web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > News Media (Page 141)

‘We got our swagger back:’ World Series is tied, but it’s clear the Astros have taken control

CLOSEWestlake Legal Group icon_close 'We got our swagger back:' World Series is tied, but it's clear the Astros have taken control

What I’m Hearing: USA TODAY Sports’ Bob Nightengale describes the mood in the Astros locker room after defeating the Nationals in Game 4, tying the series at 2-2. USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — The Houston Astros, with the music blaring and laughter permeating the clubhouse Saturday evening, still can’t figure out what happened back in Houston.

They lost with Gerrit Cole. They were routed with Justin Verlander. And they got on the plane to Washington, D.C., wondering what in the world hit them.

Well, whatever the virus that inflicted them, it’s now out of their system, and they are back to being the biggest and baddest dudes in all of the land.

“What’s important now is that we got our swagger back, and we’re playing good,” Astros shortstop Carlos Correa said Saturday night, “and we are dangerous when we feel like this.”

The Washington Nationals certainly are witnesses to the Astros’ turnaround. Their 2-0 lead in this World Series has disintegrated in front of them, losing back-to-back games for the first time in six weeks after the Astros’ 8-1 rout at Nationals Park.

The World Series is now tied at 2-apiece, with the visiting team winning all four games for the first time since 1996.

So what happened?

Where was this team at the start of the World Series?

“I don’t know,’’ Correa said, “it was weird. I felt like Games 1 and 2 almost felt like regular-season games for some reason. We didn’t have our swagger. We didn’t have our flow. We didn’t have our hunger, wanting it so that you want to go out there and fight for it.”

They decided to have a talk about it.

Verlander and Jose Altuve reminded the team after their 12-3 loss in Game 2 that this still was the same team that won 107 games in the regular-season. It was still the same team that knocked off the Tampa Bay Rays in the ALDS, outlasted the New Yankees in the ALCS.

“We said, ‘We got to get our swagger back,’” Correa said. “We got to go out there and get hits. And get hyped. Get pumped. We’ve got to go out there and play the baseball that we were playing all year and were successful doing.

“We can’t just be out there and acting like it was normal. It’s the World Series. It doesn’t get any better. It’s the last series of the season, let’s give it our all.”

SWAG: ‘That’s what you get’ – Bregman delivers grand slam

WHO? Thanks to rookie, Astros back in World Series

Well, mission accomplished, with the Astros outscoring the Nats 12-2 the last two nights, pounding out 24 hits, seven for extra bases, with three homers.

“We flipped the script,” Astros outfielder Josh Reddick said. “I think for the first time this postseason, the Houston Astros showed what we can really do with this lineup.”

Now, after playing eight months, 324 regular-season games and 29 postseason games between them, the entire season comes down to a best-of-three series.

The Astros have their Cy Young candidates lined up with Gerrit Cole going Sunday in Game 5 at Nationals Park and Justin Verlander in Game 6 at Minute Maid Park in Houston.

And the Nats have their co-aces lined up with Max Scherzer in Game 5 and Stephen Strasburg in Game 6.

“They won Round 1,” Correa said. “Round 2 is the most important.”

Indeed, Cole and Verlander were out-pitched by Scherzer and Strasburg in Games 1 and 2. It was the first time all season they lost back-to-back starts at home, sending shock waves throughout Houston.

The odds of it happening again?

“It ain’t happening,” Reddick said. “Gerrit isn’t’ going to lose two in a row. He doesn’t do that. We expect him to do great things, and JV (Justin Verlander) to be JV when we get home.”

So, it’s OK to go ahead and schedule that second World Series parade in three years in downtown Houston, considering it’s almost inconceivable Cole and Verlander can lose again?

“You can never say that,” Correa said. “It’s baseball. Anything can happen. But Gerrit is one of the, if not the most, dominant pitchers in the game right now. When he’s on the mound, you feel confident on the field, and that’s not going to change because he lost one game in the last four months.”

Well, to be technical, it’s five months. He lost a start for the first time since May 22 after going 19-0 with a 1.59 ERA in his previous 25 starts.

“Anybody,” Correa said, “can have a bad day.”

But for Cole to lose two games in a row?

Impossible right?

“I’m not going to throw a jinx out there like that,” said Astros reliever Will Harris, who once again worked his magic, preserving their early lead and now retiring 27 of the 32 batters he has faced this postseason.

Still, this is different lineup now.

Astros catcher Robinson Chirinos became the first catcher to hit homers in consecutive days since Ted Simmons in 1982, and struggling MVP candidate Alex Bregman is back. Bregman came into the game with four hits in 31 at-bats since the ALDS.

“We don’t see Bregman struggle too often,” Correa said, “so when he does, it feels like he’s in an 0-for-50 slump. Guys like him and Altuve don’t struggle too long, but when they do, it seems like it’s forever.”

The Nats found out the hard way, watching him hit a seventh-inning grand slam that broke open the game, ending his night by going three for five with five RBI.

“You know Bregman, he was pissed off,” Correa said. “That intentional walk (in Game 3) set him on fire. You do that to Breg, and he’s going to come back the next day and be A-Breg.

“He’s born for this. He’s born for big moments.”

“There was a lot of noise around losing the first two games,” Astros manager A.J. Hinch said, “and rightfully so because the Nats had outplayed us. I think we turned it around.

“But our mojo, our vibe, our approach, our banter in the clubhouse … our confidence level is at a pretty good level.”

Yessir, the boys that make their home deep in the heart of Texas may have wandered off for a while, but they are back.

Follow Nightengale on Twitter @Bnightengale

Show Thumbnails
Show Captions

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

ISIS leader al-Baghdadi confirmed dead after apparent suicide during U.S. operation: sources

Westlake Legal Group 5800ffa3-BaghdadiTHUMB ISIS leader al-Baghdadi confirmed dead after apparent suicide during U.S. operation: sources Ronn Blitzer Lucas Tomlinson Jennifer Griffin fox-news/world/terrorism/isis fox news fnc/politics fnc article 6a64d688-7379-52fd-8012-5f832390fb75

ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is dead, sources have confirmed to Fox News.

Al-Baghdadi, who took over ISIS after his predecessor Abu Omar al-Baghdadi was killed in 2010, detonated a suicide vest, killing himself when U.S. Special Operations forces entered a compound in northern Syria where he was located, according to a U.S. defense official. No U.S. Special Operations forces were hurt or killed in the raid.

“U.S. forces did a terrific job,” a U.S. military source told Fox News.“This just shows it may take time but terrorists will not find a sanctuary.” The same source told Fox News that biometric tests confirmed that it was indeed Baghdadi.

The compound was located near the Turkish border in northwest Syria’s Idlib Province, a known terrorist stronghold that has served as a home to groups linked to al-Qaeda. Al-Baghdadi had long been suspected to be hiding in the Idlib Province.

Mazloum Adbi, General Commander of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, touted a “historical operation” in a tweet Sunday morning, crediting “joint intelligence work with the United States of America.”

Regarding Mazloum’s claim of Kurdish assistance in the operation, a U.S. military source simply told Fox News, “the Kurds have always been good partners.”

