The Smallest Minority

Modern American liberals think about equal opportunity in this way:

1) Equal opportunity exists;
2) All men are equal; therefore,
3) All results ought to be equal.

However, they're shaken to the core that results are not equal, so they move in reverse:

3) Results are clearly NOT equal;
2) I cannot admit that men aren't equal to one another; therefore
1) Equal opportunity does NOT exist.

Of course, we've admitted that men are not equal, neither in ambition, nor intellect, nor talent, so the lack of equity of circumstance doesn't bother us.

workinwifdakids-

No. That is not what liberals think. Step one should be to stop listening to what conservative pundits say liberals mean. Step two should be refusing to allow those same pundits define equality for you. Step three is...well...mostly what I wrote in the link above...

Kevin, one more thing to add to my above link in regards to Michigan's Herman Miller Inc. I pulled this from one of my ED PSYCH texts

"They are the second largest manufacturer of office furniture. That success is attributable in part to the belief of HM's now retired chairman Max DePree, who invested in the idea that workers want to be effective and productive, to feel they are making a meaningful contribution, to have control over their own destinies, and to be appreciated.

When workers participate in decision making and know that they and their managers are mutually accountable, a shared committment to corporate and personal goals replaces labor vs management hostility. When workers feel respected, cared about, and invloved, they find work more satisfying. And, thanks to their productivity, their company benefits. Between 1974 and 1996 Herman Miller's annual sales grew from 40 million to 1.3 billion."

The corporations of our country need more Max DePrees and less Bill McGuires.

Markadelphia, if Herman Miller's way of doing things is so much better, it will soon be widely adopted. Companies are always looking for ways to improve.

Are you incapable of understanding the difference of a bunch of people WILLINGLY entering into a cooperative business like Herman Miller and the goverment COERCING people into running their companies in a way they don't want to? Simply because you want to pursue some impossible standard of "fairness"?

I read the post on your site. It's obvious that you don't even understand how capitalism works. You are mired in class envy and have swallowed common leftist lies about who "the rich" in this country are.

And yet you are quite willing to destroy this system that you don't understand, that has brought centuries of peace and prosperity to hundreds of millions of people.

And you wonder why we don't let people like you run this country.

(PS - If you want to know the truth about "the rich" in this country, I suggest the book "The Millionaire Next Door".)

"Americans are so enamored of equality, they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom."

-Alexis de Tocqueville

"Are you incapable of understanding the difference of a bunch of people WILLINGLY entering into a cooperative business like Herman Miller and the goverment COERCING people into running their companies in a way they don't want to?"

Are you incapable of seeing that many companies in this country coerce people into serfdom? And that it is getting worse everyday? If not the government overseeing our corporate culture, then who?

"I read the post on your site. It's obvious that you don't even understand how capitalism works. You are mired in class envy and have swallowed common leftist lies about who "the rich" in this country are."

No, I'm not.

"And yet you are quite willing to destroy this system that you don't understand, that has brought centuries of peace and prosperity to hundreds of millions of people."

What fantastical world of bullshit are you living in? Peace? Good lord...you think are country is peaceful? What version of US History have you read?

And I am not trying to destroy anything...just right the ship back on course. Take a look at what you are defending and tell me honestly if it is capitalism.

Oops "our" country

I have read your posts here on Kevin's site for a long time and I've never heard you adequately answer this question.

How can corporations oppress people?

A corporation can't force me to buy its products and it can't force me to work for it. Yes, it can lobby the government to create bad laws like the Digital Millennial Copyright Act, but even that is not oppression (and you can see, in the case of the RIAA, exactly how effective that sort of protectionism seems to be here in America).

This reminds me of how angry I get at people who use the term "wage slave". If you make a WAGE and you can quit any time you want you are NOT a slave and to call yourself one demeans the suffering of all the people who endured true slavery.

As for peace...other than that little contretemps back in the 1860's we haven't had much in the way of war on this entire continent for the last two centuries or so. Most other parts of the world wish they had as peaceful a past as us. I'm aware that you think that America is the cause of all war and strife throughout the entire world, but frankly you're just wrong. I seem to recall Kevin watching one of your propaganda movies on that subject and rebutting it fairly thoroughly. The rest of the world seems to be pretty darn good at screwing itself up without any help from us.

And if we have made mistakes in foreign policy, I can't help but think that they have been GREATLY outstripped out by the incredible strides we have made in medicine, communications, travel and food production - technologies that benefit people all over the world.

Indeed, all our mistakes are probably cancelled out single-handedly by Norman Borlaug.

Except that people like you never want to tally America's TOTAL score. No, no, you only want to discuss America's sins.

And ignore everyone else's.

Are you incapable of seeing that many companies in this country coerce people into serfdom?

Please name one. Be specific. Show how the coercion is applied.

Shouldn't be too hard.

U of A beats Houston--good, Ice cold porter--good, Socialists--bad...Two outa three ain't bad!

Radio talk show host Dennis Prager opened my eyes to this liberty v. equality debate when he observed that liberty and equality are antithetical concepts. The more of one you have the less you have of the other.

The Declaration of Independence stated all men were born equal and were endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among those life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But none of our founding documents state it is the function of government to make all men equal.

The three foundational principles of the United States can be found on any U.S. coin: In God We Trust, Liberty and E Pluribus Unum.

How did we ever get so far astray? (That is a rhetorical question.)

"'Are you incapable of seeing that many companies in this country coerce people into serfdom?'

Please name one. Be specific. Show how the coercion is applied."

I second that challenge. Please be specific.

Viridian:
Yes, it can lobby the government to create bad laws like the Digital Millennial Copyright Act, but even that is not oppression

Oh, but it can be. It can be.

A company can get the government to hand over legal title to "your land".

But the problem here isn't that there is a company (or corporation), it's the assumed power of the government.

Companies can and do oppress people using the government to do it. Where the government won't do it, the corporation/company doesn't have the ability to do it themselves.

Viridian:
Except that people like you never want to tally America's TOTAL score.

To pick a nit here, they want to start with Pax Americana and presume that's the normal state of affairs.

Then blame the U.S. for anything that goes on, no matter who's encouraging what, setting up a perverse incentive where there is no downside to attacking America. (Verbally or physically.)

