Monthly Archives: May 2010

“Audacity” is the New “Uppity”

26 Wednesday May 2010

Posted by in Congress, financial reform, health care, Obama, Politics, Republicans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

President Obama held a meeting with Senate Republicans yesterday–no cameras present. I would assume GOP senators learned a lesson from the dressing-down their House counterparts took in January with cameras rolling and insisted on that. Afterward, Bob Corker of Tennessee and Pat Roberts of Kansas gave their versions of what transpired, and what they allegedly said to the president.

Corker spoke with Greg Sargent of The Plum Line:

“He got all uppity I felt like there was a degree of audacity in him being there today, after passing his third large partisan bill,” Corker told me, insisting Republicans had been stiff-armed by the White House on financial reform, health care, and the stimulus.

“I told him I felt like a prop afer the actions they had taken regarding bipartisanship,” Corker said. “It hit a nerve.” Corker added that Obama came back at him with “quite a lengthy response,” but he declined to share what, precisely, the president said.”

(Memo to President Obama: Limit your responses to Republican questions to short catchy phrases and words of no more than 2 syllables, they’re used to listening to Palin and get easily confused).

Hit a nerve, Bob? I can’t imagine why. Probably because you and your colleagues in the Senate have been nothing but road blocks to everything since day one of President Obama’s administration. (Latest case in point, Sen. Inhofe blocking the lifting of the liability cap on BP.) The president has taken a lot heat from his base for going too far in accommodating Republicans who in spite of those consolations have, with few exceptions, voted against everything. Yeah, I guess that statement might have “hit a nerve.”

Here’s what hits the GOP’s nerve. Their plan from Inauguration Day in January of 2009 was to block any and all legislation. In spite of their obstructionism, two major pieces  of the president’s agenda have been passed (the stimulus package and health care reform) and another (financial reform) is in conference committee.

What Sen. Roberts had to say is so ridiculous it’s barely worth a mention, but it’s a good example of the pervasive Republican attitude toward the president.

“He needs to take a Valium before he comes in and talks to Republicans,” Sen. Pat Roberts (Kan.) told reporters. “He’s pretty thin-skinned.”

Sen. Roberts, have a little respect please. At least try and fake it when you’re speaking to the national media and not at a Tea Party whinefest rally.

Advertisement

No BOP for Palin’s Mouth?

24 Monday May 2010

Posted by in Deepwater Horizon, Gulf Oil Spill, McCain, Politics, Sarah Palin

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

If there is an afterlife, where the deeds done during one’s time on earth are the basis for either reward or punishment, I wouldn’t want to be one John Sidney McCain. His payment for unleashing upon an unsuspecting country the natural disaster known as Sarah Palin will surely be severe, and deservedly so.

To use a comparison to another ongoing national tragedy, Sen. McCain drilled a well in a remote area without any means of shutting off the flow if the worst-case scenario occurred. As is the case in the Gulf of Mexico, the blowout preventer on Palin’s mouth is broken and her ignorance will apparently continue to gush out and pollute our airwaves for years to come.

The latest from the egomaniacal, self-serving, self-aggrandizing, money-grubbing, ‘it’s all about me,’ funeral crashing, camera hound, that is the former half-term Governor of Alaska. The Deepwater Horizon of politics:

“Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul is feeling what it is like to be Sarah Palin, the former Republican vice presidential candidate said Sunday, comparing the media’s preoccupation with Paul’s recent statements about the 1964 Civil Rights Act to her own treatment in the press.

Palin said that Paul is seeing firsthand how “gotcha” politics work after the libertarian-leaning Republican spent days on defense spelling out his support for the Civil Rights Act and the government’s role in regulating how private businesses can deal with their customers.

“One thing that we can learn in this lesson that I have learned and Rand Paul is learning now is don’t assume that you can engage in a hypothetical discussion about constitutional impacts with a reporter or a media personality who has an agenda, who may be prejudiced before they even get into the interview in regards to what your answer may be — and then the opportunity that they seize to get you,” Palin told “Fox News Sunday.”

First of all Sarah, I doubt you can spell hypothetical, much less have an iota of an inkling of a clue as to what it means. Stick to simple words for simple minds please. Stuff like ‘You betcha’ and ‘drill, baby, drill.’

Moreover, Rand Paul and Sarah Palin are two of a kind. Whether it’s Paul spouting his views of a make-believe libertarian utopia to his Ayn Rand inspired followers, or Palin in her Tea Party cocoon where dim-witted crowds lap up her inane babblings, both seem to take offense, and run away, when asked to explain and defend their statements. Or in Palin’s case, when confronted with a tough, ruthless, agenda-driven, prejudiced interviewer like Katie Couric, and asked those “gotcha” questions like what newspapers do you read or name a Supreme Court decision.

