Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Samantha

Samantha's Journal
Samantha's Journal
March 31, 2016

Looking at Bernie's face now as he talks to Rachel Maddow

His face looks noticeably thinner. Looks like he is losing weight. He seems to be working really hard. I hope he takes care of himself.

Sam

March 26, 2016

Here is some terrific news: Flint's water pipes could be fixed by May!

My heart goes out to the people of Flint. This debacle should have never happened. But The Hill reports Flint's pipes might be fixed by May:

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/274340-flints-water-pipes-could-be-fixed-by-may

By that time, hopefully, those responsible for this betrayal to this community will be facing retribution. One cannot allow a poisoning of a community to happen and then walk away simply as if it didn't.

Sam

March 22, 2016

I love this opinion piece, H2O Man

A really nice read this early in the morning (3:23 am).

The most fascinating fact about this particular election to me is that Bernie Sanders identifies income inequality causation occurring as a result of the top one percent usurping 99 percent of all new income, and the top one-tenth of that one percent owning almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. That very disparity is one of the direct causes of the shrinking middle class and the growth of poverty in this Country.

The salient focus of this contest between Clinton and Sanders for me is the fact that Bill and Hillary Clinton are in the top one-tenth of that one percent. In other words, they are among the top targets Sanders pinpoints as a huge part of the problem. No one discusses this latter point in election debates. Yet there the elephant in the debate room sits.

What rational person actually thinks that if elected Hillary Clinton will seek to change the formula which has so enriched Bill's, Chelsea's and her lives to establish a fairer distribution of income and wealth to the middle and poor classes of people in this Country?

So Bernie identifies the problem as he sees it, and part of the problem is standing there on the debate platform along side him purloining planks of his platform. Is that not surreal? Obviously, her political cronies know she is saying what she believes she should say to get elected, but if she does in fact prevail, she will take office and do whatever she wants. But voters who support her actually buy what she is selling. What logical explanation is there for that? And additionally, do they not see the elephant?

Sam

March 20, 2016

Respondeat superior

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/respondeat+superior

[Latin, Let the master answer.] A common-law doctrine that makes an employer liable for the actions of an employee when the actions take place within the scope of employment.

The common-law doctrine of respondeat superior was established in seventeenth-century England to define the legal liability of an employer for the actions of an employee. The doctrine was adopted in the United States and has been a fixture of agency law. It provides a better chance for an injured party to actually recover damages, because under respondeat superior the employer is liable for the injuries caused by an employee who is working within the scope of his employment relationship.The legal relationship between an employer and an employee is called agency. The employer is called the principal when engaging someone to act for him. The person who does the work for the employer is called the agent. The theory behind respondeat superior is that the principal controls the agent's behavior and must then assume some responsibility for the agent's actions.

An employee is an agent for her employer to the extent that the employee is authorized to act for the employer and is partially entrusted with the employer's business. The employer controls, or has a right to control, the time, place, and method of doing work. When the facts show that an employer-employee (principal-agent) relationship exists, the employer can be held responsible for the injuries caused by the employee in the course of employment.

In general, employee conduct that bears some relationship to the work will usually be considered within the scope of employment. The question whether an employee was acting within the scope of employment at the time of the event depends on the particular facts of the case. A court may consider the employee's job description or assigned duties, the time, place, and purpose of the employee's act, the extent to which the employee's actions conformed to what she was hired to do, and whether such an occurrence could reasonably have been expected.


I am not going to disagree with you H20 Man, but I am going to add some food for thought. I worked for decades in the legal community in DC, for various law firms, in different support capacities, for some extremely intelligent, successful attorneys. I first learned this phrase from one of those attorneys when one day I said to my boss, "If I have made a mistake, I will take the full responsibility for it." He then quoted that phrase and told me that as his employee, he would be legally responsible for any mistakes on my part. I always remembered that and took extreme care with the work I performed during my employment in the legal community.

This concept leads me to believe that if one of Hillary's assistants is thrown under the bus and Hillary receives simply a slap on the wrist, those responsible for assessing if a crime or crimes were committed, how did it happen, why did it happen, and what harm resulted from these crimes will not feel satisfied with the outcome. Many of us here at DU look at most occurrences through a political lens, but in Washington, the political capital of the world, while politics is all-important, there is one terrain that is more important: national security.

Up until this last week or so, I just assumed this email debacle was a tactic summoned into the public view as an attack on Hillary Clinton's reputation. Then I took the time to read some of the emails, and in all honesty, I was appalled at the content. I thought immediately this will never fly with the Intelligence community, and someone will pay for this breach. I do think Comey is taking a very intense approach into delving into the details, and I see him as a man who is a stickler for playing by the rules.

There are a lot of rumors afloat in DC, and I will wait for the official announcement from the investigation as to what process will ensue.

But politics aside, H20 Man, I honestly do not believe that the Intelligence Community that protects our national security will overlook these events and simply give participants a slap on the wrist; I believe certain individuals will be taking the position that a person who has allowed these type of breaches to happen on his or her watch is not a person who can be entrusted to hold the reins of control over our national security.

In no regard is this an opinion presented to diss Clinton and promote Sanders politically. Sanders will not benefit if Clinton is charged or if she drops out of the campaign as a result of a deal reached with government officials. We will see Joe Biden jump in on the Democratic side of the aisle to take Clinton's place. After all, he supports the TPP and Sanders opposes it ....

With the highest regards,

Sam

Profile Information

Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 9,314
Latest Discussions»Samantha's Journal