Saturday, June 12, 2010
Tea Farty Is a BLAST!
The latest website to mock the Teabaggers’ HOT AIR, complete with orifice-appropriate sound effects is very, very funny … Here ‘tis “retweeting the Tea Party’s hot air.”
Friday, June 11, 2010
World Rivalries, Cultural Diversity, and USA v. England, a World Cup Match With a New Complexion
Black. Paint it black. Black as night, black as coal. Black as oil.
This will not be the first time that politics has intruded upon the world’s most popular game in the world’s largest sports stage: the World Cup. Over the decades, the clash between the four great European powers –- Britain, France, Italy, and Germany –- has had an undercurrent of political and historical enmity, most of it bellicose. With the EU’s formation and globalization of football at the club level, historical rivalries have waned. At least that’s the idea behind the Euro, unless you talk to some old-timers wearing the Croix de Guerre or the DFC.
In South America, football rivalries are no less nationalistic, but with the sport as a symbol of one country’s cultural superiority over another. Mostly, it’s just a way to knock the big guy down a peg or two. Actually, it’s pretty one-sided, with the Bolivarian (Spanish-speaking) countries ganging up in their obsessive fan hatred of Brasil. (Don’t get me wrong, outside of football, the people are as friendly and cordial as can be.)
The biggest rivalry in South America is between Brasil and Argentina. It’s so fiercely competitive that after a century of confrontation on the football pitch and hundreds of games played, the number of victories and defeats among the two great continental rivals is practically even, perhaps with a slight edge to Brasil. Amazing. Just the other day at his South Africa presser, asked about the excessive smiles among his teammates, the great Argentine field general Juan Sebastián Verón mocked Brasil:
Brasilians are used to the razzing, and don’t really mind it or get angry. When los hermanos Argentinos start trash talking, Brasilians will hold up five fingers on one hand and two on the other. That’s the number of World Cups won by Brasil (five, most by any country) and Argentina (two). Brasil is the only country to win outside its own continental region; in fact Brasil has won in every regional group: the Americas, Europe, and Asia. If Brasil wins the 2010 Cup in South Africa, it will be the one nation to have won in every continent on planet Earth. Not too shabby, and definitely something to shoot for. (The Cup won’t return to Africa for at least another generation.)
Maybe Verón is frustrated because it seems to come too easy for Brasil. That’s just a surface impression, though. Brasil’s got game, lots of it, derived from its cultural African roots, born in thousands of playgrounds for poor kids who learn early in life to be creative and surmount the most difficult obstacles and conditions. They play on dirt and sandy beaches, they play on grass and hard courts. They play with makeshift balls stuffed with rags and old socks, and sometimes goal posts marked by T-shirts. They dream of defending the scarlet and black colors of Flamengo, the world’s most popular football club. And sometimes the lucky few, like American kids playing hoops on inner city courts, they make it to the Big Show.
Brasil and Argentina are two great football traditions. Brasil plays attacking football, with joy and finesse and improvisational art that brings a smile to people’s faces. Because of it Brasil has reached the pinnacle of the sport, but also has had its share of bitter defeats. 1950. 1982. Maybe it’s that devil-may-care attitude Verón touched on, the total joy of playing the game for its own sake. Take that away and Brasil is not Brasil.
Besides, what’s wrong with lots of smiles and samba? Hell, we could all use a smile these days. Argentina has a potent World Cup squad and the world’s best player in Lionel Messi. This might be their year. Or maybe the two great South American rivals will clash in the final. In which case all bets are off.
Despite its high crime rate driven by pockets of poverty, Rio de Janeiro was recently voted the world’s friendliest city. Actually, friendliness is a distinction, a saving grace, Brasilians share with Americans. Both countries are steeped in a democratic spirit that doesn’t exist in Old World democracies with royal traditions and history.
That’s part of it. The other part is the great cultural diversity in both countries, truly a source of strength, not something to be feared. A friend once told me that if anyone looked closely at the children of immigrants in America, they’d realize how silly the alarmist anti-immigrant xenophobia coursing through the body politic is. In less than a generation, no matter how they look, these children of immigrants are totally Americanized. (If there is a silver lining to such extreme attitudes, it’s that it’s not a new phenomenon in American history and politics. In the 1850s and 1860s the “Tea Party” of that turbulent era were the “Know-Nothings” whose major plank was anti-immigrant xenophobia against, at that time, the immigration of large numbers of Irish and German Catholics to this country.)