Westlake Legal Group 5800ffa3-BaghdadiTHUMB ISIS leader al-Baghdadi confirmed dead after apparent suicide during U.S. operation: sources Ronn Blitzer Lucas Tomlinson Jennifer Griffin fox-news/world/terrorism/isis fox news fnc/politics fnc article 6a64d688-7379-52fd-8012-5f832390fb75   Westlake Legal Group 5800ffa3-BaghdadiTHUMB ISIS leader al-Baghdadi confirmed dead after apparent suicide during U.S. operation: sources Ronn Blitzer Lucas Tomlinson Jennifer Griffin fox-news/world/terrorism/isis fox news fnc/politics fnc article 6a64d688-7379-52fd-8012-5f832390fb75

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

2 People Killed, At Least 14 Injured In Shooting At Off-Campus Texas A&M-Commerce Party

Westlake Legal Group 5db573972100000135ad4016 2 People Killed, At Least 14 Injured In Shooting At Off-Campus Texas A&M-Commerce Party

Two people were killed and at least 14 were injured in a shooting late Saturday at a party celebrating Texas A&M University-Commerce’s homecoming weekend, according to authorities. 

University spokesman Michael Johnson confirmed to WFAA-TV that a shooting had occurred at an off-campus party in Greenville, Texas, located about 15 miles southwest of the Commerce campus.

The party was not part of the school’s sanctioned homecoming festivities,  Johnson said, adding that it remained unknown whether any students were injured in the attack.

Hunt County Chief Deputy Buddy Oxford told reporters early Sunday that the shooting had occurred “abruptly” just before midnight. Oxford said a fraternity may have been involved in organizing the party, according to WFAA reporter Jason Whitely. Officials estimated that at least 750 people attended the event.

Officers found the two people who’d been killed inside the building, Oxford said, per AP. He did not provide any additional information about the fatalities nor the condition of those who were injured in the attack.

Officials said they believed a semi-automatic rifle was used in the shooting, but said they did not consider the attack a mass shooting “at this time.”

The suspect remains at large. 

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Find out who’s blocking you, iPad malware and more: Tech Q&A

Catch Blockers

Q: I think my ex blocked my number from his phone. He never answers my calls. Is there a way to know is someone blocked your number?

A: There is no technology that will tell you for sure about a blocked number. Instead, you’ll have to check for certain clues. Does you call go directly to voicemail? Are you calls never answered? Do you receive an automated response, indicating that “this caller isn’t available”? These are all strong signs that your number has been permanently deflected. Tap or click here to knock if someone blocked your number.

Apple Malware Check

Q: I tapped the wrong thing and I think my iPad is infected. How can I check my iPad for malware?

A: The biggest danger of owning Apple products is the false sense of security. Over the years, millions of Mac addicts have accepted the myth that their devices can’t contract malware. But your iPad is absolutely at risk. The most obvious signal is an annoying pop-up ad that claims you have malware. Mysterious messages and unexpected activity in your accounts may also point to malware or a breached interface. You may be able to tackle this problem pretty easily, but you should act soon. Tap or click here to check your iPad for malware.

Anonymous Calling

Q: I would like to call my competitors and learn more about their pricing. Is it possible to make a call anonymously?

A: You can block your number, and there are several different ways to do it. The easiest method is *69, which is a temporary solution, and you’ll have to enter these digits every time you dial a number. But it’s simple and free, and the phrase “Private Number” will show up on caller ID. On an iPhone, you can actually switch off your number completely, depending on your carrier. Keep in mind that many companies will be suspicious of any unlisted number, especially in the era of robocalls, when many businesses are bombarded with anonymous spam. Tap or click here to block your cell number from caller ID.

Streaming TV Comparison

Q: There are so many streaming services now and I can’t keep them all straight. How does Netflix compare to Hulu and Disney and Amazon? Help!

A: Yes, there are. The arrival of Disney+ and Apple+ will add thousands of hours of digital entertainment to an already glutted market, and it’s hard to tell who will survive in the coming years. Usually, new formats like this obey the “survival of the fittest” rule, but it’s still so hard to tell which streaming services are “fittest.” I recommend checking out my handy chart, which illustrates the benefits and drawbacks of each platform and lays them out side-by-side. You may still find yourself playing “streaming roulette,” but at least there won’t be any big surprises. Tap or click here for a streaming TV comparison chart.

Clean That Phone

Q: My phone is gross. I heard you should use alcohol but then others say no. What’s the right way to clean your dirty phone?

A: You may be referring to those jugs of rubbing alcohol you find at the pharmacy. My advice is: no. What you need is a tech-ready cleaning solution, such as mobile screen wipes, which are specifically designed for phones. Many users wouldn’t think to remove their phone cases and clear out the many ports, but if you want your phone to last, all of these components should be decontaminated on a regular basis. Cleaning products are very affordable and last for a long time. As we start our descent into flu season, you’ll be grateful that you gave your gadget a little extra care. Tap or click here to give your phone a thorough cleaning.

What digital lifestyle questions do you have? Call Kim’s national radio show and tap or click here to find it on your local radio station. You can listen to or watch the Kim Komando Show on your phone, tablet, television or computer. Or tap or click here for Kim’s free podcasts.

Copyright 2019, WestStar Multimedia Entertainment. All rights reserved.

Learn about all the latest technology on the Kim Komando Show, the nation’s largest weekend radio talk show. Kim takes calls and dispenses advice on today’s digital lifestyle, from smartphones and tablets to online privacy and data hacks. For her daily tips, free newsletters and more, visit her website at Komando.com.

Westlake Legal Group istock-458566165 Find out who’s blocking you, iPad malware and more: Tech Q&A The Kim Komando Show Kim Komando fox-news/tech/topics/privacy fox-news/tech/technologies/ipad fnc/tech fnc article 25b61bfe-3ee7-5982-a45d-0e7739b06a4b   Westlake Legal Group istock-458566165 Find out who’s blocking you, iPad malware and more: Tech Q&A The Kim Komando Show Kim Komando fox-news/tech/topics/privacy fox-news/tech/technologies/ipad fnc/tech fnc article 25b61bfe-3ee7-5982-a45d-0e7739b06a4b

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Bernie Wants You to Own More of the Means of Production – Bernie Sanders just released a landmark plan to shift ownership and control of the US economy away from the very affluent and towards workers and the public.

Westlake Legal Group AabRvAbcxFMMCLwWHSPIU3Vr6hpQEfA31vNyMMpKfS4 Bernie Wants You to Own More of the Means of Production – Bernie Sanders just released a landmark plan to shift ownership and control of the US economy away from the very affluent and towards workers and the public. r/politics

As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.

In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don’t attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.

If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.


