked. The FBI investigation would have had to include looking for something like collusion between Russia and the Trump team for the leak to have been just a simple leak. 

Of course this scenario still leads into one of the first three, so still a better than 2 in 3 chance Flynn gets the boot.

All of the hoopla from the left about this being a scandal for the Trump administration is misdirected. If there is a real crisis that needs to be investigated here(and I think there is), it's with the retention of surveillance data on a US citizen, or the possibility that the warrant covered Trump team members, and of course the subsequent leaking of the surveillance. Two of these, The leaking and retention without a warrant, should result in charges against the people involved. The third involves the possibility that the warrant covered Michael Flynn, and the implications of that are enormous.

There is a fair amount of chatter that Flynn getting ousted is all the media's fault and they brought down one of Trump's inner circle. That's a pile of pasture puddles. The king of media trolling is the guy that just accepted Flynn's resignation. It's unlikely that Michael Flynn is out for any reason other than Michael Flynn. The silver lining is that Trump has an opportunity to trade up.