Brasil is the multicultural colossus of South America, the dominant economic power, more racially and ethnically diverse than its neighbors to the west. Brasil has a distinctly spiced culture that is less Eurocentric than African, in the arts, music, food, all of the good things in life. The European contribution, in large part, has been the white colonial social oligarchy. In South America, cultural contributions must always be viewed through the prism of colonial rule.
Even in North America, where the United States broke free of its colonial shackles in the latter half of the 18th century, asserting its hemispheric supremacy, white Europeans who clamor for their “country back” are really pining for an Old World across the pond that no longer exists. Not after the devastation and redrawn maps of Europe wrought by two world wars. If they took the time to visit New Orleans, the part of our country currently under assault by British oil barons and oligarchs, if they stayed long enough to absorb some of the culture, get a taste of creole food, listen to the lilting sounds of Zydeco in the back roads where country folks speak a form of French, maybe then they’d understand. Maybe then they’d not feel so threatened.
Because tomorrow the United States of America meets England on a green football pitch in South Africa, before thousands of fans. And because tomorrow the United States team will be, for a brief moment in time –- 90 minutes, not counting halftime and injury time --- the most popular World Cup side in the world. Not universally popular, to be sure, but silently and volubly cheered by millions (perhaps billions) of people who love this planet of ours and quietly cry for the wanton destruction a greedy British corporation has inflicted on our shores, on all of us.
It’s nothing personal. It’s not even about the United States, whose popularity waxes and wanes with the venality of its government. It’s not even about the British, a faded shadow of the days when the “sun never set” on its Empire, although Africans have suffered more, and more recently, under the yoke of European colonialism than most oppressed peoples. It is about the power of transnational corporations. America’s hands aren’t clean, but the American people do not deserve to be ravaged by the criminal deregulation of the Bush-Cheney regime.
The United States will take the field as a decided underdog against the mighty British squad. It’s almost like the 1950 World Cup in Brasil all over again. Well, almost. In what has become World Cup lore, a motley crew of working class immigrants recruited from the Italian-American Hill neighborhood of Saint Louis, MO and Irish-Americans from the Corky Row district of Fall River, MA, represented the United States and beat England -- against all odds -- in the game of their lives. To this day, that 1-0 U.S. victory is considered one of the biggest upsets in World Cup history.
Sixty years later Team USA has plenty of world-class talent, with players toughened in the best professional leagues of Europe. They may not be as star-studded as the British Team, but neither is Team USA in the least outclassed. And tomorrow they’ll be riding the positive energy of millions of football fans who love life on this planet and mourn BP’s eco-genocide of the Gulf of Mexico.
GO USA!
All the world’s a stage, said Shakespeare. Not everyone likes football, or cares who wins or loses in the World Cup. But everyone should celebrate and embrace it as a venue that brings together the rich diversity of the world’s cultures around a beautiful game, in peace and joy and the rich pageant of life.
This will not be the first time that politics has intruded upon the world’s most popular game in the world’s largest sports stage: the World Cup. Over the decades, the clash between the four great European powers –- Britain, France, Italy, and Germany –- has had an undercurrent of political and historical enmity, most of it bellicose. With the EU’s formation and globalization of football at the club level, historical rivalries have waned. At least that’s the idea behind the Euro, unless you talk to some old-timers wearing the Croix de Guerre or the DFC.
In South America, football rivalries are no less nationalistic, but with the sport as a symbol of one country’s cultural superiority over another. Mostly, it’s just a way to knock the big guy down a peg or two. Actually, it’s pretty one-sided, with the Bolivarian (Spanish-speaking) countries ganging up in their obsessive fan hatred of Brasil. (Don’t get me wrong, outside of football, the people are as friendly and cordial as can be.)