So when the US is attacked, it's because of our actions (or that we didn't act), absolving the actual attackers of consideration of "adult" decision-making. Infantilizing them. It's not fair to expect them to understand the ramifications, or to bear the responsibilities....

Which really gets to the crux of the whole argument: Only they are "grown up" enough to made decisions. Us idiot peons don't understand, and those other people, well, you can't expect them to behave intelligently.

No, they are the only ones smart enough to come up with solutions in the "real world". (Any real world proof that they don't know what they're talking about, can be conveniently ignored, after all, it's being brought up by somebody less intelligent and educated.)

To add to the piling on, when Mark provides his example of a company oppressing people and turning them into serfs, I would like him to provide the precise remedy he thinks would reverse this serfdom.

"How can corporations oppress people?"

Wow. I don't even know where to begin with this one. This is really going to require some thought. There's too much to say....

"that little contretemps back in the 1860's"

Little? Good Lord...

"you think that America is the cause of all war and strife throughout the entire world"

No, I don't. I think that America, like every other country, is capable (and does so on a regular basis) of committing acts of unspeakable violence in the name of "freedom."

What slays me about some conservatives is that they have a very rosy view of our country. I agree that the rest of the world is also fucked up. So are we. We aren't any better. We fix elections, have coup d'etats, and kill people for money every day-within and without our country. We have moments when are better than the rest of the world but mostly (and especially now) we are not.

So, while I agree that we have done an incredible amount of good in the world, it's really hard for me to ignore the bad as well.

"Please name one. Be specific. Show how the coercion is applied. "

I don't have to name one. Pick any company that lends credit..car, house, doesn't matter. Once you have that loan, you are indebted to them. You are a serf. Your choices become limited otherwise you lose you car, your house etc. Our society is set up to apply coercion through the extrinsic motivation of having the car, the house...whatever. True, you can choose to live in an apartment and take the bus but that's not really a choice is it? Not having a car takes employment choices away from you. You are being forced down a path like a rat in a maze.

I want to be clear, though, that not all companies in America do this. There are some corporations, like Herman Miller, that embrace their employees needs. Several of them (Target, Best Buy, General Mills) are here in my home state. There need to be more of them. The key here, folks, is intrinsic motivation.

Unix, I agree mostly with your first post. The government should never have that power. We should never live in a country where either the private industry or government has too much power. Now it seems like they both do, in sort of an unholy marriage, and it sickens me. So why on earth would I want government sponsored health care? Well, that's a discussion for another day....

Your second post, however, is another example of that rosy view of our foreign policy. When we are attacked, its because both sides (Al Qaeda) were involved in some crooked bullshit that all comes back to money and power. Equal blame on all sides.

Mastiff, I would reverse serfdom by encouraging more companies to operate like the ones mentioned above. Do you think the employees of Herman Miller feel like serfs? They are part owners. I know several people that work at Target Corp. They are owners. A friend of mine started Dain Rauscher, the tenth largest securities firm in the nation. Their employees aren't serfs either because they are invested. You remedy the situation by making all workers feel like owners-collective management.

I don't have to name one. Pick any company that lends credit..car, house, doesn't matter. Once you have that loan, you are indebted to them. You are a serf. Your choices become limited otherwise you lose you car, your house etc.

Unless the lender is physically forcing a customer to sign the loan agreement, this is in no way coercion.

I've had many loans over the years -- some I was not able to honor! But I never held it against the companies for lending me the money. I was grateful for the chance and hated that I bit off more than I could chew.

But you know what? Even at the worst, darkest point, the worst I had to deal with were nasty letters and telephone calls. Nobody was kicking my door in, shooting my dog, stomping on my cats, taking me away at gunpoint and throwing me in jail... you might note these are all government activities.

But just a few years later, they're all paid off, I still have my house, I have 2 nice cars in the driveway and my credit is again good enough that I have a couple of high limit, low interest cards. All it took was some work. Not bad for a guy who flunked out of college, huh?

If you equate a voluntary loan transaction to government feudalism, you're pretty goddamn stupid. Are you a public school teacher or something?

PDB: In point of fact, he is.

And we've had this "capitalism = slavery!" discussion before. He's just using serfdom because he got his ass stomped for using the other s-word the first time.

"I don't have to name one. Pick any company that lends credit..car, house, doesn't matter. Once you have that loan, you are indebted to them. You are a serf. Your choices become limited otherwise you lose you car, your house etc"

by that do you mean that you view any secured loans freely entered into as immoral/serfdom? How do you plan on designing a better system - have lenders rely on punitive rates of interest to make up for defaulters? If you don't let the lenders make a (dirty word here, make sure you wash after reading this) profit, then how many people could own anything like a house?

I don't imagine many of your students thanking you if you stopped them getting loans, so they have to wait till their 40s to build up enough cash to buy a house outright. Especially with no savings accounts as banks can't do anything useful with the money if they can't lend it all in the name of 'fairness'. Although that wouldn't affect the hated rich who could probably get their parents to stump up the cash.


"I would reverse serfdom by encouraging more companies to operate like the ones mentioned above"
How exactly? as has been said above if that is a superior business model then other companies will end up following it anyway, if you try to force it through govt power with lots of nice sounding workers rights, then how do you plan on avoiding all of the problems that have historically come with a heavily unionized country? Look up the british disease in the period up to the 1980s if you’re not familiar with the problems.

Short of the government nationalizing the housing stock and assuming virtually the same level of control over private companies I simply don't see how your schemes could work, and we all know the problems with civil liberties that would cause, never mind that communist model countries aren't exactly economic powerhouses.
Or for you is it just a question of getting the right people in charge, so with a man like Obama as President who could in your eyes could truly unify the country behind these sort of ideas and have the power to overcome the hated Rove/Cheney/Bush axis of evil. Once that was done with everyone working together with limitless self esteem and holding hands while singing round the camp fire and really believing in things all of the problems would melt away?

“What slays me about some conservatives is that they have a very rosy view of our country. I agree that the rest of the world is also fucked up. So are we. We aren't any better. We fix elections, have coup d'etats, and kill people for money every day-within and without our country. We have moments when are better than the rest of the world but mostly (and especially now) we are not.”

