Half of white women now have a negative perception of Obama

[Michael Tee]

<<There are these photos where he is hugging Juniorbush like Timmy hugged Lassie, and they contradict all the bullcrap about what a 'maverick' he is.>>

I love those pictures and I think they ought to be plastered anywhere a voter will see them.  Preferably with little Cupids and hearts-and-arrows fluttering overhead.  Or, if that's not subtle enough, a la "Jesus' General" blog, some mock-Victorian, latent-homosexual prose, "Strong in Manly Affection" or the like.

[Amianthus]

That's just hilarious.  The guy who couldn't be broken by years of "torture" in Viet Nam "bullied" by De Concini into visiting the regulators.  Poor John.  Keep going, Ami, this is even better than I expected.

According to the book Trust Me, by Michael Binstein and Charles Bowden, about the Keating Five:

On March 24 at 9:30 a.m., Keating went to DeConcini's office and asked him if the meeting with the regulators was on. DeConcini told Keating that McCain was nervous.

"McCain's a wimp," Keating replied, "We'll go talk to him."

Keating had other business on Capitol Hill and did not reach McCain's office until 1:30. A DeConcini staffer already had told McCain about the "wimp" insult.

When he arrived, Keating presented McCain with a laundry list of demands for the regulators.

McCain told Keating that he would attend the meeting and find out whether Keating was getting treated fairly but that was all.

Does the record show how much money McCain received from Keating for all this nefarious but bungled skullduggery?  We've heard plenty about what McCain did for Keating, but as far as we know, what did KEATING do for McCain?

Keating raised $112,000 for McCain's campaign. Also, Keating provided McCain with a couple of vacations. After McCain found out about the criminal investigation, he gave the $112,000 to the US Dept of Treasury and reimbursed the $13,433 cost of the vacations to Keating.

[fatman]

Keating raised $112,000 for McCain's campaign. Also, Keating provided McCain with a couple of vacations. After McCain found out about the criminal investigation, he gave the $112,000 to the US Dept of Treasury and reimbursed the $13,433 cost of the vacations to Keating.

That seems proper and acceptable to me.

[Michael Tee]

If McCain were really interested in seeing if Keating were being treated fairly or unfairly, the first thing he'd do is get his lawyer on the phone and ask him to pin-point alleged instances of unfair treatment, so that he'd have specific allegations of unfairness to put to the regulators.  Or if the issues were relatively simple, he could just ask Keating himself what he thought was unfair.  Then, armed with a good knowledge of the complaints, he'd raise them with the regulators.  I don't see any indication from the regulators or others of any specific discussions relating to the fairness or unfairness of Keating's treatment.

Basically, the whole story (concerns of fairness) stinks.  If fairness is your concern, you hire a law firm specializing in regulatory law.  They know all about a regulator's basic duties of fairness and they would write to the regulators and complain.  If the regulators are being unfair, they get taken to court, hit with an injunction, sued for millions, etc.  There is nothing about unfair regulation that a good lawyer can't deal with, particularly from a firm specializing in financial industry regulation, of which there are plenty.

The idea that you send three U.S. Senators on a visit to complain about unfairness is ludicrous.  They are sent to intimidate if they can or to suggest legislative favours in return for looking the other way.  Maybe some lawyers could be added to the commercial, though - - fairness complaints?  "Oh, yeah, I do 'em all the time.  Just wrapped one up for Citibank, got another one coming for Manulife."  What's the procedure for victims of unfairness?  "Well, you file objection with this body and they'll hold a hearing from which you can appeal to  . . . {name of court)"  Did Keating ever file objection? "no."  This bullshit defence can be exploded with minimal effort.

[Amianthus]

I don't see any indication from the regulators or others of any specific discussions relating to the fairness or unfairness of Keating's treatment.

Because you didn't bother to read the numerous reports. There is none so blind as those unwilling to see...

If the regulators are being unfair, they get taken to court, hit with an injunction, sued for millions, etc.

You do realize that this "basic fairness" of regulators is another crock of crap that you're also throwing around to see if it sticks? You know who was running that "basically fair" board of regulators in 1995? DeConcini, the guy that Keating originally went to, the former Senior Senator from Arizona. Bill Clinton appointed him.