BP to EPA: Screw You

22 Saturday May 2010

Posted by in BP, Deepwater Horizon, Environment, Gulf Oil Spill

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Just who’s in charge here? The EPA tells BP to use a “less toxic” dispersant. BP’s response? Screw you:

“BP has told the Environmental Protection Agency that it cannot find a safe, effective and available dispersant to use instead of Corexit, and will continue to use that chemical application to help break up the growing spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

BP was responding to an EPA directive Thursday that gave BP 24 hours to identify a less toxic alternative to Corexit — and 72 hours to start using it — or provide the Coast Guard and EPA with a “detailed description of the alternative dispersants investigated, and the reason they believe those products did not meet the required standards.”

BP spokesman Scott Dean said Friday that BP had replied with a letter “that outlines our findings that none of the alternative products on the EPA’s National Contingency Plan Product Schedule list meets all three criteria specified in yesterday’s directive for availability, toxicity and effectiveness.”

Dean noted that “Corexit is an EPA pre-approved, effective, low-toxicity dispersant that is readily available, and we continue to use it.”

Your move, EPA.

655,000 Gallons Later, EPA “Concerned” About Dispersants

20 Thursday May 2010

Posted by in BP, Deepwater Horizon, Environment, Gulf Oil Spill, Politics

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

If we’ve learned anything at all from this Deepwater Horizon disaster, it’s the complete incompetence of every government agency anywhere near this cluster****. From the Department of the Interior, to the Minerals Management Service, and now extending to the EPA( Environmental Protection Agency), or  should that be the CPA ( Corporate Protection Agency). It would be funny if the consequences weren’t so dire.

“The Environmental Protection Agency informed BP officials late Wednesday that the company has 24 hours to choose a less toxic form of chemical dispersants to break up its oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, according to government sources familiar with the decision, and must apply the new form of dispersants within 72 hours of submitting the list of alternatives.

The move is significant, because it suggests federal officials are now concerned that the unprecedented use of chemical dispersants could pose a significant threat to the Gulf of Mexico’s marine life. BP has been using two forms of dispersants, Corexit 9500A and Corexit 9527A, and so far has applied 600,000 gallons on the surface and 55,000 underwater.”

NOW they’re concerned? After 655,000 gallons of this crap have been dumped into the Gulf? It gets better (or worse). Apparently the EPA relied on BP’s own testing  before giving the OK:

“After BP conducted three rounds of testing, federal officials approved the use of underwater dispersants late last week…”

So the EPA didn’t see a problem with letting BP test and then dump an unprecedented amount of dispersant into the Gulf of Mexico? Dispersant  purchased from a company whose board of directors includes an 11-year member of the board at BP?

Add the name Lisa P. Jackson, EPA administrator, to the list of those who should be fired.

Goldman’s “Clients” Interests Always Come First” (Snicker)

20 Thursday May 2010

Posted by in economy, Financial Crisis, Goldman Sachs, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

The giant vampire squid gets the gold mine:

“Goldman Sachs makes more money from trading than any other Wall Street firm. In the first quarter, the bank’s $7.39 billion in revenue from trading fixed-income, currencies and commodities dwarfed the $5.52 billion made by its closest rival, Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America Corp. In equities, Goldman Sachs’s $2.35 billion in revenue was about 50 percent higher than its nearest competitor.”

Their clients, whose “interests always come first” (now tell me the one about Goldilocks and the bears) get the shaft:

“Goldman Sachs Group Inc. racked up trading profits for itself every day last quarter. Clients who followed the firm’s investment advice fared far worse.

Seven of the investment bank’s nine “recommended top trades for 2010” have been money losers for investors who adopted the New York-based firm’s advice, according to data compiled by Bloomberg from a Goldman Sachs research note sent yesterday. Clients who used the tips lost 14 percent buying the Polish zloty versus the Japanese yen, 9.4 percent buying Chinese stocks in Hong Kong and 9.8 percent trading the British pound against the New Zealand dollar.”

And these are the people who want to get their hands on your 401k.

Oil Reaches Louisiana Coastal Marshes

20 Thursday May 2010

Posted by in BP, Deepwater Horizon, Environment, Gulf Oil Spill, Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Is this what BP CEO Tony Hayward meant when he said “the overall environmental impact of this will be very, very modest?” Video from CBS News shows oil beginning to come ashore in the coastal marshes of Louisiana:

Vodpod videos no longer available.

And it’s only the beginning. This chart from McClatchy shows what could happen now that oil is starting to reach the Gulf of Mexico’s loop current: 

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy

19 Wednesday May 2010

Posted by in Afghanistan, BP, Clinton, Congress, Deepwater Horizon, Energy, Environment, Gulf Oil Spill, Obama administration, oil exploration, Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I read the news today:

Arlen Specter switched parties because he couldn’t win the Republican primary, now he loses the Democratic primary to Joe Sestak. This just in Arlen, it’s not about party this year, the key word is “incumbent.” You’re 80 years old, you’ve been in the Senate for 30 years. Your time is up.