Its not that we believe (me at least) our own governments are flawless, its just that we have a far less rosy view of governments than liberals, and that nations sometimes act aggressively, unreasonably and dishonestly while pursuing their own strategic, political and economic aims is a given. As long as the govt doesn’t do anything too brutal (which would be counterproductive usually in foreign affairs) I don’t expect the methods used to be completely honest – I’m British and was bloody annoyed at the BAe ‘scandal’ a year ago over some bribes to the Saudi’s in a $40bn deal – it’s a given that companies use a slush fund and for parliament to pass stupid laws requiring companies to act according to UK law while dealing with foreigners was idiotic. I’ve no doubt that if BAe was stopped from having a slush fund then bribery wouldn’t stop it would simply be the French/Americans/Russians/Israelis/Chinese/Germans doing it and getting contracts. Its just a given that nations often act badly in foreign affairs, and to require ones own government to act whiter than white is idiotic bordering on suicidal – if Americans had agreed to withdraw from every conflict when your leaders hadn’t acted flawlessly you could forget debating whether Obama would be a good President and start debating whether you want Brown or Cameron to win the next general election
From your blog Mark
“All rich people made their money honestly and through hard work and should be given the worship and adoration they deserve. (Also having trouble not laughing)”
The Millionaire Next Door was mentioned by another poster, and is a pretty interesting read. 80% of American millionaires are self made, and have managed to get there by living within or below their means, working hard often in jobs such as teachers, owning small businesses etc, and using their money wisely in savings/bonds/investments in stockmarket/investment in own businesses over decades. They did not get that way by “fucking over joe”, and we do not worship them (I doubt anyone here prays to billionaire Soros), but respect their achievement in showing self restraint and helping create the wealth that pays for everything, and wish to emulate them and have money to spend on families/for retirement without having to take money off others to live because we’d spent every penny on hookers and blow. Your belief that taking money from them to pay for a larger government is a moral good because their rich ignores that the majority of them did indeed make “money honestly and through hard work”, a business that makes a habit of “fucking over joe” is unlikely to prosper, as the businesses you yourself mentioned would quickly take their customers, so punishing these people for the ‘sins’ of a small percentage of millionaire who flaunt their wealth (and often aren’t actually millionaires but are mortgaged to the hilt to the banks) is immoral.

hmm, that seemed a lot shorter in my head

I think you've been a bad influence on me Kevin ;-)

"I think you've been a bad influence on me Kevin"

Careful. He's contageous.

(Is that why I'm on a list?)
Edited By Siteowner

"If you equate a voluntary loan transaction to government feudalism, you're pretty goddamn stupid. Are you a public school teacher or something?"

Yes, I am. So, all public school teachers are stupid? Or are they just brainwashed with all these leftist lies? Good God..

And Lab, whether you want to see it or not, you are a slave. I am a slave. We all are slaves. There has been a lot of grandiose talk of how "free" we are and compared to other countries I suppose we are. Don't you think we can do better, though? You're a scientist, right? Why don't you do an informal study? Ask some people in various parts of your city if they feel free or not in our culture.

"Once that was done with everyone working together with limitless self esteem and holding hands while singing round the camp fire and really believing in things all of the problems would melt away?"

Well, things would be a lot better. Perfect? No, because I recognize the various shortcomings in liberal ideology. Some of the points that have been made here are valid. The problem begins when criticism is then turned towards the conservative ideology. Sure, it's all well and good to find things wrong with the liberal slant on things (see: confirmation bias) but have any of you ever sat back and critically thought about the problems that have arisen as a result of conservative ideology?

Jesus Christ, none of that sunk in at ALL, did it? Using the word "slave" to mean whatever the hell you want renders the word completely fucking useless to describe actual slavery- the ownership of other human beings- which still goes on today and was, is, ever will be worse than merely being in debt by so many orders of magnitude I've run out of adjectives.

Feel free? Give me a break. People who are sitting around contemplating about the degree of free they feel are not, I guarantee you, being forced to do heavy manual labor (or forced into sex, as in the most common modern form) while they are physically separated from their family members and fed and housed or sold exactly as their owner's current whim. The bank I pay my mortgage money to does not own me. It cannot make me work at a task of its choosing, it cannot sell me to a different household, it cannot make me have sex with strangers, it cannot, in fact, do anything but use various legal coercions to make me honor the debt I went into when they bought my goddamn house for me that provides me with warmth and shelter and space.

The fact that you'd even suggest that a "study" that consisted of walking around asking people if they "felt free" bore the slightest resemblance to science proves you have not got the slightest idea what science is or how it's done.

But then, I already knew that, didn't I, just like I knew you had a black hole where your integrity belongs the second I realized you were still rattling on about that "we're all slaves, really!" bullshit.

I no longer know if you're really consciously morally and intellectually bankrupt or just denser than tungsten, but I DO know it no longer makes a difference.

"The bank I pay my mortgage money.."

But they can sell your mortgage to another company. What if that other company decides to sell to another company? What if that company goes out of business? You don't have as much power as you think.

(Mark: SO WHAT? Here's one of those places where government has a legitimate role. The terms of the contract between the mortgage holder and the home owner DON'T CHANGE. - Ed.)

"you had a black hole where your integrity belongs"

"consciously morally and intellectually bankrupt"

Wow. That's pretty powerful stuff. Clearly, I've hit a nerve here and I really don't think it has anything to do with me personally so it's odd that you'd attack me that way. (No, I think it really has something to do with you, personally.) I really think it would do you and some others some good to not be so hyper-sensitive about words and what they mean. (We think it would do some good if you would stop with the word-manipulation.) Words are fluid, they are organic...they shouldn't be place inside of a padlocked box and applied in only the strictest of terms. (But when the right does it, "fluid and organic" becomes "manipulation." Check.)