I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Tree of Life massacre: A year later, US Jewish communities still facing ‘significant threats’

CLOSEWestlake Legal Group icon_close Tree of Life massacre: A year later, US Jewish communities still facing 'significant threats'

(CNN)Some Pittsburgh polling stations on Tuesday handed out voting stickers that reflected the mood of a grieving and healing city. Polling places near Tree of Life synagogue, where a gunman killed 11 Jews on October 27 in the worst anti-Semitic attack in US history, distributed the now familiar “Stronger Than Hate” stickers featuring a modified version of the Steelers logo, according to Jeanne Clark, chair of the Shadyside Democratic Committee, who said she came up with the idea. “Obviously we’ve been having a tough time here in Pittsburgh,” Clark told CNN Tuesday evening. Her answer: Voting stickers honoring the massacre victims. ” When horrible, horrible things happen, taking an action can make you feel better … It’s a wonderful way to help deal with all of our grief.” Voters got the stickers at polling sites in and near the Squirrel Hill neighborhood, the center of Jewish life in Pittsburgh. The logo has made its way around the internet since the tragedy, and Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto made it his Twitter profile picture. Wochit-All

Sunday’s public memorial in Pittsburgh on the one-year anniversary of a massacre at the Tree of Life synagogue will serve as more than a commemoration of the 11 lives taken in that heinous attack.

It’s also a reminder that threats against the Jewish community are ever present, and if anything, they have grown.

Exactly six months after the mass murder in Pittsburgh, a gunman killed one person and injured three others – including a rabbi – at the Chabad of Poway synagogue outside San Diego.

Here’s where things stand a year after the Tree of Life tragedy earned the unwelcome distinction as the deadliest anti-Semitic attack ever on U.S. soil:

What happened to the suspect?

Accused gunman Robert Bowers was initially indicted on 44 counts of killing 11 people and injuring seven in the assault, which left three police officers wounded. Bowers was later hit with another 19 criminal counts that included federal hate crime charges.

The former Pennsylvania truck driver, now 47, is locked up at the Butler County Prison north of Pittsburgh, awaiting trial.

The initial indictment said Bowers entered the synagogue with several firearms, made statements about wanting to “kill Jews’’ and gunned down members of three congregations.

Pittsburgh police also said Bowers told them after his arrest that he “wanted all Jews to die’’ because he believed they “were committing genocide to his people.’’

Will he get the death penalty?

Federal and Pennsylvania prosecutors are seeking a death sentence against Bowers, arguing that he targeted worshippers at the synagogue, sought to terrorize Jewish communities and showed a lack of remorse for his actions. He had also displayed anti-Semitic tendencies online.

Capital punishment has not been applied at the federal level since 2003, but Attorney General William Barr announced its reinstatement in July, and the Department of Justice said on Aug. 26 that it would pursue the death penalty for Bowers.

Bowers’ defense team, composed of San Diego lawyer Judy Clarke and two public defenders, has said it would prefer to avoid a trial. Bowers offered to plead guilty in exchange for a sentence of life in prison, but prosecutors rejected that Oct. 15.   

When will he be tried?

The case has bogged down in legal maneuvers between the defense and federal prosecutors, who argue they’re being stifled in their attempts to set a trial date, preferably for no later than September 2020.

Prosecutors have asked the judge to intervene and enter a scheduling order. In court papers, the defense called a September 2020 trial date “unrealistic.’’

Have anti-Semitic attacks increased?

A report released a week ago by the Anti-Defamation League said in its headline, “American Jews face significant threats.’’

According to the organization, which fights anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry, white supremacists represent the biggest danger in the U.S. At least 12 of them have been arrested and accused of having a role  in plots, attacks or threats against the Jewish community over the last year. In that span, white supremacists targeted Jewish institutions at least 50 times, the ADL said.

The group’s tally of anti-Semitic incidents in the U.S. since 2009 shows a major spike in 2017 – from 1,267 to 1,986, with a substantial increase in physical assaults – before a small reduction to 1,879 incidents in 2018.

A total of 780 incidents were reported in the first six months of this year, only five fewer than over the same period in 2018.

What events are planned for Sunday?

There are several, highlighted by the public commemoration ceremony at Soldiers & Sailors Memorial Hall & Museum in Pittsburgh, where a vigil was held the day after the attack last year.

The Tree of Life building remains closed, and its fate is uncertain.

“We will reopen,’’ said Rabbi Jeffrey Myers of the Tree of Life congregation. “We must reopen, because if we don’t, then evil wins, and we’re not letting it win on my watch.’’

Jewish leaders have chosen the theme of “Remember. Repair. Together.’’ for Sunday’s activities, which will also include community service projects and study sessions of the Torah, the book of Jewish scriptures.

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/10/27/tree-life-year-after-pittsburgh-attack-u-s-jews-threatened/2451390001/

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Prince’s Memoir, ‘The Beautiful Ones,’ Is A Brief But Compelling Affirmation Of His Blackness

I watched Prince’s performance at the 2007 Super Bowl halftime show from my college dorm room, which was furnished with outdated devices from home. I popped a blank VHS tape into my VCR to capture what music lovers — and internet polls — still consider to be one of the greatest acts in the history of the NFL showcase. For an audience of more than 90 million, Prince sang with passion, shredded on guitar and projected his larger-than-life silhouette on a tarp during “Purple Rain” — in the actual rain. As a superfan who had taken every opportunity to honor his art and influence in my writing and music classes, I was exhilarated.

Years went by and I never stopped writing about him. But for some reason, I tucked my memory of the performance away with the VHS tape. After Prince died in 2016, I heard his hairdresser speak about that night in an interview with The Current, revealing how he’d had a split second of hesitation.

“They’re not going to make me go outside, are they?” he reportedly said. But he gathered himself, put on a scarf and asked the producers, “Can you make it rain harder?”

I shocked myself by weeping over the story. The nervousness he briefly displayed before the show was a reminder that, incredible talent aside, he is not magic — a description he rejected — but human. As a Black female fan with multiple insecurities, I felt pride. I felt seen. I felt like I could still do extraordinary things.

That Super Bowl performance is not in “The Beautiful Ones,” Prince’s posthumous memoir, published by Random House and out Tuesday. But that’s only because he died before completing the book. Still, the book is an affirmation of Prince’s Blackness and humanity. It also provides deeper insight into his relationship with his parents, which he only hinted at in the song “When Doves Cry” and the “Purple Rain” film. In Prince’s own words, the memoir is a “handbook for the brilliant community, wrapped in autobiography, wrapped in biography” — and thus, it’s an inspiration. It successfully captures what made me cry, looking back at Prince playing in his scarf on that wet Super Bowl stage. 

Though practical in nature, the scarf has long been a symbol of Black culture — or “soul,” as Prince’s character, Christopher Tracy, said while wearing one in the 1986 film, “Under the Cherry Moon.” It signifies both Black utilitarianism, which dates back to slavery, and Black fashion that is still relevant today. The scarf’s presence, especially on a global platform, is an automatic statement of perseverance and creativity. 

“The Beautiful Ones” embodies that same spirit. The memoir is divided into five sections, beginning with an introduction that provides a behind-the-scenes look at its creation. A large part of this section was previously published in The New Yorker, but there are new passages that readers should examine closely; Piepenbring’s conversations with Prince are just as important as the sentences Prince composed himself. And many of them were permeated by race.