Mitch McConnell’s hand-picked candidate to succeed Jim Bunning got smoked by Tea Party favorite Rand Paul in the Republican senatorial primary in Kentucky. Once again, connections to the party establishment, regardless of which party, is the kiss of death this election season.

The latest example of why the anti-incumbent mood exists. Eight-term Congressman Mark Souder announced his resignation after an affair with one of his staffers was exposed.

I defer to the experts on the Gulf oil spill, but this smells like a cover-up to me:

“The Obama administration is actively trying to dismiss media reports that vast plumes of oil lurk beneath the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, unmeasured and uncharted.

But the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, whose job it is to assess and track the damage being caused by the BP oil spill that began four weeks ago, is only monitoring what’s visible — the slick on the Gulf’s surface — and currently does not have a single research vessel taking measurements below.”

As does this:

“BP, the company in charge of the rig that exploded last month in the Gulf of Mexico, hasn’t publicly divulged the results of tests on the extent of workers’ exposure to evaporating oil or from the burning of crude over the gulf, even though researchers say that data is crucial in determining whether the conditions are safe.

Moreover, the company isn’t monitoring the extent of the spill and only reluctantly released videos of the spill site that could give scientists a clue to the amount of the oil in gulf.”

Also on the spill:

“Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano acknowledged Monday that the federal government doesn’t have the resources or expertise to deal with an oil spill 5,000 feet below the sea, and must largely depend on oil companies to deal with an incident of such magnitude.”

So if the government agencies don’t have the “resources or expertise” to deal with the consequences of offshore drilling, why do they permit it to take place and just trust that the oil companies will be to “deal with an incident of such magnitude?” Sounds to me like expecting the arsonist to help put out the fire.

And finally, a grim milestone in Afghanistan.

“On Tuesday, the toll of American dead in Afghanistan passed 1,000, after a suicide bomb in Kabul killed at least five United States service members. Having taken nearly seven years to reach the first 500 dead, the war killed the second 500 in fewer than two.”

This following General McChrystal’s assessment that “nobody is winning” in Afghanistan and Secretary of State Clinton’s pledge to Hamid Karzai of “a long-term U.S. commitment” there.

Oh boy.

“Modernizing Miranda” by Gutting the Sixth Amendment

15 Saturday May 2010

Posted by in Bill of Rights, Constitution, George W. Bush, Justice Department, Obama, Obama administration, Politics, terrorism, war on terror

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

It’s becoming clearer what Attorney General Eric Holder meant when he spoke of the need to “modernize” Miranda. (Even though he also said that “giving Miranda warnings has not had a negative impact on our ability to obtain information from terrorism suspects” ). According to this latest proposal under consideration by the Obama administration, such a “modernization” includes doing away with the Sixth Amendment rights to a speedy trial and to counsel.

“President Obama’s legal advisers are considering asking Congress to allow the government to detain terrorism suspects longer after their arrests before presenting them to a judge for an initial hearing, according to administration officials familiar with the discussions.

If approved, the idea to delay hearings would be attached to broader legislation to allow interrogators to withhold Miranda warnings from terrorism suspects for lengthy periods, as Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. proposed last week.

The goal of both measures would be to open a window of time after an arrest in which interrogators could question a terrorism suspect without an interruption that might cause the prisoner to stop talking. It is not clear how long of a delay the administration is considering seeking.”

President Obama has been criticized by civil libertarians in the past for continuing the policies of the Bush administration. This one goes further, it’s beyond Bush:

“Anthony Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, assailed the Obama administration for considering such ideas. He noted that the administration of President George W. Bush, which was heavily criticized by civil-liberties groups, never proposed such modifications to criminal procedures.”

Marcy Wheeler points out how this denies the accused of their right to counsel:

“The way it works…is you’re arrested and you’re brought before the judge (either to be charged or arraigned) and if you don’t have a lawyer, the judge makes sure you have one.

[…]

“[T]he Administration wants to “modernize” Miranda. They want to postpone bringing alleged terrorists before a Court (though it’s not clear why). Are they, by delaying court appearances, trying to at the same time delay the time when alleged terrorists get assigned lawyers? Are they trying to dissuade alleged terrorists from having lawyers?”

And Jeralyn at Talk Left warns of the slippery slope:

“Taking rights taken from terror suspects today just makes it easier to take them from all of us tomorrow. It’s ironic that this is one right even the Bush Administration didn’t try and tinker with, and its our Democratic president showing so little respect for the rule of law.”

More constitutional rights and protections bite the dust in the course of carrying out the “war on terror.” But hey, whatever it takes to keep us safe, right President Bush Obama?