Lab, there are more ways to be a slave than to be in debt or to be human property. We are all slaves, to a certain degree, to the society we live in. Whether you want to admit it or not, you do things everyday that don't involve a lot of choice. (NO. No, no, no. If you don't like your culture, you have the FREEDOM to LEAVE. If you are a SLAVE you DO NOT HAVE THAT FREEDOM. Please engrave that on your forehead in reverse lettering with a branding iron so you can read it every morning in the mirror.) When your drive to work, there might be a lane closed so you have to go a different route. You lose ten minutes of work and then have to stay late and the you are stuck in traffic longer. Then you miss time hanging out with your friends....did you make that choice? Or did someone make it for you? (THIS is your example of SLAVERY?!?!? "Consciously morally and intellectually bankrupt" isn't an insult, it's an accurate diagnosis!)

One of the biggest mistakes people make in this country is that they suffer from an illusion of freedom. We are herded like cattle on highways, into subways, on buses and we just go along with it. Our minds are trained, mostly by corporations and the media they own, to think and even feel a certain way. We are told what to do.

What do you call a society like that? (Normal. Mark, there's a massive difference between freedom and license.
Edited by siteowner.)

Mark, I want to thank you for being such a perfect example of the opposition. I could not have asked for a better one.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is what the other side wants its footsoldiers to be. He doesn't dress up and go to protests carrying "Bush is Hitler" signs. He doesn't write deranged letters-to-the-editor. He appears to be an intelligent, reasonable, thoughtful, introspective human being like anyone else.

Remember that when you go to the polls. Remember that when you send your children to school, where Markadelphia and many, many like him will be teaching them. Remember that when you read your newspapers and understand that his version of reality is the one shared by the majority of journalists.

The government should never have that power. We should never live in a country where either the private industry or government has too much power. Now it seems like they both do, in sort of an unholy marriage, and it sickens me. So why on earth would I want government sponsored health care? Well, that's a discussion for another day....

No, Mark, that's called "avoidance." It's one of the characteristic symptoms of denial, a particular type of insanity described as "repeating the same behavior while expecting a different outcome."

The system isn't broken, Mark, it has inherent, unavoidable flaws. My side recognizes those inherent flaws, but we realize it is the single most powerful system for the expansion of human freedom and prosperity ever devised. (And we're called "jingoists" - and worse - for that recognition.) We also recognize A) that the Founders knew they were there and tried to put in mechanisms by which to check them, and B) that over two hundred years of entropy have allowed those checks to be (with the best of intentions, mind you!) circumvented, because (and I say this without irony) they were obstructions to progressivism.

You're fine with that concentration of power - you see it as a feature, not a bug. And against all evidence, you persist in your belief that if just the right people were in charge, everything would be wonderful!

Nothing we say can sway you. Your faith is unshakable. You are the True Believer.

"the Founders knew they were there and tried to put in mechanisms by which to check them"

Again, reference Federalist 10:

"By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

"There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

"There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

"It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

"The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

"The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; ..."

It's this last truth that the socialists refuse to face.

THIS post is why I still come here, despite the empirism you espouse. I love these liberty and gun posts. They are thoughtfully and logically argued and well written.

Keep it up.

...despite the empirism you espouse.

That's OK Matt. I like you too, despite the head-in-the-sand isolationism you espouse! ;)

Kevin, I responded to you on my blog btw.

"But when the right does it, "fluid and organic" becomes "manipulation." Check."

Well, you have to look at the reasons why each side does it. It's really obvious why the right does it. The left? Depends on which left you are talking about these days....

"but we realize it is the single most powerful system for the expansion of human freedom and prosperity ever devised."

I agree. The last eight years have been about completely dismantling of that. And I think it has been, in part, because of privatization.

"Remember that when you send your children to school, where Markadelphia and many, many like him will be teaching them."

Wow. You must have had some really bad experiences with teachers. Understandable, I suppose, given that many of them are lazy.

The ideas that I share with my students are always open to debate. I don't run a drone factory. The basic goals I have for each of my students are:

1. They become critical thinkers.
2. They are inspired.
3. They are intrinsically motivated.

Put all of these things together and you get a group of young people that challenge me every day. In fact, they love it when I'm wrong and so do I. Being a reflective practitioner is what every teacher should be. Some are not, for sure.

It has been my experience, and this blog is a great example of this, that it's all well and good when we pick apart the liberal side of things. There certainly are plenty of dingbat ideas to choose from. But when we get to the other side, things become....well...they are a little different aren't they? The very nature of most conservatives is to remain static and unchanging. Remember the definitions?

"disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change."

"favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.Free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant"

Limit change. Restore tradition. Would you say that conservatives are favorable to reform? Many aren't.

I will say this, though, Kevin. Based on what you have posted here, you are certainly the most reflective conservative I know and that is one of the main reasons I keep coming back.

I will say this, though, Kevin. Based on what you have posted here, you are certainly the most reflective conservative I know and that is one of the main reasons I keep coming back.

You keep coming back, but you apparently don't LEARN.

I am NOT A CONSERVATIVE. It's that "language manipulation" thing again.

I am most emphatically NOT A "PROGRESSIVE" either. I'm a CLASSICAL LIBERAL - I'm for LIBERTY, Mark. Freedom. Individual rights. Personal responsibility. Limited, restricted, legally restrained government. Tolerance, but not surrender.

And your repeated INSISTENCE that "The last eight years" are when everything has gone to hell tells me that YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND HISTORY. Nor are you willing to learn.

You must have had some really bad experiences with teachers.

Actually, no. The teachers I had, by and large, helped me become this way. They didn't teach me that the world was supposed to be "fair." They didn't teach me that rich people were evil. They taught me that you earn what you work for. That education is the key to success. That nobody OWES you ANYTHING. That I, too, could bust my ass and become wealthy, or not. It was my CHOICE.

In short, they didn't try to make me into a socialist. But I was pretty lucky. I know what my daughter was taught (more specifically, what she wasn't.) I've been following what my grandchildren are being taught. I know how things have changed over time because my sister has been teaching for 25 years, and we've discussed the continual decline she's witnessed - declines in the quality of the administrations, declines in the performance expected from the students, declines in the quality of the teaching staff - both the incoming teachers straight out of college and the older ones burned out by the bullshit they have to endure every day.

Actually, most of the rich people I know..and I know a few... are all pretty cool. And Democrats, interestingly, so why do I have such a negative view of "rich people?"