As the memoir reveals, white critics’ statements about Prince “transcending” race are incorrect; the superstar was firmly rooted in his heritage. In his own words to Piepenbring, he subverted a racist music industry that sought to trap him on the then-“Black charts” — an offensive label that limited the breadth of Black musicians. Later, he undermined the industry again, fighting for ownership of his music while bringing attention to the oppression that Black artists have faced throughout the years. All Black artists should own their masters, he told Piepenbring.

“He saw it as a way to fight racism,” Piepenbring writes in “The Beautiful Ones.” “Black communities would restore wealth by safeguarding their master recordings. And they could protect that wealth, hiring their own police, founding their own schools, and forming bonds on their own terms.”

The next section of the book includes the 28 pages Prince wrote, bolstered by Piepenbring’s invaluable annotations, and never-before-seen pictures of Prince’s family. Prince writes about his childhood with clarity and poetic flair, effortlessly combining humorous anecdotes with deep self-reflection and musical analysis. His stories express the significant influence of Black women in his life, from the girls he dated to matriarchs in the community. It’s another truth about him that is rarely explored in the media. 

But the most important Black woman in his life was his mother, Mattie Della Shaw. His commentary on her — the most he has ever shared — feels like an attempt to correct the narrative about his family. He also addresses the loving and tumultuous relationship between his parents, and how it informed his life and work. He was the true embodiment of his mother and father, of spontaneity and order. 

“One of my life’s dilemmas has been looking at this,” said Prince, who also presents a human vulnerability through discussions of his insecurities and epileptic seizures as a child.

Westlake Legal Group 5db31753210000742fad3e93 Prince’s Memoir, ‘The Beautiful Ones,’ Is A Brief But Compelling Affirmation Of His Blackness

Getty Images via Getty Images WASHINGTON, DC – JUNE 14: (Exclusive Coverage) Prince performs onstage at Warner Theatre on June 14, 2015 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Karrah Kobus/NPG Records via Getty Images)

The remaining sections of the memoir tell the story of Prince’s ascent to superstardom. There is a photo album from the late ’70s, which was discovered at Paisley Park. He had kept it to document the making of his debut album, “For You.” It also includes handwritten lyrics and excerpts from his interviews throughout the years. It’s apparent that Piepenbring and Random House editor Chris Jackson wanted Prince’s voice to steer the project. It shows the promise of what Ava DuVernay would have done with the Prince documentary for Netflix — which was said to have been “narrated” by Prince — had she not dropped out of the production

Prince’s memoir closes with his handwritten synopsis for “Purple Rain,” a bit of a dark read that draws on his complex relationship with his parents. 

There are some missed opportunities in the book: Piepenbring could have included whatever he and Prince discussed about spirituality, a major aspect of the artist’s life and music, and he could have encouraged Prince to elaborate further on the impact of his father’s strong religious beliefs. 

But so much was out of Piepenbring’s hands. We will never hear Prince’s take on milestones like marriage and fatherhood, the “bombshells” he had promised to share, or the lyric-by-lyric breakdown of “When Doves Cry”— a window into his psyche — which he’d expressed interest in doing.

And yet, “The Beautiful Ones” is still a guide, albeit a brief one. It shows that Prince is one of us — he just worked to manifest dreams that took him from the North Side of Minneapolis to the Super Bowl. It encourages us to tap into our power to design the lives we envision for ourselves and set a precedent for future generations to do the same.

“If I want this book to be about one overarching thing, it’s freedom,” Prince writes. “And the freedom to create autonomously.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Christen Limbaugh Bloom: Could you be the answer to someone else’s prayer?

Westlake Legal Group 871fa319-TitanicCross2 Christen Limbaugh Bloom: Could you be the answer to someone else's prayer? fox-news/us/religion/christianity fox-news/us/religion fox-news/opinion fox-news/faith-values fox news fnc/opinion fnc f17966b0-b5b1-5db1-971a-957fc37cf5f6 Christen Limbaugh Bloom article

I asked myself this question the other day because of a recurring theme in my Bible study on the Book of Ephesians. Having read this book many times in the past, this study has personally reinforced for me the belief of many theologians, which is that the Bible always has new lessons to teach us, no matter how many times we’ve read it.

For the first time, my eyes have been opened to the message of unity in the church woven repeatedly throughout the message of Ephesians. In fact, it’s so prevalent I’m shocked I never noticed it there before.

I now realize that this theme of church unity probably never stood out to me because until very recently, I didn’t fully understand what “church unity” means at its core. I’ve heard the term “community” used countless times in church. But I’ve always associated this word with Bible studies and small groups.

But through this study, God has enlightened my perspective on how I envision unity within the church. It began when my pastor, Josh Kelsey of C3 NYC Church, preached a sermon specifically on this topic. At that time, I had already known I’d be studying the Book of Ephesians in the next month, but had no idea the book was so focused on this idea.

When I started reading through the study, I was amazed to find so many of the themes my pastor had preached just weeks before resurfacing through an entirely different medium. I love these instances when God makes things so obvious as though He’s waving a neon sign of the message in your face.

GABRIEL ETZEL: THIS IS WHY WE SHOULD PRAY FOR OUR PRESIDENT

More from Opinion

In response I thought, “Alright God, I hear You loud and clear – unity in the church is important and something You clearly want me to understand … but what does it actually, practically look like?”

The Apostle Paul wrote in Ephesians 4:16 that as members of the church we are called to speak in truth and to act as “supporting ligaments” who grow and build each other up through love in order to fully grow into spiritual maturity as one body under Christ.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR OPINION NEWSLETTER

This verse makes clear that when individuals decide to put their faith in Jesus and follow Him, they automatically become part of something bigger than themselves: the church (Christ’s body). Being a part of this body shouldn’t consist solely of membership in a physical church or small group.

God asks us to shift our perspective to seek every opportunity to help others know Him better, and to see every person as someone who He created to make the body of the church better.

As Christians, we are not only called to encourage others and build one another up, it’s actually an essential part of God’s design for the church.

We all need reassurance from fellow believers, and we each have something in ourselves – given to us by God – that others need from us. Paul warns us that if we fail to obey this command, we will never reach our full potential and neither will the church. God creates every human being for a specific purpose to contribute something unique to His body.

With this in mind, believers should all think of themselves as potential answers to the prayers and problems of others. God has given each of us special gifts that the world needs, but we have to stay connected to Him and offer ourselves to be used by Him in order for these possibilities to come to fruition.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Open your mind to the opportunities God is placing in your life right now to encourage the people around you and share His love.

“For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” (Ephesians 2:10)

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY CHRISTEN LIMBAUGH BLOOM

Westlake Legal Group 871fa319-TitanicCross2 Christen Limbaugh Bloom: Could you be the answer to someone else's prayer? fox-news/us/religion/christianity fox-news/us/religion fox-news/opinion fox-news/faith-values fox news fnc/opinion fnc f17966b0-b5b1-5db1-971a-957fc37cf5f6 Christen Limbaugh Bloom article   Westlake Legal Group 871fa319-TitanicCross2 Christen Limbaugh Bloom: Could you be the answer to someone else's prayer? fox-news/us/religion/christianity fox-news/us/religion fox-news/opinion fox-news/faith-values fox news fnc/opinion fnc f17966b0-b5b1-5db1-971a-957fc37cf5f6 Christen Limbaugh Bloom article

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Boeing Shaped a Law to Its Liking. Weeks Later, a 737 Max Crashed.