The biggest rivalry in South America is between Brasil and Argentina. It’s so fiercely competitive that after a century of confrontation on the football pitch and hundreds of games played, the number of victories and defeats among the two great continental rivals is practically even, perhaps with a slight edge to Brasil. Amazing. Just the other day at his South Africa presser, asked about the excessive smiles among his teammates, the great Argentine field general Juan Sebastián Verón mocked Brasil:
“If it’s about smiles, I don’t know that we’d go well but I think Brasil would be champions every year. (Ed – but Verón, the Cup only happens every four years!) It’s good coexistence, it’s good to be well. But once we’re on the field, we’ve got to play ball. We don’t do the samba on the field, otherwise the yellow jerseys would win every time.”
Brasilians are used to the razzing, and don’t really mind it or get angry. When los hermanos Argentinos start trash talking, Brasilians will hold up five fingers on one hand and two on the other. That’s the number of World Cups won by Brasil (five, most by any country) and Argentina (two). Brasil is the only country to win outside its own continental region; in fact Brasil has won in every regional group: the Americas, Europe, and Asia. If Brasil wins the 2010 Cup in South Africa, it will be the one nation to have won in every continent on planet Earth. Not too shabby, and definitely something to shoot for. (The Cup won’t return to Africa for at least another generation.)Maybe Verón is frustrated because it seems to come too easy for Brasil. That’s just a surface impression, though. Brasil’s got game, lots of it, derived from its cultural African roots, born in thousands of playgrounds for poor kids who learn early in life to be creative and surmount the most difficult obstacles and conditions. They play on dirt and sandy beaches, they play on grass and hard courts. They play with makeshift balls stuffed with rags and old socks, and sometimes goal posts marked by T-shirts. They dream of defending the scarlet and black colors of Flamengo, the world’s most popular football club. And sometimes the lucky few, like American kids playing hoops on inner city courts, they make it to the Big Show.
Brasil and Argentina are two great football traditions. Brasil plays attacking football, with joy and finesse and improvisational art that brings a smile to people’s faces. Because of it Brasil has reached the pinnacle of the sport, but also has had its share of bitter defeats. 1950. 1982. Maybe it’s that devil-may-care attitude Verón touched on, the total joy of playing the game for its own sake. Take that away and Brasil is not Brasil.
Besides, what’s wrong with lots of smiles and samba? Hell, we could all use a smile these days. Argentina has a potent World Cup squad and the world’s best player in Lionel Messi. This might be their year. Or maybe the two great South American rivals will clash in the final. In which case all bets are off.
Despite its high crime rate driven by pockets of poverty, Rio de Janeiro was recently voted the world’s friendliest city. Actually, friendliness is a distinction, a saving grace, Brasilians share with Americans. Both countries are steeped in a democratic spirit that doesn’t exist in Old World democracies with royal traditions and history.
That’s part of it. The other part is the great cultural diversity in both countries, truly a source of strength, not something to be feared. A friend once told me that if anyone looked closely at the children of immigrants in America, they’d realize how silly the alarmist anti-immigrant xenophobia coursing through the body politic is. In less than a generation, no matter how they look, these children of immigrants are totally Americanized. (If there is a silver lining to such extreme attitudes, it’s that it’s not a new phenomenon in American history and politics. In the 1850s and 1860s the “Tea Party” of that turbulent era were the “Know-Nothings” whose major plank was anti-immigrant xenophobia against, at that time, the immigration of large numbers of Irish and German Catholics to this country.)
Brasil is the multicultural colossus of South America, the dominant economic power, more racially and ethnically diverse than its neighbors to the west. Brasil has a distinctly spiced culture that is less Eurocentric than African, in the arts, music, food, all of the good things in life. The European contribution, in large part, has been the white colonial social oligarchy. In South America, cultural contributions must always be viewed through the prism of colonial rule.
Even in North America, where the United States broke free of its colonial shackles in the latter half of the 18th century, asserting its hemispheric supremacy, white Europeans who clamor for their “country back” are really pining for an Old World across the pond that no longer exists. Not after the devastation and redrawn maps of Europe wrought by two world wars. If they took the time to visit New Orleans, the part of our country currently under assault by British oil barons and oligarchs, if they stayed long enough to absorb some of the culture, get a taste of creole food, listen to the lilting sounds of Zydeco in the back roads where country folks speak a form of French, maybe then they’d understand. Maybe then they’d not feel so threatened.