It's really the ones that run this country...the ones that Dick Cheney serves....the ones that own Saudi Arabia. It's that sort of pure wickedness...darkness really...that, yes, has been around for a long time but really has come into its own since Bush took office. They have taken it to a whole new level of sheer turpitude...with millions of people following along with them because they are under the delusion that it is for freedom. You are right, though, this delusion is nothing new in history. We have seen it way too many times.

I do agree, for the most part, with your assessment of our education system, though. The question is: how do we raise the quality of educators in this country?

"So, Joe Smith, annual salary of 20k a year gets the same legal team and financial team that Warren Buffet gets as a buffer between anyone or any institution trying to take their money...Joe Smith will be able to rip off the government, sneak around laws, fuck people over and end up with all the same perks that rich folk get. Well, what do you think?"

Weak. Give everybody access to professional services for something they don't need or want and can't even use? Do you really think someone earning 20k (or even 100k) per year and spending it on oversized chrome rims and computer games is going to profit from Buffet's team of experts? No.

Let Joe Average start spending less and investing more, and go to the library and check out many of the great financial titles available; also let him avail himself of TurboTax. Then, in 5-10 years he absolutely could profit from Buffet's team.

There's no point hiring a gardener when you don't have a garden, or when it's just a tiny little plot.

I do agree, for the most part, with your assessment of our education system, though.

That's good.

The question is: how do we raise the quality of educators in this country?

No, the question is "how do we fix the system. The "quality of educators" is only part of the problem, and changing a flat won't fix the car if it has thrown a rod through the block.

"Do you really think someone earning 20k (or even 100k) per year and spending it on oversized chrome rims and computer games is going to profit from Buffet's team of experts?"

*Sigh* Ah yes, that highly accurate view of people less fortunate than us.

"how do we fix the system?"

Well, how do we? Maybe it's time for an uber post on education. Let's see we've debated health care, Iraq and terrorism, the economy...education is one we haven't done yet, right?

*Sigh* Ah yes, that highly accurate view of people less fortunate than us.

Says the man who paints all wealthy people with the brush of lying and cheating and fucking over other people.

Pot? Meet kettle.

"Please name one. Be specific. Show how the coercion is applied. "

I don't have to name one.

Markadelphia- you probably aren't reading this thread anymore, but this quote proves what a FOOL you are.

That is all.

Lame-R: "Do you really think someone earning 20k (or even 100k) per year and spending it on oversized chrome rims and computer games is going to profit from Buffet's team of experts? No."

Markadelphia: "*Sigh* Ah yes, that highly accurate view of people less fortunate than us."

ARRRrrrgggghhhh!!! You really, really, really don't get it!! Lame's point was that people who make stupid financial decisions (as exemplified by the bling description) stay poor as a result of their poor financial decisions. In other words, they are poor as an Effect which is Caused by wasting time and money. No amount of help will change anything if those to whom the help is being given are already refusing such help.

You do remember the Law of Cause and Effect, don't you "teacher"?

I'm not certain what Mark was trying to point out, but I do have a notion that may support his contention.
No, I don't think the rich and powerful necessarily got that way by ripping people off. However, let me give you a recent example:

Not long ago, an EMT in Colorado thought a child should be taken to the hospital because he'd gotten a bump on the head and some bruising. His father, an ex-Vietnam US Army medic, felt he could take care of his child himself. The EMT called CPS, CPS called the Sheriff, and the result was that a SWAT team broke into the man's home and pointed guns at everyone.

What I want to know is why the CPS officer, the Sheriff, the SWAT team leader and the EMT are not having to defend themselves in CRIMINAL court on charges of breaking and entering, assault with a deadly weapon, attempted kidnapping and making a terrorist threat.

Had the child died because Dad didn't take him to the hospital (the Dr. who saw him, by the way, wondered why he was being bothered with it), Dad would have doubtless been charged in criminal court with negligent homicide. If a pharmaceutical company does insufficient research and people die because of it, they MIGHT get sued, and MIGHT pay damages. But NEVER does the CEO of the company end up in *criminal* court for negligent homicide. What's wrong with this picture?
I'm all in favor of business and entrepreneurialism. But *corporate* law allows PEOPLE to make decisions, and if those are bad decisions, there are no PEOPLE held responsible. Instead the only target is "the corporation", a legal fiction that cannot be truly held accountable for anything.

So the bottom line is that "equal justice under the law" is a farce, no?

Sam:

You're conflating two separate issues.

One of which is the concept of a corporation as a person. The other is sovereign immunity - which attaches to government employees and contractors.

Neither of which, by the way, is absolute. Especially criminal activity is [supposed to] breach the immunity and expose the person.

But then you really lose track of the picture:

If a pharmaceutical company does insufficient research and people die because of it, they MIGHT get sued, and MIGHT pay damages.

Might? Shall. Quite a few of the "Vioxx" plaintiff's estates were prescribed Vioxx after their death. ("They were taking doctor's samples before!")

Even if there's nothing proven, even if there's almost no reliable evidence, the company will be sued, on a continual basis. (See Edwards, John, Presidential Candidate, Early Career)

But NEVER does the CEO of the company end up in *criminal* court for negligent homicide. What's wrong with this picture?

Nothing. Unless the CEO is pouring cyanide into the production line.

What you're proposing would mean the CEO would be held responsible for only the bad events. Not even balanced for the good that the drug did. Who would agree to be CEO if anyone who took a company's drug died? (For whatever reason? No matter how many other conditions or drugs they were taking?)

It's not practical.

Don't take this as a defense of the lack of government action. But merely turning us all into perpetual plaintiffs and criminal defendants gives the power to the lawyers.

I'd really, really, rather not. We've seen what happens with that.

I understand that, I'd really really rather not either. The only real winners in a lawsuit are the lawyers.

But at the same time, just as you said, "Who would agree to be a CEO", I gotta ask, why would anyone ever CHOOSE to be a normal everyday citizen? Anyone representing an organization, whether corporate or government, has a) more resources available to them to deal with legal battles, both civil and criminal, and b) less accountability, no? I'm okay with more resources, that's why such organizations are created in the first place. What I'm not okay with is less accountability.
Also I'd like to point out that I, having been born in the late 50s, am part of the FIRST generation where the option of holding a corporation's feet to the fire for playing fast & loose with law and ethics was commonly available.