Senate Votes on Financial Regulation Amendments

12 Wednesday May 2010

Posted by in bailout, Congress, Democrats, economy, financial reform, financial regulation, lobbyists, McCain, Politics, Progressives, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Any time anything passes in the Senate by a vote of 96–0 I’m suspicious. Those numbers are usually reserved for meaningless proclamations declaring ‘National Be Kind to Puppies and Kitties Day.’ But such a vote took place yesterday on Sen. Bernie Sanders’ amendment to audit the Federal Reserve.

Sanders’ original amendment would have required the Fed to submit to regular audits, but the watered-down version passed yesterday is for a one-time audit with a specific scope and time frame. This only adds to my suspicion that the newer version is more than likely toothless:

“A Fed spokeswoman declined to comment on the Senate action, but Fed leaders, who previously have objected to broader efforts to review monetary policy, have not opposed the most recent version of Sanders’s proposal.”

A more accurate gauge of where the Senate stands on REAL financial reform can be found in other amendments taken up yesterday, like the one proposed by David Vitter which called for the stronger provisions contained in Sanders’ original proposal. It was voted down 62 to 37 with only 6 Democrats voting “Yea”—Cantwell, Dorgan, Feingold, Lincoln, Webb, and Wyden.

Another amendment, proposed by Sen. McCain, called for a time frame for winding down and eventually ending the government’s conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That failed by a vote of 56 to 43 with only 2 Democrats–Bayh and Feingold–voting “Yea.” An alternative to the McCain amendment, proposed by Chris Dodd, called for “the Secretary of the Treasury to conduct a study on ending the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” That passed by a margin of 63–36. Russ Feingold (I detect a pattern here) was the lone Democrat voting “Nay.”

Credit where credit is due, Sen. Shelby is right on the money (so to speak):

“Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were at the heart of the financial crisis,” Shelby said Tuesday. “How we can have basic regulatory reform, financial reform, if we’re not going to include Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?”

Also set for a vote this week is Sen. Lincoln’s amendment which would place strong restrictions on derivative trading. Needless to say, Wall Street is going all out to kill this:

“…the five [largest] banks together have mustered more than 130 registered lobbyists, including 40 former Senate staff members and one retired senator, Trent Lott. The list includes former staff members for the Senate majority and minority leaders, the chairmen and ranking members of the banking and finance committees, and more than 15 other senators. In the first quarter, the banks spent $6.1 million on lobbying.”

Why are the banksters fighting so hard to stop it? Follow the money:

“The change could cost the industry a lot of money. Banks reported $22.6 billion in derivatives revenue in 2009..”

Good Advice for Michael Steele: “Try Thinking Before You Speak”

11 Tuesday May 2010

Posted by in Conservatives, Constitution, Obama, Politics, Republicans, Supreme Court, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele should have realized he stepped in it when the National Review advised him to “try thinking before you speak,” referring to Steele’s opening salvo following President Obama’s nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Steele released a statement criticizing Kagan for her support of Justice Thurgood Marshall’s speech in which he said that the Constitution as originally conceived and drafted was “defective.”

Had Mr. Steele taken the time to look into the context of Justice Marshall’s statement he might have found that Marshall was referring to the Three-Fifths compromise in Article 1 Section 2, which counted slaves as three-fifths of a person. I don’t know about Mr’ Steele, but I would call that a serious “defect.”

Justice Marshall also said the it took several constitutional amendments and a Civil War to right this wrong. Again, had Chairman Steele taken the time to look at the copy of the Constitution I’m sure he carries in his pocket he could have read the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to find out the Marshall was correct. I assume Steele has heard of the Civil War, but maybe I take too much for granted.

But as is their habit, once the RNC had the shovel in their hands, they kept digging. Doug Heye posted this at gop.com:

“In the same law review article, Kagan endorses the view that the Court’s primary role is to “show special solicitude” for people a judge has empathy for.

In the article about her former boss, Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kagan wrote:

For in Justice Marshall’s view, constitutional interpretation demanded, above all else, one thing from the courts: it demanded that the courts show a special solicitude for the despised and disadvantaged.  It was the role of the courts, in interpreting the Constitution, to protect the people who went unprotected by every other organ of government — to safeguard the interests of people who had no other champion.

The majority of Americans want a justice who understands that the Founders intended the Court to serve as a neutral arbiter of disputes.  The question for Kagan is whether she believes in a ‘modern Constitution’ shaped by activist judges pursuing personal political agendas or whether she believes in basing judicial decisions based on the Constitution and the rule of law.”

Would that include “activist judges” like the majority on the Roberts Court who overturned more than a hundred years of legal precedent and greatly expanded the parameters of the case to “pursue their personal political agenda” by granting corporations the rights of individuals in Citizens United v. FEC? Those kind of “activist judges?”