And I forgot to mention this previously. Why would a Democratically led committee hire a Republican prosecutor to investigate? Actually, the prosecutor later became famous because of his client Bill Clinton. He defended Bill during his impeachment.

This bullshit defence can be exploded with minimal effort.

Then one wonders why you have not bothered to bring any evidence that "explodes" this "bullshit defence [sic]".

[Plane]

The idea that you send three U.S. Senators on a visit to complain about unfairness is ludicrous.  They are sent to intimidate if they can or to suggest legislative favours in return for looking the other way.  Maybe some lawyers could be added to the commercial, though - - fairness complaints?  "Oh, yeah, I do 'em all the time.  Just wrapped one up for Citibank, got another one coming for Manulife."  What's the procedure for victims of unfairness?  "Well, you file objection with this body and they'll hold a hearing from which you can appeal to  . . . {name of court)"  Did Keating ever file objection? "no."  This bullshit defence can be exploded with minimal effort.

I don 't know how Canadian Legislators behave , but American Congressmen always answer a letter and assign staff to handle problems for constituants routinely "I'm gonna write my Congressman " is a common way to adress unfair management here where I work, every year they keep track of how many letters to the congressman have gone in , it is a good year when the number is small.

When a guy with clout asks for congressman service how much he gets is a measure of his clout , I Imagine that Bill Gates or Billy Chrystal coukd easily get some congressman to talk to but also likely Cindy Sheehan could.

[Michael Tee]

In Canada or in the U.S.A. a Federal regulatory board is legally required to act fairly.  Can you imagine the shitstorm that would arise if either Parliament or Congress set up a body with statutory regulatory powers over powerful industries and the enabling statute said that the board was NOT required to act fairly, that it could unfairly penalize, for example, Jews or blacks according to the prejudices of the chairman?  Yet we have Ami trying to tell us,

<<You do realize that this "basic fairness" of regulators is another crock of crap that you're also throwing around to see if it sticks? >> 

Ami goes on to "prove" that there is no basic legal duty of fairness with the following exposition: 

<<You know who was running that "basically fair" board of regulators in 1995? DeConcini, the guy that Keating originally went to, the former Senior Senator from Arizona. Bill Clinton appointed him.>>

Oh.  I guess that settles it.  The board has no legal duty to act fairly because its chairman was appointed by Bill Clinton.  Case closed.

Let's get back to the real world, OK?  EVERY federal regulatory board, Canadian, American, British, whatever, is under a legal duty of fairness, EVEN if the chairman was appointed by Bill Clinton.  (It's a fact - - see the famous "Clinton clause" that's usually tacked onto the end of every American regulatory statute:  "The duty of fairness hereby required of this Board and its Chairman applies notwithstanding that the said Chairman was appointed by President William Jefferson Clinton."  True story.  Pick any regulatory statute.  Check it out.)   Now I am sorry to say that it has been known that boards and their chairmen on occasion will violate that basic duty of fairness.  This is actually a GOOD thing, because it is those little violations that give employment to a whole swarm of high-priced law firms and their supporting staff, who specialize in nothing but guiding their wealthy and powerful clients through the complex mazes of Federal regulation.  These guys are keener than bloodhounds in sniffing out any trace of procedural or substantive unfairness, violations of natural justice, , bias, prejudice, denial of natural human rights, etc., etc., etc. and are contantly making threatening phone calls and sending threatening letters and e-mails to Federal regulators about it.  Of course the threats would be empty, were there no review and appellate boards within the regulatory system and courts outside the regulatory system, all with the power to grant redress (and sanctions!) to victims of boards which act unfairly.  There are lawyers who exist ONLY to get redress and to fight unfairness in the Federal regulatory system overseeing the financial services sector.

It is inconceivable that Keating would not have lawyers who could determine far more accurately than McCain's highly limited intellectual powers would ever be capable of, whether or not Keating's companies were being treated unfairly.  If McCain had even a smidgen of interest in the subject, he'd have met with Keating's lawyers, reviewed their complaints of unfairness to the regulators (or their internal memoranda if no complaints had been made yet) and reviewed any answers that the regulators might have made to the complaints.