Anyone ... and b) less accountability, no?

No.

By definition, no. Even if they don't have as much accountability as you'd like - they have more than Joe Schmoe on the street.

Just like Joe, they've got all the accountability for everything they do in their daily lives, plus the accountability they pick up in doing their job.

N, and N + Y.

whether corporate or government

You're conflating the two still. The only exception to what I said above is when they're government, and allowed liberties beyond what the rest of us have to deal with. This is pretty much limited to elected officials and the police.

But (save for one regular poster here, who also fails to understand corporate issues) most of us here understand that there's not a perfect solution. I pointed out what would happen in your case - we'd get nobody willing to stand up for anything, unless indemnified by the government beforehand. Progress would slow to a crawl, and innovation would (be forced to) go overseas.

How would you fix this? Offer a solution that reasonably works for you as a citizen, and as the CEO of Sam Pharmaceuticals.

Yes, I am conflating the two issues. That's intentional on my part, because at this level they are conceptually identical: I as an individual am accountable for my actions, *if I take those actions on my own behalf*. But if I take actions on behalf of an organization, I am relieved of responsibility for many of the consequences. In the case of a corporation, the corporation is made accountable for money damages. In the case of a government or agency thereof, there may be no one held accountable at all, neither individual NOR organization.
As an example, take the testing of the Bradley IFV. The Bradley was originally supposed to have full real-world testing before it was ever purchased, much less deployed. In the original order, the testing was done with its fuel tanks filled with *water*. I don't have the facts at my fingertips to tell you whether that cost lives or not.
However, let's say that it did, and look at it three different ways. If the builder of the Bradley had been a sole proprietership, and said sole proprietor had made that decision, he would have been held accountable for HIS decisions to fill those tanks with water for his "real-world testing". He might have been charged with negligent homicide. Certainly he COULD have been, because an individual person is held accountable. An individual who knowingly failed to fulfill the safety testing terms of the contract under which he designed and built something would be liable for injury or death caused by that failure. He could be held accountable in civil court, criminal court or both.
If the builder of the Bradley was a corporation and it had been a *corporate* decision to fill the tanks with water, the *corporation* would have borne responsibility to the tune of money damages and possibly a lost contract. No matter that somewhere along the line *an individual* had known about the condition of real-world testing and decided to order the tanks filled with water *anyway*, THAT INDIVIDUAL is not accountable for that decision. He is subject to discipline by his superiors in the company, but that fact that *his personal negligence* cost lives doesn't matter in the big picture. The *corporation* pays. In the event of a wrongful death suit, his negligence is ultimately paid for by everyone in the company, up to and including the stockholders. Everyone else connected with the company, no matter how conscientious, is affected by the company's fortunes to the same degree as the person who decided that doing his job RIGHT didn't matter.
Had that decision been made by someone in the DoD, chances are his military career is over, but that's almost certainly the worst that happens. Perhaps the relatives of those his decision killed can get a money award, but if so it's at least partly *their own money*. What are taxes after all?
Personally I consider, say, a $10 million settlement for a life lost to negligence to be insulting. It is directly equivalent to saying that if you give my family $10 million you should be able to pump a bullet into my brain and everything should be okay. Sorry, but my life is not for sale, at ANY price. It's like saying the wages I won't earn to feed my family are the only part of my life that was of any consequence.
But regardless, if an individual *within an organization*, whether government or corporate, knowingly or out of carelessness makes a decision that endangers those the organization serves, he is not answerable to *the law*, only to his own chain of command.
Please understand, I'm not saying the CEO should be held accountable for every action done by anyone in the company. I'm saying that somewhere along the line *a person or persons* CHOSE to make decisions that endangered others, and *those individuals* should be responsible for putting their own self-interest or lazyness above BOTH the interests of the company and the safety, even the lives, of their customers.
In the example of the pharmaceutical company earlier, I wouldn't expect people to be held accountable for EVERY POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCE, any more than you should hold a parent accountable for the death of his child because failed to plan for being t-boned by a fleeing criminal who ran a red light into him at 100mph+. Certainly it was *possible*, and he doubtless knew it was possible. There has to be a cartain amount of "figure the odds" sense factored in, and I can't claim to have the math or the data to do that figuring.
But just because *I* don't doesn't mean the issue should be just swept under the rug and ignored, as it often is now in both corporate law and government internal regulation.

P.S. Please forgive how long it took for me to respond, I'm down with an illness and my brain has been foggy for the last few days.

Sam:

That's intentional on my part, because at this level they are conceptually identical

But they're not. Anymore than cancer is identical to a broken bone. Chemotherapy ain't gonna help the bone set correctly, and a cast won't help your cancer.
Failing to diagnose the condition correctly guarantees that your solution/cure will be off-the-mark and ineffective.

In the original order, the testing was done with its fuel tanks filled with *water*

The Pentagon Wars was a good movie. But it was a (book and) movie. It's not totally incorrect, and there's a definite editorial bias there. What's not been acknowledged is he sentiments expressed by Kelsey Grammer's character (as a way of mocking them) turned out to be totally correct.
Don't take that as my blanket denial of problems with the eval - there certainly were, and are. But that's a function of bureaucracy, government, and vested interests.

If the builder of the Bradley had been a sole proprietership, and said sole proprietor had made that decision, he would have been held accountable for HIS decisions to fill those tanks with water for his "real-world testing"

That might make sense, except for one major flaw in your argument:
The testing issues were 100% internal to the DoD. The manufacturer wasn't involved with the testing. They weren't supplying rigged units - the DoD bureaucracy (which had been changing requirements on the design for 20 years) was (allegedly) rigging them to justify their design.

This wasn't a case of the manufacturer coming in with a design and trying to sell it, it was a case of the Pentagon designing a vehicle, micromanaging and changing major requirements throughout, and then trying to prove the usefulness and success of the design team. (Contrast this with North American Aviation - who drew up, designed, and built what would become the P-51's prototype in 110 days. On their own. So they wouldn't have to produce P-40s instead.)

I'm not saying the CEO should be held accountable for every action done by anyone in the company.

I hate to tell you, but that's exactly what you are saying.