With a few short paragraphs tucked into 463 pages of legislation last year, Boeing scored one of its biggest lobbying wins: a law that undercuts the government’s role in approving the design of new airplanes.

For years, the government had been handing over more responsibility to manufacturers as a way to reduce bureaucracy. But those paragraphs cemented the industry’s power, allowing manufacturers to challenge regulators over safety disputes and making it difficult for the government to usurp companies’ authority.

Although the law applies broadly to the industry, Boeing, the nation’s dominant aerospace manufacturer, is the biggest beneficiary. An examination by The New York Times, based on interviews with more than 50 regulators, industry executives, congressional staff members and lobbyists, as well as drafts of the bill and federal documents, found that Boeing and its allies helped craft the legislation to their liking, shaping the language of the law and overcoming criticism from regulators.

In a stark warning as the bill was being written, the Federal Aviation Administration said that it would “not be in the best interest of safety.”

A labor group representing agency inspectors raised concerns that the rules would turn the F.A.A. into a “rubber stamp” that would only be able to intervene after a plane crashed “and people are killed,” according to internal union documents reviewed by The Times.

Weeks after the law was passed, a Boeing 737 Max jet crashed off the coast of Indonesia, killing everyone on board. A second Max crashed in Ethiopia less than five months later, and the plane was grounded.

On both doomed flights, a new automated system on the Max, designed to help avoid stalls, triggered erroneously, sending them into fatal nose-dives. Mired in crisis, Boeing is still trying to fix the plane and get it flying again.

In the aftermath, lawmakers have seized on flaws in a regulatory system that cedes control to industry — an issue that is likely to put Boeing on the defensive this week when the company’s chief executive, Dennis A. Muilenburg, testifies before Congress for the first time since the two crashes.

The F.A.A. never fully analyzed the automated system known as MCAS, while Boeing played down its risks. Late in the plane’s development, Boeing made the system more aggressive, changes that were not submitted in a safety assessment to the agency.

The Max was certified under the old rules. The new law, the F.A.A. Reauthorization Act of 2018, makes it even more difficult for the government to review manufacturers’ work.

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_160295604_b49b248c-f79a-4c0d-87c6-14186b943649-articleLarge Boeing Shaped a Law to Its Liking. Weeks Later, a 737 Max Crashed. United States Senate Nelson, Bill (1942- ) Muilenburg, Dennis A Lobbying and Lobbyists Law and Legislation House of Representatives Federal Aviation Administration Cantwell, Maria Boeing Company Boeing 737 Max Groundings and Safety Concerns (2019) Bahrami, Ali Aviation Accidents, Safety and Disasters Airlines and Airplanes

President Trump signed the F.A.A. Reauthorization Act of 2018 into law last October. Most of the attention on the legislation had been on a failed Republican effort to privatize the air traffic control system.Credit…Official White House Photo by Joyce N. Boghosia

In the past, agency officials could decide whether to delegate oversight to the company or to maintain control, depending on the importance of a system or concerns about safety. Now, the agency, at the outset of the development process, has to hand over responsibility for certifying almost every aspect of new planes.

If F.A.A. officials decide a system may compromise safety, the new rules dictate that they will need to conduct an investigation or an inspection to make their case before taking back control. If the officials raise concerns, ask for changes or otherwise miss certification deadlines, any disputes are automatically elevated by law to managers at the agency and the company.

The law also creates a committee of mostly aerospace executives to ensure that the regulator is meeting metrics set by the industry, and the law allows companies to make recommendations about the compensation of F.A.A. employees.

“The reauthorization act mandated regulatory capture,” said Doug Anderson, a former attorney in the agency’s office of chief counsel who reviewed the legislation. “It set the F.A.A. up for being totally deferential to the industry.”

A spokesman for Boeing, Gordon Johndroe, said that the certification process is “part of an effective F.A.A. oversight of safety that permits them to focus on the most important issues that are critical to the safety of flight.” He added that “this authority has been a proven way for decades for government regulators across many industries to prioritize resources and rely on technical experts to maintain quality, safety and integrity.”

When the legislation was hashed out, the lobbying effort barely registered in the country’s vast political machine. Boeing’s push, and the use of industry language in the crucial paragraphs, was standard amid the deregulatory drive by many businesses. Most of the attention on the bill was focused on a failed Republican effort to privatize the air traffic control system.

Since the two fatal accidents, the law has set off worries in Washington about whether the rules championed by Boeing make company deadlines a priority over passenger safety.

The manufacturer helped author a report that congressional aides used as a reference while writing the law, borrowing language and ideas that had long been used by Boeing. Its executives pressed Michael Huerta, then the head of the F.A.A., for support, telling him that the regulator’s inefficiency was threatening Boeing’s ability to compete against its chief rival, Airbus of France. They also helped persuade Senator Maria Cantwell, Democrat of Washington State, where Boeing has its manufacturing hub, to introduce language that requires the F.A.A. to relinquish control of many parts of the certification process.

“The method by which the F.A.A. certifies aircraft is in need of repair — I don’t think anyone could argue otherwise at this point,” Representative Rick Larsen, a Democrat from Washington, who voted in favor of the legislation, said in an interview. “No matter what we did last year, we need to be pulling some of that back into the public sphere, and take some of it out of the hands of industry.”

In closed-door meetings with congressional staff members, in testimony on Capitol Hill, in memos to lawmakers, the talking points were all the same.

Starting in 2014, Boeing and its trade associations explained that streamlining certification would make American aerospace companies more competitive with overseas rivals, by allowing them to develop planes more efficiently.

They argued that F.A.A. employees were interpreting the rules in seemingly arbitrary ways and slowing down the development process, according to seven people involved in the discussions and documents reviewed by The Times.

In a 2015 memo sent to congressional staff members that was reviewed by The Times, the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, which represents the business jet unit of Boeing, urged lawmakers to “fully implement” the so-called system of delegation. If disputes caused delays, the trade group called for “automatic escalation to appropriate F.A.A. and company management” so that issues didn’t languish.

The Aerospace Industries Association, which was headed during part of the lobbying campaign by Mr. Muilenburg of Boeing, echoed those priorities. Richard Efford, a lobbyist for the group, said in an interview that he emphasized the need to “fully utilize” delegation.

Boeing executives made the same pitch to Mr. Huerta at industry events and in meetings at the F.A.A., according to three people with knowledge of the matter. It became a routine discussion, they said.

And they made their case publicly as well, at times citing the company’s safety record.

In a 2015 hearing, Ray Conner, then the head of Boeing’s commercial airplane division, pushed like others for making “full use” of the system. He said it took too long to get approvals for interiors, like seats and bathrooms, that company engineers could assess. He argued that European regulators outsource far more.

The language of their lobbying push was rooted in a 2012 report from an industry-dominated committee run by Christine Thompson, a Boeing executive, and Ali Bahrami, an F.A.A. official at the time who later became a lobbyist.