Because tomorrow the United States of America meets England on a green football pitch in South Africa, before thousands of fans. And because tomorrow the United States team will be, for a brief moment in time –- 90 minutes, not counting halftime and injury time --- the most popular World Cup side in the world. Not universally popular, to be sure, but silently and volubly cheered by millions (perhaps billions) of people who love this planet of ours and quietly cry for the wanton destruction a greedy British corporation has inflicted on our shores, on all of us.It’s nothing personal. It’s not even about the United States, whose popularity waxes and wanes with the venality of its government. It’s not even about the British, a faded shadow of the days when the “sun never set” on its Empire, although Africans have suffered more, and more recently, under the yoke of European colonialism than most oppressed peoples. It is about the power of transnational corporations. America’s hands aren’t clean, but the American people do not deserve to be ravaged by the criminal deregulation of the Bush-Cheney regime.
The United States will take the field as a decided underdog against the mighty British squad. It’s almost like the 1950 World Cup in Brasil all over again. Well, almost. In what has become World Cup lore, a motley crew of working class immigrants recruited from the Italian-American Hill neighborhood of Saint Louis, MO and Irish-Americans from the Corky Row district of Fall River, MA, represented the United States and beat England -- against all odds -- in the game of their lives. To this day, that 1-0 U.S. victory is considered one of the biggest upsets in World Cup history.
Sixty years later Team USA has plenty of world-class talent, with players toughened in the best professional leagues of Europe. They may not be as star-studded as the British Team, but neither is Team USA in the least outclassed. And tomorrow they’ll be riding the positive energy of millions of football fans who love life on this planet and mourn BP’s eco-genocide of the Gulf of Mexico.
Paint it black. No colors anymore, I want them to turn black.Black as OIL.
I see people turn their heads and quickly look away.
Maybe then I'll fade away and not have to face the facts.
It's not easy facing up when your whole world is black.
I wanna see it painted, painted, painted black.
No more will my green sea go turn a deeper blue.
I could not foresee this thing happening to you.
If I look hard enough into the setting sun.
My love will laugh with me before the morning comes.
I wanna see it painted, painted black.
Black as night, black as coal.
I wanna see the sun blotted out from the sky.
Painted, painted, painted black …
GO USA!
All the world’s a stage, said Shakespeare. Not everyone likes football, or cares who wins or loses in the World Cup. But everyone should celebrate and embrace it as a venue that brings together the rich diversity of the world’s cultures around a beautiful game, in peace and joy and the rich pageant of life.
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Chicago Blackhawks Hoist Stanley Cup: Congratulations!
It's been a looong time coming ... so goes the song; not since 1961 have the Blackhawks won Hockey's most coveted trophy. It was a great championship run for Chicago, an intense and competitive series. The Stanley Cup is in good hands. Well done, lads.
Blanche Lincoln's Survival: A Harbinger of the One-Party State?
Hardball’s Chris Matthews truculently declared it a “crushing defeat” for progressives. In an election fraught with Southern-style electioneering dirty tricks, corporate Democrat Blanche Lincoln edged Lt. Governor Bill Halter in Arkansas’s Democratic Senate primary. The party establishment pulled out all the stops to defeat the labor unions in that right-to-work Wal-Mart state.
While the obtuse generational observers were still caught up in the narrow and distorted right-left analysis rather than insider (corporate) vs. outsider (middle class, anti-Wall Street, change voters), the most telling aspect of this race is that the Democratic Party was indistinguishable from the corporate enemies of the people in its unbridled support for Senator Lincoln.
The Big Dog showed he still has political juice left, President Obama made targeted robo-calls, and the proverbial White House “anonymous source” hid behind Lincoln’s skirt to knife Labor in the back. Consider the irony. The Democratic establishment and the White House aligned themselves with the pro-corporate, pro-Republican Chamber of Commerce and the so-called Americans for Job Security –- to beat back Labor and the progressive netroots movement that got President Obama elected.
The Chamber is well-known for its malignant role as a clearinghouse that siphons Big Business money to its clients in the House and Senate, e.g., Senators Lincoln and Landrieu, among many others, including just about every Republican. The AJS is a special interest business group that aired a reprehensible racist ad against Halter. AJS takes the same reactionary anti-regulation positions that resulted in the Gulf oil disaster, hammering talking points that include right wing-pregnant buzzwords: out of control legal system; duplicative and excessive regulations; government control; frivolous lawsuits.