I'm saying that somewhere along the line *a person or persons* CHOSE to make decisions that endangered others

Which decision was that? What decisions, are you going to make today or tomorrow that will endanger someone?
Are you going to drive to the store? Take your kid to baseball practice? (I know, winter, but bear with me)
All of the decisions you make could conceivably endanger someone. Probably not. But that car you're in is a damn dangerous piece of machinery. Do you think of it in that way when you realize you need to run to the store?

and *those individuals* should be responsible for putting their own self-interest or lazyness above BOTH the interests of the company and the safety, even the lives, of their customers.

A really nice soundbite. But it's an emotionally driven response that doesn't understand the real world.
With every engineering decision, every medical decision, every biochemical decision, and a hellvua lot more, there are tradeoffs involved.
My mother once asked me why we couldn't build a car that would protect you from any crash. I said "We can, and have!" "Why haven't I heard of it?" "I said it's the M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank. Costs $50 million, and gets 3 gallons to the mile. Want 2?"
The Bradley - contrary to the Pentagon Wars's belief - has turned out to be a very effective and well-liked military vehicle.
Corporations are responsible - sued, and people arrested daily for negligent behavior.
Now, you may want to conflate the two [government and corporation], but it only serves to make the discussion utterly meaningless.

You say, not to hold the CEO responsible for everything, just the bad events. Do you take any drugs? Anyone in your family take drugs? Would you be comfortable if say, your wife had a heart condition that required cardiac drugs (that have a long list of side effects, and could cause problems, and may not be able to keep the heart in rhythm) and you were going to hold the CEO of the drug company personally responsible for any death?
Think you'll get a refill next month?

Think again.

I guess the big thing to try and get you to understand Sam, is sure, there are lazy-ass, negligent workers out there. Attempts to get rid of them via more paperwork and or more layers of bureaucracy increase the total number, overall.
But most people in corporations aren't out to kill people. For the ones that are, they're notexempt from the law, as you're presuming they are.

In the original order, the testing was done with its fuel tanks filled with *water*

The Pentagon Wars was a good movie. But it was a (book and) movie.

Never saw it, never read it, never heard of it. What's the point? Regardless of what a fictional account says, the *fact* remains that a demand for full real world field testing resulted in tests done where the fuel tanks had water in them. For WHATEVER reason, that is nonetheless a rather blatant misrepresentation of "real world field testing". In the real world, vehicles burn flammable liquids as fuel. The average American knows this by age 10, and is pretty well certain to know it by age 15. This is not rocket science.

Don't take that as my blanket denial of problems with the eval - there certainly were, and are. But that's a function of bureaucracy, government, and vested interests.

Again, what's the point? Are you claiming that makes it okay, or claiming there's nothing that CAN be done about it so there's no point trying or even caring?

If the builder of the Bradley had been a sole proprietership, and said sole proprietor had made that decision, he would have been held accountable for HIS decisions to fill those tanks with water for his "real-world testing"

That might make sense, except for one major flaw in your argument:
The testing issues were 100% internal to the DoD. The manufacturer wasn't involved with the testing. They weren't supplying rigged units - the DoD bureaucracy (which had been changing requirements on the design for 20 years) was (allegedly) rigging them to justify their design.

Did you miss my use of the word "If"? I'm taking an identical event, putting it in 3 different venues and showing how you get different results from each. Had the identical decision been made by the manufacturer instead of being internal to the DoD, and had that manufacturer been a sole proprietor, he *as an individual* would have been held AT LEAST accountable in civil court, and *could* have been held accountable in criminal court as well, for the decision he *as an individual* made.
Had the identical decision been made by say, a hypothetical director of QA for a corporate manufacturer, *the corporation* could be held accountable in civil court, but the result of that court would affect everyone within the corporation, whether they had anything to do with the decision or not. The INDIVIDUAL who decided that "real world testing" did not require real world fuel in the tanks would not have been any more accountable to that civil case than some new and conscientious clerk over in accounting who had no connection with it at all. Or any more accountable than someone who had just inherited stock in the company and had never even glanced at his portfolio. Or anymore accountable than the CEO who had assumed that the contract was being honored as written. The *individual* would have been accountable to his own chain of command, but not answerable to either criminal law or civil law beyond that shared by all connected to the company in any way.
But because it was a decision internal to the DoD, that decision got a pass from the common law entirely. I have no idea whether those responsible were prosecuted under the UCMJ, or whether they even could be (many people in the DoD are in fact civilians and not subject to military law). I hope they were. If not, they were held accountable only to their own chain of command, if to anyone at all. Neither common criminal law nor civil law could touch *them as individuals*, only the organizations they represented. And because they were part of a *government* organization, there are a lot of provisions in place to make the organization *less* accountable to civil law than corporate organizations are.

I'm not saying the CEO should be held accountable for every action done by anyone in the company.

I hate to tell you, but that's exactly what you are saying.

Well okay, to some extent. In fact, to precisely the SAME extent as "the Commanding Officer is responisble for the actions of those under his command." Beyond that, I'm saying that's precisely what should STOP happening. In the case of the decision concerning the Bradley, The Secretary of Defense or the President (as de facto CEO) should be personally accountable for the decision to fill the tanks with water ONLY if they were the individuals who gave the order for them to *be* filled with water.

When USS Spruance was run aground, the Captain and the Officer of the Deck who was giving orders to the helm at the time were both court-martialed. A civil suit of a corporation is equivalent to sending the entire ship's company of Spruance to court-martial.

I'm saying that somewhere along the line *a person or persons* CHOSE to make decisions that endangered others

All of the decisions you make could conceivably endanger someone. Probably not. But that car you're in is a damn dangerous piece of machinery. Do you think of it in that way when you realize you need to run to the store?

Actually yes, I do. That's why I've made at least half my living from my driving ability for all my adult life. But that's neither here nor there.
Apparently you ignored the part of my previous post concerning the parent who didn't plan for being t-boned while driving, as that directly addresses what you just said here.
Come on, be realistic. Are you claiming that deliberately choosing to fill fuel tanks with an inert liquid instead of a flammable one before testing a combat vehicle allows a realistic claim of "I didn't know that would endanger anybody"? Sorry, that's not a case of "well we can't foresee everything", that's carelessness. That's CYA being allowed to trump whether or not you did the damn job. Regardless of what laws apply, according to the actual definition of words in the English language, that's "negligent homicide" if someone dies in a fuel tank explosion that would have been spotted had it been tested with fuel in the tanks AS ORDERED.

and *those individuals* should be responsible for putting their own self-interest or lazyness above BOTH the interests of the company and the safety, even the lives, of their customers.