In aerospace speak, it called for “full utilization of available delegation,” outsourcing as much oversight as possible. It outlined six recommendations that “will result in the reduction of certification delays” and “enhance the global competitiveness of the U.S. aviation industry.”

“There was a consensus that they had good recommendations, and that we ought to put them into writing,” said Matt Bormet, who formerly worked for Mr. Larsen. “I heard no complaints about the report.”

Boeing and its allies found a receptive audience in the head of the House transportation committee, Bill Shuster, a Pennsylvania Republican staunchly in favor of deregulation, and his aide working on the legislation, Holly Woodruff Lyons.

The F.A.A. Reauthorization Act of 2018 was broadly meant to provide agency funding for the coming years. Lawmakers also used it to introduce new rules for drones, airport noise and the certification process.

As Ms. Lyons helped write the law, she was in regular touch with Boeing, according to two people with knowledge of the discussions. The critical paragraphs in the final bill borrowed heavily from industry language, instituting the “full utilization of F.A.A. delegation.”

“The certification reforms in the F.A.A. bill were strongly desired and had bipartisan support,” Mr. Shuster said in an email, noting that delegation “has worked well and safely for over 50 years.”

The evolution of the bill had the imprint of industry.

An early version that Ms. Lyons sent to lobbyists directed the F.A.A. to measure its own performance, according to a draft reviewed by The Times. In one circulated a month later, staff members had added a clause specifying that the agency would be judged in part by a committee dominated by aerospace executives, which would come up with metrics for the regulator.

As the Senate prepared its own version in early 2016, Boeing was in close contact with the office of Ms. Cantwell.

“Senator Cantwell is responsive to the needs of Washington State businesses,” said Nick Sutter, one of her former staff members. “Boeing people were in and out of the office all the time.”

In conversations with a top aide for the senator, Matt McCarthy, Boeing lobbyists pushed for language that would compel the F.A.A. to rely more on manufacturers, according to two people directly involved in the discussions. Mr. McCarthy took a job as a lobbyist for Boeing in September.

Regulators and companies agreed that the F.A.A.’s resources were best focused on new and high-risk systems, according to Peggy Gilligan, the agency’s head of safety back then, and several other officials.

Ms. Cantwell submitted an amendment that directed the F.A.A. to automatically give companies the right to approve anything deemed “low and medium risk” on an airplane. It was language that particularly helped Boeing, with its wide range of planes.

“Listening to your constituents is always the first step in legislating, but it’s certainly not the last,” said Ansley Lacitis, deputy chief of staff for Ms. Cantwell. “This concept of risk-based oversight was bipartisan, consensus-based and recommended by experts.”

The amendment passed without any debate. At the hearing, then-Senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat of Florida, cheered the changes. The law, he said, “will boost U.S. manufacturing and exports and — most importantly — create good jobs for Americans.”

F.A.A. officials tried to push back, raising concerns to congressional staff members and aerospace executives. But they were constrained in their efforts.

As a federal agency, the F.A.A. is forbidden by law to use government resources to influence and lobby Congress. At most, officials could provide comments and feedback, so-called technical assistance in the legislative process.

“It is true that we were supportive of delegation as a general philosophy,” said Mr. Huerta, the former F.A.A. chief. “It is not true that means the agency supported every proposal to expand delegation and impose limits on the agency’s ability to take back delegations.”

Early on, Ms. Gilligan, the former F.A.A. official, said industry lobbyists suggested that the law should give companies input on performance evaluations of individual F.A.A. employees overseeing the certification of their planes. Two other agency officials confirmed her account.

“It appeared they were looking to influence the individuals’ pay outcome in some way, and for the F.A.A. employees to know that potential pay impact,” Ms. Gilligan said.

The final bill did not completely satisfy her concerns. The law created a panel with industry representatives to help assess “performance incentive policies” for F.A.A. employees, as long as they “do not conflict with the public interest.”

Mostly, top F.A.A. officials worried about the unintended consequences of giving more authority to manufacturers. Boeing employees have described pressures from their managers to meet deadlines while approving systems.

Under the old rules, the F.A.A. could decide to take back oversight authority on a system if they were concerned about safety. The new law would require the agency to conduct an investigation or inspection to prove that there was a problem before stepping in, a potentially lengthy process.

Industry groups told congressional staff members that manufacturers were sometimes subject to the whims of individual F.A.A. employees, who could block approvals and delay production schedules, according to three people with knowledge of the discussions.

“It causes delays and a lot of frustration within the companies,” said Mr. Efford, the lobbyist.

But regulators were concerned that the new law would keep them from effectively doing their job.

In early 2015, Brian Morris, a safety official at the agency, prepared feedback for lawmakers, arguing that the legislation would prevent the regulator from acting until a dangerous system had already been introduced onto an aircraft. “With this language, Congress is asking us to wait till we find a hazard before removing delegation,” he wrote, according to an F.A.A. document reviewed by The Times.

A current and a former F.A.A. official said that Mr. Morris was collecting feedback from multiple departments, so the comments reflected the opinions of other agency staff members. The document notes that the comments were “provided in response to a congressional request.”

The Professional Aviation Safety Specialists union, a small labor group that represents F.A.A. employees, had a similar warning. If the regulator could only intercede after documenting problems, it may not be able to stop manufacturers from installing risky systems.

“That will, as a practical matter, mean after the accident has happened and people are killed,” the union said in comments prepared for Congress in early 2016, which were reviewed by The Times.

Through a spokesman, Ms. Lyons, the congressional aide writing the law, said she did not receive comments from Mr. Morris or the union, but was aware of the F.A.A.’s worries.

“The concerns were discussed and considered in a bipartisan manner,” said the House transportation committee spokesman, Justin Harclerode. “Members did not agree with this interpretation of the language, and were not convinced the language would negatively impact the FAA’s ability to safely oversee the aviation industry”

He added that the F.A.A., under the law, could set the parameters of the investigation or inspection.

At a ceremony in the Oval Office last October, President Trump signed the F.A.A. Reauthorization Act into law, while Representative Shuster, who shepherded the legislation, looked over his shoulder.

The agency has already begun to make the required changes.

In August, it announced the formation of the advisory committee charged with setting goals for the regulator. The committee includes two union representatives and 17 industry officials, among them Beth Pasztor, one of Boeing’s top executives. The F.A.A. recently selected managers for an internal office that will help enforce provisions of the law.

As the rules take hold, some lawmakers who originally supported the legislation are backing away.

Mr. Nelson, the former senator who co-sponsored the law, said he did not fully understand the ramifications. “This was never brought to my attention,” he said in an interview. “Had I known about it, I would have tried to put the kibosh on it.”

Representative Peter DeFazio, the Oregon Democrat who is the chairman of the House transportation committee, celebrated the bill’s changes last year, saying it would maintain safety and “will help our manufacturers become much more competitive in the world market and introduce their products more quickly.”

Mr. DeFazio, who is currently leading a congressional investigation into the crashes, said in an interview that he was reconsidering the law and might introduce legislation to restore some of the agency’s oversight authority.