Remarking on the influence of corporate money awash at all levels of government, particularly in the Senate and House, the Nation’s Chris Hayes (the anti-Matthews in terms of political prescience) said corporations have purchased a virtual rule by oligarchy in both chambers, particularly the Senate, which is dysfunctional. The difference in the extent to which each party is beholden to the corporations can be measured only incrementally.
In yet another silly commentary, to which he didn’t seem to devote much thought, Matthews lamented the optical illusion of a bipartisan fracture in the vacuum of 2010, as if it’s 1959 all over again and the GOP has statesmen of the caliber of a Dwight Eisenhower, Nelson Rockefeller, Everett Dirksen, and even Barry Goldwater. His argument:
So an anonymous White House hack was resentful that we didn’t genuflect and save our money for their hand-picked candidates? Excuse me, but fuck him. This fight isn’t about “ideological purity.” Far from it. No constituencies, left or right and up or down, have been more pragmatic than the unions and progressive netroots. It’s in the nature of progressives. We’re willing to take the half-loaf, if it moves the ball forward.
But in the wake of the Gulf oil disaster and the SCOTUS Citizens United decision slashing limits on corporate campaign contributions, we’ll be damned if we allow our country to truly descend into one-party rule. This is about ethics in government, and political parties standing for more than shameless corporate shilling.
George Washington lost most of his battles to the British Tories –- the BP/Tony Haywards of the Revolutionary Era –- but won the war and the Revolution. That’s how progressives and Labor view this war against the reactionary right wing politics of corporatism. This was a shot across the Democratic Party establishment’s bow. Consider themselves warned.
In a classic example of political projection, Senator Lincoln declared “loud and clear that the vote of this senator is not for sale.” Well, it all depends which side of the fence Blanche Lincoln is on. Perhaps if she becomes a lame duck in November she’ll be free to vote her conscience. If she digs down far enough.
While the obtuse generational observers were still caught up in the narrow and distorted right-left analysis rather than insider (corporate) vs. outsider (middle class, anti-Wall Street, change voters), the most telling aspect of this race is that the Democratic Party was indistinguishable from the corporate enemies of the people in its unbridled support for Senator Lincoln.
The Big Dog showed he still has political juice left, President Obama made targeted robo-calls, and the proverbial White House “anonymous source” hid behind Lincoln’s skirt to knife Labor in the back. Consider the irony. The Democratic establishment and the White House aligned themselves with the pro-corporate, pro-Republican Chamber of Commerce and the so-called Americans for Job Security –- to beat back Labor and the progressive netroots movement that got President Obama elected.The Chamber is well-known for its malignant role as a clearinghouse that siphons Big Business money to its clients in the House and Senate, e.g., Senators Lincoln and Landrieu, among many others, including just about every Republican. The AJS is a special interest business group that aired a reprehensible racist ad against Halter. AJS takes the same reactionary anti-regulation positions that resulted in the Gulf oil disaster, hammering talking points that include right wing-pregnant buzzwords: out of control legal system; duplicative and excessive regulations; government control; frivolous lawsuits.
Remarking on the influence of corporate money awash at all levels of government, particularly in the Senate and House, the Nation’s Chris Hayes (the anti-Matthews in terms of political prescience) said corporations have purchased a virtual rule by oligarchy in both chambers, particularly the Senate, which is dysfunctional. The difference in the extent to which each party is beholden to the corporations can be measured only incrementally.
In yet another silly commentary, to which he didn’t seem to devote much thought, Matthews lamented the optical illusion of a bipartisan fracture in the vacuum of 2010, as if it’s 1959 all over again and the GOP has statesmen of the caliber of a Dwight Eisenhower, Nelson Rockefeller, Everett Dirksen, and even Barry Goldwater. His argument:
“So ask why they can‘t get anything done in Washington? Start here. If you can‘t meet and talk, how are you going to find common ground? If you don‘t get the common ground, how are you going to run the country? You want one party rule? Like they have in some developing countries? That‘s what you want? Some party-central committee running the country? Go for it. You‘ll be back begging for a two-party competition so fast it will make your head spin.”Um Chris, it seems as if that train has already left the station. Take a closer look at the Lincoln election. Review her voting record and her alliances with corporatist Republicans. See what they say and do on behalf of corporations in defiance of the expressed wishes of their constituents. Lincoln had to be rescued big-time by her party establishment against the onslaught of $5, $10, and $30 progressives along with shrinking but reenergized labor unions.