A really nice soundbite. But it's an emotionally driven response that doesn't understand the real world.

No it isn't, and I'll explain why. See below.

With every engineering decision, every medical decision, every biochemical decision, and a hellvua lot more, there are tradeoffs involved.

I am aware of this. I don't know what the FDA standards are for drug testing, but I'm certain they are there. I don't have the FDA, CDC, etc. databases at my fingertips but I know they exist. If a given drug met all the standards for avoiding reasonable risks as set forth by the people who DO have that information at their fingertips, I don't think the corporation should be liable to suit at all. If you have a problem with what the standard is, take it up with those who set the standard, not the guy who conformed to it. It is the Legislature's job, through the agency of law, to decide what constitutes "sufficient testing". All that is required of the manufacturer is to meet the legal standard, and maintain document transparency to be able to prove it if needed.
If the person taking it ignored doctor's warnings or warning labels on the product to consult with a physician if you are currently taking __________ and took it anyway, well sucks to be you if it bit you. It is not the corporation's fault if you didn't learn to read, or didn't listen to your own doctor.

The Bradley - contrary to the Pentagon Wars's belief - has turned out to be a very effective and well-liked military vehicle.

Yes it is, given what I hear from soldiers I know. That doesn't change the fact that THE INDIVIDUAL who ordered testing with water-filled fuel tanks should be tried for dereliction of duty at the very least, if not outright treason. In the same way, a suicide bomber who falls down the stairs and blows himself up is still a terrorist, regardless of how laughably he failed.

Corporations are responsible - sued, and people arrested daily for negligent behavior.

Exactly, Corporations as a corporation are held accountable, individuals as individuals are held accountable, but individuals *within* a corporate or government organization are often not held accountable, as the organization as a whole is held accountable FOR THEM.

Now, you may want to conflate the two [government and corporation], but it only serves to make the discussion utterly meaningless.

I don't see that it is. If you are not responsible and accountable to the limit of your authority, you are by definition corrupt. That is true regardless of whether you act as an individual, a representative of a corporation, a representative of a government, or anything else.
If what constitutes irresponsible authority, or the impact it has on an organization and those it serves, differs between government and business I'd appreciate you defining exactly how you think so.

You say, not to hold the CEO responsible for everything, just the bad events.

Do you take any drugs? Anyone in your family take drugs? Would you be comfortable if say, your wife had a heart condition that required cardiac drugs (that have a long list of side effects, and could cause problems, and may not be able to keep the heart in rhythm) and you were going to hold the CEO of the drug company personally responsible for any death?
Think you'll get a refill next month?

Think again.


If you've gotten this far, I'm going to presume you've read what I wrote above. If you have, I think I can consider this question to be already answered. And if the standards were not met or document transparency not maintained, do you think the CEO who had direct authority to control such should have *no* responsibility for the results, beyond the punishment that everyone in the company suffers as a result of the suit?
Once again, irresponsible authority is, by definition, corrupt.

I guess the big thing to try and get you to understand Sam, is sure, there are lazy-ass, negligent workers out there. Attempts to get rid of them via more paperwork and or more layers of bureaucracy increase the total number, overall.

I understand that. Which is why it should be resolved by *simplifying* the law so it applies equally to everyone regardless, rather than one set of rules for an individual, another for private sector organizations, and yet a third for government organizations. The paperwork is already there, already being done. The law enforcement officials are already there.

But most people in corporations aren't out to kill people. For the ones that are, they're notexempt from the law, as you're presuming they are.


You're putting words in my mouth. I'm not presuming anyone's out to kill anyone. I'm presuming that a fair number of people concern themselves more with whether they look good to their chain of command than whether or not their jobs were done correctly, and sometimes fudge results to that end. I'm presuming that because I've seen it in person, many times in many places, as has pretty much anyone I've ever spoken to. And that's fine and good, the companies those people work for can either put up with it or not, as they choose. EXCEPT when it comes to safety testing. There, fudging your results for any reason whatsoever is criminal endangerment of the customers who will use that product one day and should be treated as such. And no, under current law it isn't, as I have shown above. The *organization* may be accountable for "wrongful death", but the PERSON who fudged those results is no more accountable than everyone else within the organization, regardless of how conscientious they may be. Civil law applied to corporations throws the baby out with the bathwater, and punishes the conscientious for working in the same company with an opportunist.

Sam,

You keep harping on the Bradley testing being done with water in the fuel tanks. I don't have direct knowledge of the testing, but the more I think about it, the more reasonable it seems to do some testing with water in the tanks for specific tests.

For example, one test I would run on an armored vehicle would be a penetration test, where the goal is to see how well the vehicle protects against various kinds of ammo. The goal of such a test would be to hit it with live fire, then examine the vehicle to determine what kind of penetration was achieved by each kind of ammo. In such a test, having anything explosive in the vehicle—including fuel—would be counterproductive. If the vehicle exploded under such a test, it would ruin the usefulness of the testing for three reasons:

First, you would not be able to examine the vehicle for penetrations prior to the explosion because torn scrap metal would hide the damage done by previous hits, including the hit which caused the explosion.

Second, you would be unable to finish the full course of fire you planned to subject the vehicle to, which means that later ammunition variations—most likely larger kinds of shells—would not be able to be tested.

Finally, you would be destroying prototypes built for the purposes of the testing. Prototypes are notoriously more expensive to build because they're hand built, not built by a production line. Therefore, destroying a prototype unnecessarily would be a massive waste of time and money.

Now, if the purpose of a test is to test the vehicle to destruction, then of course it makes sense to actually have fuel and ammo on board during the test. This is why I think it's reasonable to run a test with water in the tanks for some, but not all tests.

Now that I've laid out the theory, does anyone know what was actually being tested with water in the fuel tanks? Does my theory line up with reality?