From FastCompany.com:

BP’s report blames a handful of key players for the accident: Transocean (owner of the ill-fated rig), Halliburton (the company that cemented the well) and itself. The report identifies four critical factors that triggered the disaster, none of which should be too surprising to anyone who watched the oil spill unfold. BP notes that well integrity was not established, hydrocarbons entered the well undetected and well control was lost, hydrocarbons ignited on Deepwater Horizon, and the blowout preventer failed to seal the well.

To give you some context on what shapes my opinion (in no specific order and obviously not an exhaustive list):

• I have strong libertarian beliefs. I believe my personal freedom is extremely important and to achieve that I’m willing to fight for your personal freedom.
  
• I served in the U.S. Army
  
• I read a lot, on a broad range of topics
  
• I don’t limit myself to ‘friendly’ sources of information
  

Now some of my thoughts on WikiLeaks:

• Governments should be held accountable for their actions
  
• A republic is bound by the rule of law, which is rooted in the shared values and morals of the citizenry
  
• In a republic, journalism is the primary means of gaining insight into the workings and dealings of the government
  
• Journalism then, has a moral and ethical responsibility to be unbiased and thorough in investigating and revealing the workings and dealings of the government. Anything short of that and journalism becomes a part of or an extension to the government.
  
• The funding of journalism must either be 100% transparent, or 100% double-blind; meaning neither the donors nor the recipients know where the money came from or where it’s going. Since there’s no mechanism for the later, we must stick to the former; 100% transparency in funding. This should be obvious; if a particular group of journalists owe their very existence to a particular funding source, that dependency can become a lever for ideological manipulation (consider Soros or Murdoch/Koch).
  

Therefore I strongly agree with the premise of WikiLeaks, which is in part:

We believe that transparency in government activities leads to reduced corruption, better government and stronger democracies. All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny by the world community, as well as their own people. We believe this scrutiny requires information.

However, as I stated in a previous post, titled Collateral Damage In A War Of Choice (April 9, 2010), WikiLeaks has an established history of manipulating what they release and that defeats their stated purpose by removing transparency and adding a layer of deceit, regardless of how righteous they may believe they are acting. By editing or by cherry-picking what they leak, they completely destroy their credibility. By concealing their source of funding, they conceal their “owner/master.”

Only a free, unrestrained and unbiased press can effectively expose deception in government.

“It’s very hard work to run an organization, let alone one that’s constantly being spied upon and sued,” Mr. Assange said in the interview.

This completely removes any credibility wikileaks may have claimed. Julian Assange has no claim to any moral high ground at this point.

According to the Times’ article, Genentech supplied information to one of their lobbyists, Ryan, MacKinnon, Vasapoli & Berzok. The firm used the information to ghost-author statements for representatives, who would often not alter the statements or just barely alter them, making many representatives statements nearly identical.

“We were approached by the lobbyist, who asked if we would be willing to enter a statement in the Congressional Record,” [Robert Brady’s (D-PA) chief of staff, Stanley V. White] said. “I asked him for a draft. I tweaked a couple of words. There’s not much reason to reinvent the wheel on a Congressional Record entry.”

…

In separate statements using language suggested by the lobbyists, Representatives Blaine Luetkemeyer of Missouri and Joe Wilson of South Carolina, both Republicans, said: “One of the reasons I have long supported the U.S. biotechnology industry is that it is a homegrown success story that has been an engine of job creation in this country. Unfortunately, many of the largest companies that would seek to enter the biosimilar market have made their money by outsourcing their research to foreign countries like India.”

As I’ve said before, lobbyists and special interest groups are driving this health care reform and they’ll be the direct beneficiaries, not the uninsured, underinsured or the down-trodden.

Get Involved

• Tweet your support
  
• Use #HCR to join the conversation on Twitter
  
• Follow me @RickShawMan on Twitter

Contact the Administration and your representatives

Use the USA.gov website to identify and contact your elected officials and let them know where you stand.

To learn more

• Visit CATO on health care reform
  
• Read Changing Your Perspective on Health Care & The Price You Pay at InsuranceInTheLight.com
  
• Read “The Washington Influence Machine”, By Andy Kroll TomDispatch.com, September 15, 2009
  
• Read the similar posts listed below
  

The House health care bill: great on coverage, fairly financed, affordable. http://bit.ly/2uWVUu #hcr #publicoption

Yet another example of misguided union backing of the current administration.

The U.S. government is likely to inject $2.8 billion to $5.6 billion of capital into the Detroit company, on top of the $12.5 billion that GMAC has received since December 2008, these people said. The latest infusion would come in the form of preferred stock. The government’s 35.4% stake in the company could increase if existing shares eventually are converted into common equity.

…

While GMAC would be the only U.S. company to get three capital injections from the government since the financial crisis erupted two years ago, thousands of banks and other financial firms remain weakened by exposure to fallen real-estate values and clobbered financial markets.

You don’t suppose this has anything to do with the $4.5M the UAW contributed to Obama’s presidential campaign?

For example, today we found out that Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) would vote to block health care reform in its current form and after that announcement, Twitter was abuzz with people proclaiming he was owned by Aetna. The message below was repeated ad nauseam.

RT @stunetii WHO OWNS SEN LIEBERMAN? 2005-10 cycle funding: 10TH master= Aetna Inc, $65,200. #p2 #hcr #corruption http://bit.ly/4g9HLN #hc

As I’ve said here and alluded to here; we should be reforming government right now, not health care. Lobbyists have too much leverage and the government is rife with fraud, waste, and abuse.

The Massachusetts GOP is seeking an injunction to stop the appointment of Paul Kirk, Jr. The GOP claims the governor didn’t have the authority under the state’s constitution to declare the bill an emergency law (for history on the bill, read the paragraph below, beginning with “Five years ago“).

Update 9/24/09:

Massachusetts’ governor has appointed Paul Kirk, Jr to succeed Ted Kennedy and restore the supermajority enjoyed by the Democrats in Congress before Senator Kennedy’s death.

The obvious, unscrupulous behavior of the U.S. government astounds me sometimes.

Update 9/22/09:

Massachusetts’ state Senate and state House have both approved a resolution to change state law back to what it was before 2004, to allow the Democratic Governor to appoint another Democrat to replace Ted Kennedy, rather than take the time to have a public referendum and risk the people voting in a Republican.

The governor is expected to sign the bill into law as early as tomorrow, just in time to appoint someone to vote on Baucus’ health care reform bill and to re-establish the Democratic supermajority.

Five years ago Massachusetts legislators changed the law governing vacant U.S. Senate seats by requiring a referendum to determine a successor within several months of the vacancy. The original law authorized the Governor to appoint a successor. The law was changed in 2004 because Senator John Kerry was running for president and if elected, Governor Mitt Romney would likely have appointed a republican to the vacant seat.

Fast forward to present day and we see Senator Ted Kennedy, in a letter sent before his death, requesting the law be changed back to ensure the Democratic party has all the votes it can possibly muster behind health care reform.

So far, Democratic leaders have been quiet on the request.

This is just another shining example of ‘if the rules don’t favor you, change them.’