So an anonymous White House hack was resentful that we didn’t genuflect and save our money for their hand-picked candidates? Excuse me, but fuck him. This fight isn’t about “ideological purity.” Far from it. No constituencies, left or right and up or down, have been more pragmatic than the unions and progressive netroots. It’s in the nature of progressives. We’re willing to take the half-loaf, if it moves the ball forward.
But in the wake of the Gulf oil disaster and the SCOTUS Citizens United decision slashing limits on corporate campaign contributions, we’ll be damned if we allow our country to truly descend into one-party rule. This is about ethics in government, and political parties standing for more than shameless corporate shilling.
George Washington lost most of his battles to the British Tories –- the BP/Tony Haywards of the Revolutionary Era –- but won the war and the Revolution. That’s how progressives and Labor view this war against the reactionary right wing politics of corporatism. This was a shot across the Democratic Party establishment’s bow. Consider themselves warned.
In a classic example of political projection, Senator Lincoln declared “loud and clear that the vote of this senator is not for sale.” Well, it all depends which side of the fence Blanche Lincoln is on. Perhaps if she becomes a lame duck in November she’ll be free to vote her conscience. If she digs down far enough.
Monday, June 07, 2010
DAY 49 - Outside the Box Solutions to Oil Disaster Cleanup: BP, Government MIA
Rachel Maddow was on site in Louisiana Friday night, reporting on the utter devastation visited by BP on American shores and territorial waters. Rachel’s closing commentary was the best part of her hour, although there was a surreal quality to some of the cheerfulness. Rachel took unnecessary risks to bring us the “Bird Island” story, with good historical context about the buildup of the island and consequent revival of its pelican population, which is now being destroyed by BP’s eco-genocide. It could have been done remotely without any of the wooziness and “drunk” sensation Rachel reported after so many hours out in the middle of that muck. Prolonged ingestion of airborne chemicals; not a good thing.Rachel’s no Larry King, nor Richard Engel, much less the corporate PBS Newshour. The Admiral Thad Allen interview was just okay. It could have been less deferential. As much as the Admiral’s spit-and-polish demeanor inspires confidence in a by-the-book chain of command style that allocates resources and manages the crisis response efficiently, there is a lingering unease that the government’s response is still slow to get out of the box. By the time anyone in government gets around to addressing some of the proposed alternative solutions they might not even get to first without being called out. That’s the public perception. Admiral Allen said today, without specifying, that other technological responses to the BP Gulf oil catastrophe are being evaluated.
How long will it take? This is day 49! Perception is reality and, from the public’s perspective, all that can be done to address this crisis is not being done. This disaster is one of those that you throw everything you’ve got at it. And Mr. President, sorry, but the public doesn’t really care if you have a Nobel laureate on your team. As a matter of fact, in reading your history, you’ll know that too many eggheads without a scientist in the mold of a Robert Oppenheimer who speaks their language and pushes them will devolve into endless theoretical “evaluations” that preclude action and urgency.Energy Secretary Steven Chu (the Nobel laureate) has not stepped up as the Oppenheimer of the BP disaster response. Admiral Allen’s “in situ” techno-speak is getting real old real fast. The public wants a scientist who’s in charge of the technological and scientific aspects of the crisis and can address, with authority, the multiple out-of-the-box alternatives to this disaster, including bioremediation. Where is our Robert Oppenheimer, Mr. President? Even assuming that some alternatives might turn out to be duds, there’s unlimited imperiled coastline where they can be tested and evaluated under real, not laboratory, conditions. The following are just a few of the alternative solutions to the cleanup that have so far disappeared down the BP/government rabbit hole:
- Bioremediation –- why is the U.S. government response seemingly neglecting this option/solution? The science is solid, and LSU’s “Resources - Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill” website lists several faculty professors on hand and on-call, for the government or the media, as bioremediation experts (follow link for contact info -- In response to the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill, members of the media may be interested in contacting some of LSU’s research experts for comment or analysis. If you would like assistance finding an expert to speak with, please contact Ashley K Berthelot in the LSU Office of Communications & University Relations.):
-Qianxin Lin: Associate Professor, Oceanography and Coastal Sciences. Areas of Expertise: rates and effects of oil spills in coastal marshes; bioremediation, phytoremediation, in-situ burning and restoration of oil spill-impacted coastal marshes; effects and efficacy of oil dispersants.