“If the F.A.A. basically deferred on a safety critical system and did not provide proper oversight, then either the individuals involved are going to be at risk, or the whole system itself isn’t working properly,” he said.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Before Deadly Crashes, Boeing Pushed for Law That Undercut Oversight

With a few short paragraphs tucked into 463 pages of legislation last year, Boeing scored one of its biggest lobbying wins: a law that undercuts the government’s role in approving the design of new airplanes.

For years, the government had been handing over more responsibility to manufacturers as a way to reduce bureaucracy. But those paragraphs cemented the industry’s power, allowing manufacturers to challenge regulators over safety disputes and making it difficult for the government to usurp companies’ authority.

Although the law applies broadly to the industry, Boeing, the nation’s dominant aerospace manufacturer, is the biggest beneficiary. An examination by The New York Times, based on interviews with more than 50 regulators, industry executives, congressional staff members and lobbyists, as well as drafts of the bill and federal documents, found that Boeing and its allies helped craft the legislation to their liking, shaping the language of the law and overcoming criticism from regulators.

In a stark warning as the bill was being written, the Federal Aviation Administration said that it would “not be in the best interest of safety.”

A labor group representing agency inspectors raised concerns that the rules would turn the F.A.A. into a “rubber stamp” that would only be able to intervene after a plane crashed “and people are killed,” according to internal union documents reviewed by The Times.

Weeks after the law was passed, a Boeing 737 Max jet crashed off the coast of Indonesia, killing everyone on board. A second Max crashed in Ethiopia less than five months later, and the plane was grounded.

On both doomed flights, a new automated system on the Max, designed to help avoid stalls, triggered erroneously, sending them into fatal nose-dives. Mired in crisis, Boeing is still trying to fix the plane and get it flying again.

In the aftermath, lawmakers have seized on flaws in a regulatory system that cedes control to industry — an issue that is likely to put Boeing on the defensive this week when the company’s chief executive, Dennis A. Muilenburg, testifies before Congress for the first time since the two crashes.

The F.A.A. never fully analyzed the automated system known as MCAS, while Boeing played down its risks. Late in the plane’s development, Boeing made the system more aggressive, changes that were not submitted in a safety assessment to the agency.

The Max was certified under the old rules. The new law, the F.A.A. Reauthorization Act of 2018, makes it even more difficult for the government to review manufacturers’ work.

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_160295604_b49b248c-f79a-4c0d-87c6-14186b943649-articleLarge Before Deadly Crashes, Boeing Pushed for Law That Undercut Oversight United States Senate Nelson, Bill (1942- ) Muilenburg, Dennis A Lobbying and Lobbyists Law and Legislation House of Representatives Federal Aviation Administration Cantwell, Maria Boeing Company Boeing 737 Max Groundings and Safety Concerns (2019) Bahrami, Ali Aviation Accidents, Safety and Disasters Airlines and Airplanes

President Trump signed the F.A.A. Reauthorization Act of 2018 into law last October. Most of the attention on the legislation had been on a failed Republican effort to privatize the air traffic control system.Credit…Official White House Photo by Joyce N. Boghosia

In the past, agency officials could decide whether to delegate oversight to the company or to maintain control, depending on the importance of a system or concerns about safety. Now, the agency, at the outset of the development process, has to hand over responsibility for certifying almost every aspect of new planes.

If F.A.A. officials decide a system may compromise safety, the new rules dictate that they will need to conduct an investigation or an inspection to make their case before taking back control. If the officials raise concerns, ask for changes or otherwise miss certification deadlines, any disputes are automatically elevated by law to managers at the agency and the company.

The law also creates a committee of mostly aerospace executives to ensure that the regulator is meeting metrics set by the industry, and the law allows companies to make recommendations about the compensation of F.A.A. employees.

“The reauthorization act mandated regulatory capture,” said Doug Anderson, a former attorney in the agency’s office of chief counsel who reviewed the legislation. “It set the F.A.A. up for being totally deferential to the industry.”

A spokesman for Boeing, Gordon Johndroe, said that the certification process is “part of an effective F.A.A. oversight of safety that permits them to focus on the most important issues that are critical to the safety of flight.” He added that “this authority has been a proven way for decades for government regulators across many industries to prioritize resources and rely on technical experts to maintain quality, safety and integrity.”

When the legislation was hashed out, the lobbying effort barely registered in the country’s vast political machine. Boeing’s push, and the use of industry language in the crucial paragraphs, was standard amid the deregulatory drive by many businesses. Most of the attention on the bill was focused on a failed Republican effort to privatize the air traffic control system.

Since the two fatal accidents, the law has set off worries in Washington about whether the rules championed by Boeing make company deadlines a priority over passenger safety.

The manufacturer helped author a report that congressional aides used as a reference while writing the law, borrowing language and ideas that had long been used by Boeing. Its executives pressed Michael Huerta, then the head of the F.A.A., for support, telling him that the regulator’s inefficiency was threatening Boeing’s ability to compete against its chief rival, Airbus of France. They also helped persuade Senator Maria Cantwell, Democrat of Washington State, where Boeing has its manufacturing hub, to introduce language that requires the F.A.A. to relinquish control of many parts of the certification process.

“The method by which the F.A.A. certifies aircraft is in need of repair — I don’t think anyone could argue otherwise at this point,” Representative Rick Larsen, a Democrat from Washington, who voted in favor of the legislation, said in an interview. “No matter what we did last year, we need to be pulling some of that back into the public sphere, and take some of it out of the hands of industry.”

In closed-door meetings with congressional staff members, in testimony on Capitol Hill, in memos to lawmakers, the talking points were all the same.

Starting in 2014, Boeing and its trade associations explained that streamlining certification would make American aerospace companies more competitive with overseas rivals, by allowing them to develop planes more efficiently.

They argued that F.A.A. employees were interpreting the rules in seemingly arbitrary ways and slowing down the development process, according to seven people involved in the discussions and documents reviewed by The Times.

In a 2015 memo sent to congressional staff members that was reviewed by The Times, the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, which represents the business jet unit of Boeing, urged lawmakers to “fully implement” the so-called system of delegation. If disputes caused delays, the trade group called for “automatic escalation to appropriate F.A.A. and company management” so that issues didn’t languish.

The Aerospace Industries Association, which was headed during part of the lobbying campaign by Mr. Muilenburg of Boeing, echoed those priorities. Richard Efford, a lobbyist for the group, said in an interview that he emphasized the need to “fully utilize” delegation.

Boeing executives made the same pitch to Mr. Huerta at industry events and in meetings at the F.A.A., according to three people with knowledge of the matter. It became a routine discussion, they said.

And they made their case publicly as well, at times citing the company’s safety record.

In a 2015 hearing, Ray Conner, then the head of Boeing’s commercial airplane division, pushed like others for making “full use” of the system. He said it took too long to get approvals for interiors, like seats and bathrooms, that company engineers could assess. He argued that European regulators outsource far more.

The language of their lobbying push was rooted in a 2012 report from an industry-dominated committee run by Christine Thompson, a Boeing executive, and Ali Bahrami, an F.A.A. official at the time who later became a lobbyist.