The idea that McCain met with the regulators "to see if Keating was being treated fairly" is, on its face, preposterous.  That is a lawyer's job, not a Senator's.  Obviously he could only have been there to intimidate, through the stature of his office, the "lowly" civil servants who dared to make trouble for McCain's wealthy patron, who took the crooked little weasel on free luxury vacations and donated, apparently, as far as official sources are aware, at least $100,000 to McCain's campaign.

The video would have to make it very plain that Keating had sent a clutch of Senators to do what was essentially a lawyer's job.  Yet he obviously had a whole mob of high-priced lawyers specializing in that one particular area of Federal regulation at his disposal.  So the question has to be, WHY?  Why would the convicted felon send a bunch of corrupt U.S. Senators to do what any good regulatory lawyer would do better, determine if Keating's treatment at the hands of the board would be fair?

[Amianthus]

Oh.  I guess that settles it.  The board has no legal duty to act fairly because its chairman was appointed by Bill Clinton.  Case closed.

Nothing like a good strawman argument. I never said that it no duty to act fairly.

I said that in the real world, very often those boards contain people who are corrupt. We don't all happen to live in Mikey's perfect little world where regulatory boards are filled with angels, there only to do good.

And it had nothing to do with the fact that he was appointed by Clinton - it had to do with the fact that he was the guy who rounded up the other senators that were called the Keating Five. He was the one guy that Keating actually went to and asked for help. And he was the one guy out of the Keating Five that actually went to lengths to protect Keating.

But I guess he's actually the right guy to have on that board. Make sure it's all fair and honest, right? After all, he can't be bullied around by those wimpy senators, huh?

[Plane]

In Canada or in the U.S.A. a Federal regulatory board is legally required to act fairly. 

I would not have thought this true.


What are the leagal requirement of fairness of an agency like say the EPA or the BATF?

[Michael Tee]

I'd say they have to apply the law fairly, equally, without favour or discrimination.  Keep in mind, they are not making a law, they are enforcing it.  If the law is unfair, they must enforce the unfair law, but the victim of their enforcement can challenge the law under the Constitution as violating fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, something we Canadians couldn't do until 1982.

[Plane]

I'd say they have to apply the law fairly, equally, without favour or discrimination.  Keep in mind, they are not making a law, they are enforcing it.  If the law is unfair, they must enforce the unfair law, but the victim of their enforcement can challenge the law under the Constitution as violating fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, something we Canadians couldn't do until 1982.

Does n agency like this require someone to interpret the enforcement for fairness, or just for enforceing it as it is written?

[Michael Tee]

<<Does n agency like this require someone to interpret the enforcement for fairness, or just for enforceing it as it is written?>>

Any branch of the executive has a certain amount of discretion when it comes to enforcement of the law.  Eveyone's familiar with the police discretion to arrest or not to arrest, or the prosecutor's discretion to prosecute or not to prosecute.  Those seem to be pretty individualized, i.e. personal to the cop on the beat or the prosecutor, subject maybe to the D.A.'s or Crown Attorney's policy directives.

But at the level of big government agencies, the discretion is probably formalized in manuals which spell out the factors that need to be present for enforcement action, or even for discretionary relief from enforcement action.  Someone who feels aggrieved by the policy in the manual can always take the agency to court, and a judge will decide if the policy as laid out in the manual is unfair or not.  Or alternatively can complain, usually through counsel, to the head of the agency or the agency's ombudsman if it has one.

Even "enforcing it as it is written" is not as simple as it sounds.  What if there's a widespread attempt to avoid the legislation by thousands of individuals?  Sometimes it makes more sense to prosecute a test case than to go after all of them at once, because if they're right and the agency personnel are wrong, you've blown a thousand times the court costs that you would have blown by just going after the one test case.  Sometimes there's a high-profile case of violation, whereas all the other violators are just two-bit schleppers, so it makes a lot of sense to pour agency resources into the high-profile case because if they lose that one and win a hundred low-level cases, they'll still look like schmucks for letting the Big Fish get away.  Sometimes there aren't enough resources to "enforce as written" so a fair system has to be devised to prosecute a representative sample without appearing to be racist or class-conscious.