High-Speed Rail Rides Into Congress

By Courtney Costello-Talk Radio News Service

Pennsylvania Governor Edward Rendell testified Tuesday on the urgent need for high-speed rail in America.

Governor Rendell’s testimonies were heard before The Senate Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety, and Security.

Chairman of the Subcommittee Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) listened to testimonies from an expert panel on the issue that included Amtrak President Joseph Boardman, Federal Railroad Administration Administrator Joseph Szabo, Texas High Speed Rail and Transportation Chairman Robert Eckels, Government Accountability Office Official Susan Fleming and National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commissioner Tom Skancke.

“We must push for a comprehensive network of true high speed rail...Such a network will be a catalyst for growth and development,” said Gov. Rendell. “It will better connect Americans as our population continues to grow as well as reduce carbon emissions and improve quality of life.”

The panel all agreed that establishing high-speed rail in America is contingent upon
improving existing railways like the Amtrak Acela, creating city to city high-speed rails, and inter-city rails.

Members of the panel testified that the creation of high-speed railways would be funded by federal and state governments, as well as private investments. In addition, Gov. Rendell proposed the creation of a National Infrastructure Bank.

The panel testified that an investment in existing and new railways would help grow the economy.

“High-speed rail will create jobs for our citizens and orders for American factories, especially in some of the hardest hit parts of our country, where there is tremendous manufacturing capacity to build rail cars, tracks and equipment using American concrete and steel,” said Rendell.

Petraeus: Beating Terrorists Requires More Than Counterterrorist Operations

By Celia Canon- Talk Radio News Service

General David Petraeus, Commander of the United States Central Command, warned that military missions against terrorist groups are comprehensive and require more than force.

 “Countering terrorism requires more than counter-terrorist operations,” said Petraeus today in a speech to the Center of a New American Security.  The General went on to discuss the implications of shifting military attention from Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan and how the U.S.’ experience in Iraq should optimize the efficiency of military operations in other countries.

“As we turn and shift our focus to Afghanistan and Pakistan it is very important to reflect on what we learned from Iraq and to remember that you have to apply what was learned there with a very nuanced understanding...of local circumstances,” said Petraeus.

Petraeus was one of the leading figures during the 2007 surge of U.S. troops in Iraq, a move that increased U.S. military capability in the Middle East by more than 20,000 soldiers and additional brigades. The surge was instrumental in the counterinsurgency mission that would help secure the region. Petraeus completed his work in Iraq by rebuilding the Iraqi army. 

Petraeus highlighted the success of the U.S. army in improving security conditions, stating “We’ve gone from a situation in which June of 2006 or 2007 saw 160 attacks per day on average. in Iraq it is now between 10 and 15 attacks per day and has been that way for about 6 months now; in fact in the low end of that in recent weeks.”

However, Petraeus did concede that last month was an exception. There were over 400 attacks in May, the highest in the country’s post-invasion history.

The General touched upon the peacekeeping role that the army has recently acquired with the Iraq mission and named the safety of the civilian population as a major priority.

“The overriding mission of a military force in counterinsurgency has to be to secure the people and...be seen as securing and serving them. This is hugely important,” said Petraeus.

Petraeus explained that once security has been established throughout the country, the U.S. would not be able to leave Afghanistan until they have assured that the established government follows a peace-ensuring criteria.

Experts say cell phones save lives

Author Nicholas Sullivan and founder of the COMCARE Emergency Response Alliance David Aylward spoke during a conference call addressing emergency response and safety benefits for children equipped with (and knowledgeable about how to use) cellular phones.

The speakers described the cell phone as a huge asset to children in emergency situations. They each discussed how cell phones have replaced landline phones regarding user preference, and that many children now use text messages to communicate with people who can help them. Sullivan urged that teaching young children to use cell phones in strictly emergency situations can teach them to budget their available minutes and use phones responsibly.

Aylward spoke about how he founded the COMCARE program to help speed up emergency response time. Children, he said, can now use cell phones to help them in emergency situations, and this has saved “precious” minutes and seconds in the lives of many young people.

Supreme Court today

There were 5 opinions issued, and the Court heard argument in one case.



The first significant ruling was in Riegel v. Medtronic. The FDA regulated medical devices under the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, and Class 3 devices are given the most scrutiny and must be approved before being sold. During heart surgery, a Medtronic catheter ruptured in Charles Riegel's coronary artery. He (and later his widow) sued, claiming that the Medtronic catheter did not meet New York state regulations on design, labeling, and manufacturing of medical devices. The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 ruling, said that the federal law preempts the state law. The majority opinion was written by Justice Scalia. Justice Ginsburg dissented.

The second significant ruling was in LaRue v. DeWolff. LaRue had put money into his pension plan, which allowed him to direct where the money was invested. The pension plan administrator failed to follow those instructions, and LaRue lost about $150,000. LaRue sued under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, saying the plan administrator had breached a fiduciary duty. The lower court had held that that law only allowed suits when everyone on a plan lost money, but the Supreme Court reversed, saying individuals could sue. Justice Stevens wrote the opinion for a unanimous court.

The last significant ruling was in Danforth v. Minnesota. In 2004 the Supreme Court issued new rules for testimony at trials. Danforth claimed that the videotaped testimony of his 6-year-old rape victim violated those rules. The new rules had been issued after Danforth's trial, so there was a question of whether he could have any relief under the new rules. The Minnesota Supreme Court read US Supreme Court precedent as saying it did not have the power to apply the new rules to the old case, but the Supreme Court today said that state courts do have that power and can choose to apply new rules retroactively.

The case argued today was CBOCS v. Humphries. Mr. Humphries was fired after he complained about racial discrimination by his manager at Cracker Barrel. Normally a suit like this would be brought under Title VII, but Humphries missed the statute of limitations for that law. Instead, he claimed relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Section 1981 says that everyone has the same rights to "make and enforce contracts," regardless of race. The Supreme Court expanded that law to include protection from things like discrimination during employment. However, Crack Barrel argued that Humphries was fired for complaining, not because of his race, and that retaliation for complaints was not covered under the law.

Cracker Barrel's argument that the law simply does not say anything about retaliation seemed to be accepted by at Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Roberts, and Justice Thomas is likely to agree. Humphries argued, however, that it is not reasonable to tell people they can complain about discrimination if they can legally be fired for making that complaint, and Justices Breyer and Ginsburg seemed to accept that argument. I expect Justices Stevens and Souter to go along with Justice Breyer, and Alito to go along with Justice Scalia, leaving a 5-4 ruling against Humphries.

Some humor was provided during Solicitor General Clement's argument. Clement, representing the government's position, supported Humphries. Justice Scalia was asking him about implied rights of action: when Congress passes a law (such as this one) that simply states that people have a right to something, there is a question about whether that law implies that someone can sue over violations of that right. The Supreme Court used to be very willing to find such implied rights of action, but they have recently stopped doing so. Justice Scalia, calling the time when the Court found implied rights of action "the bad old days," asked Solicitor General Clement when they ended. Clement responded, "The bad old days ended when you got on the Court."