In aerospace speak, it called for “full utilization of available delegation,” outsourcing as much oversight as possible. It outlined six recommendations that “will result in the reduction of certification delays” and “enhance the global competitiveness of the U.S. aviation industry.”

“There was a consensus that they had good recommendations, and that we ought to put them into writing,” said Matt Bormet, who formerly worked for Mr. Larsen. “I heard no complaints about the report.”

Boeing and its allies found a receptive audience in the head of the House transportation committee, Bill Shuster, a Pennsylvania Republican staunchly in favor of deregulation, and his aide working on the legislation, Holly Woodruff Lyons.

The F.A.A. Reauthorization Act of 2018 was broadly meant to provide agency funding for the coming years. Lawmakers also used it to introduce new rules for drones, airport noise and the certification process.

As Ms. Lyons helped write the law, she was in regular touch with Boeing, according to two people with knowledge of the discussions. The critical paragraphs in the final bill borrowed heavily from industry language, instituting the “full utilization of F.A.A. delegation.”

“The certification reforms in the F.A.A. bill were strongly desired and had bipartisan support,” Mr. Shuster said in an email, noting that delegation “has worked well and safely for over 50 years.”

The evolution of the bill had the imprint of industry.

An early version that Ms. Lyons sent to lobbyists directed the F.A.A. to measure its own performance, according to a draft reviewed by The Times. In one circulated a month later, staff members had added a clause specifying that the agency would be judged in part by a committee dominated by aerospace executives, which would come up with metrics for the regulator.

As the Senate prepared its own version in early 2016, Boeing was in close contact with the office of Ms. Cantwell.

“Senator Cantwell is responsive to the needs of Washington State businesses,” said Nick Sutter, one of her former staff members. “Boeing people were in and out of the office all the time.”

In conversations with a top aide for the senator, Matt McCarthy, Boeing lobbyists pushed for language that would compel the F.A.A. to rely more on manufacturers, according to two people directly involved in the discussions. Mr. McCarthy took a job as a lobbyist for Boeing in September.

Regulators and companies agreed that the F.A.A.’s resources were best focused on new and high-risk systems, according to Peggy Gilligan, the agency’s head of safety back then, and several other officials.

Ms. Cantwell submitted an amendment that directed the F.A.A. to automatically give companies the right to approve anything deemed “low and medium risk” on an airplane. It was language that particularly helped Boeing, with its wide range of planes.

“Listening to your constituents is always the first step in legislating, but it’s certainly not the last,” said Ansley Lacitis, deputy chief of staff for Ms. Cantwell. “This concept of risk-based oversight was bipartisan, consensus-based and recommended by experts.”

The amendment passed without any debate. At the hearing, then-Senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat of Florida, cheered the changes. The law, he said, “will boost U.S. manufacturing and exports and — most importantly — create good jobs for Americans.”

F.A.A. officials tried to push back, raising concerns to congressional staff members and aerospace executives. But they were constrained in their efforts.

As a federal agency, the F.A.A. is forbidden by law to use government resources to influence and lobby Congress. At most, officials could provide comments and feedback, so-called technical assistance in the legislative process.

“It is true that we were supportive of delegation as a general philosophy,” said Mr. Huerta, the former F.A.A. chief. “It is not true that means the agency supported every proposal to expand delegation and impose limits on the agency’s ability to take back delegations.”

Early on, Ms. Gilligan, the former F.A.A. official, said industry lobbyists suggested that the law should give companies input on performance evaluations of individual F.A.A. employees overseeing the certification of their planes. Two other agency officials confirmed her account.

“It appeared they were looking to influence the individuals’ pay outcome in some way, and for the F.A.A. employees to know that potential pay impact,” Ms. Gilligan said.

The final bill did not completely satisfy her concerns. The law created a panel with industry representatives to help assess “performance incentive policies” for F.A.A. employees, as long as they “do not conflict with the public interest.”

Mostly, top F.A.A. officials worried about the unintended consequences of giving more authority to manufacturers. Boeing employees have described pressures from their managers to meet deadlines while approving systems.

Under the old rules, the F.A.A. could decide to take back oversight authority on a system if they were concerned about safety. The new law would require the agency to conduct an investigation or inspection to prove that there was a problem before stepping in, a potentially lengthy process.

Industry groups told congressional staff members that manufacturers were sometimes subject to the whims of individual F.A.A. employees, who could block approvals and delay production schedules, according to three people with knowledge of the discussions.

“It causes delays and a lot of frustration within the companies,” said Mr. Efford, the lobbyist.

But regulators were concerned that the new law would keep them from effectively doing their job.

In early 2015, Brian Morris, a safety official at the agency, prepared feedback for lawmakers, arguing that the legislation would prevent the regulator from acting until a dangerous system had already been introduced onto an aircraft. “With this language, Congress is asking us to wait till we find a hazard before removing delegation,” he wrote, according to an F.A.A. document reviewed by The Times.

A current and a former F.A.A. official said that Mr. Morris was collecting feedback from multiple departments, so the comments reflected the opinions of other agency staff members. The document notes that the comments were “provided in response to a congressional request.”

The Professional Aviation Safety Specialists union, a small labor group that represents F.A.A. employees, had a similar warning. If the regulator could only intercede after documenting problems, it may not be able to stop manufacturers from installing risky systems.

“That will, as a practical matter, mean after the accident has happened and people are killed,” the union said in comments prepared for Congress in early 2016, which were reviewed by The Times.

Through a spokesman, Ms. Lyons, the congressional aide writing the law, said she did not receive comments from Mr. Morris or the union, but was aware of the F.A.A.’s worries.

“The concerns were discussed and considered in a bipartisan manner,” said the House transportation committee spokesman, Justin Harclerode. “Members did not agree with this interpretation of the language, and were not convinced the language would negatively impact the FAA’s ability to safely oversee the aviation industry”

He added that the F.A.A., under the law, could set the parameters of the investigation or inspection.

At a ceremony in the Oval Office last October, President Trump signed the F.A.A. Reauthorization Act into law, while Representative Shuster, who shepherded the legislation, looked over his shoulder.

The agency has already begun to make the required changes.

In August, it announced the formation of the advisory committee charged with setting goals for the regulator. The committee includes two union representatives and 17 industry officials, among them Beth Pasztor, one of Boeing’s top executives. The F.A.A. recently selected managers for an internal office that will help enforce provisions of the law.

As the rules take hold, some lawmakers who originally supported the legislation are backing away.

Mr. Nelson, the former senator who co-sponsored the law, said he did not fully understand the ramifications. “This was never brought to my attention,” he said in an interview. “Had I known about it, I would have tried to put the kibosh on it.”

Representative Peter DeFazio, the Oregon Democrat who is the chairman of the House transportation committee, celebrated the bill’s changes last year, saying it would maintain safety and “will help our manufacturers become much more competitive in the world market and introduce their products more quickly.”

Mr. DeFazio, who is currently leading a congressional investigation into the crashes, said in an interview that he was reconsidering the law and might introduce legislation to restore some of the agency’s oversight authority.

“If the F.A.A. basically deferred on a safety critical system and did not provide proper oversight, then either the individuals involved are going to be at risk, or the whole system itself isn’t working properly,” he said.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com