-Irving A. Mendelssohn: Professor, Oceanography and Coastal Sciences, School of the Coast and Environment. Areas of Expertise: wetland and barrier island ecology, plant ecology and stress eco-physiology, oil spill impacts and remediation in wetlands. Mendelssohn has assessed impacts of oil spills on wetlands in the U.S. and Canada and has conducted research on factors controlling oil spill impact to wetland vegetation and methods for remediating oiled wetlands, including in-situ burning, phytoremediation and bioremediation.
-Ralph Portier: Professor, Environmental Sciences, School of the Coast and Environment. Areas of Expertise: Aquatic and marine toxicology; bioremediation; oil spills (including Valdez); protocol for assessing bioremediation techniques; wastewater bioremediation.
- Another solution proposed by private sector entrepreneurs involves freezing the oil muck as it washes ashore. This demonstration was made for CNN and, apparently, for BP as well, whose standard response is “we’ll get back to you … but don’t count on it.”
Sunday, June 06, 2010
DAS CAPITAL - 21st Century BP-Style
Lyapis Trubetskoy - Capital (with English subtitles)
Lyapis Trubetskoy/Ляпис Трубецкой | MySpace Music Videos
Lyapis Trubetskoy (Russian: Ляпис Трубецкой) is a Belarusian rock band. Cool, eh.
Lyapis Trubetskoy/Ляпис Трубецкой | MySpace Music Videos
Lyapis Trubetskoy (Russian: Ляпис Трубецкой) is a Belarusian rock band. Cool, eh.
Friday, June 04, 2010
Quotable: WMD in South Africa?
“Technology is not everything. Scientists came up with the atom bomb; it doesn’t mean we should have invented it.”Days away from the opening kick of the World Cup in South Africa, players gathered from around the world and five continents (six, if you count Australia) to reach a consensus seldom, if ever, found in the United Nations: the new World Cup ball sucks. Big time.
Marcus Hahnemann, reserve goalkeeper for the United States World Cup squad
Hahnemann expressed his displeasure with philosophical overstatement; it’s not exactly a weapon of mass destruction, even if you’re a goalkeeper trying to parry, block and defend the adversary’s shots. Maybe that’s why he’s the reserve keeper. Tim Howard, the starter, was fatalistic: “I think we learned a long time ago as goalkeepers, it’s no excuse. You have to figure out the movement of the ball. If it moves too much, then you just get it out of harm’s way and don’t try to be too cute and clever with it. It’s about adapting.”
Goalkeepers, who obsess about taking cheap goals -- in Brasil they’re derisively labeled “chickens”-- were the ball’s biggest critics: Julio César (Brasil), Iker Casillas (Spain), Cláudio Bravo (Chile), Gianluigi Buffon (Italy), David James (England), and Fernando Muslera (Uruguay) have all blasted Adidas’ terrible orb.
Some of Brasil’s players, whose game depends on precision passing, weren’t so happy either. Robinho said whoever invented the ball “never played this game.” Wingback Michel Bastos joked that the ball had transformed him from a mere mortal shooter into Roberto Carlos, who anchored Brasil’s left wingback position the past three Cups.
Roberto Carlos’s free kick against France from 35 m (115 feet) out made him especially famous: “The ball curved so much that the ball boy 10 yards to the right ducked instinctively, thinking that the ball would hit him. Instead, it eventually curled back on target, much to the surprise of goalkeeper Fabien Barthez (a dead ringer for Donald Pleasance), who just stood in place.” If this is what Bastos meant, it should be a surprise-laden, lively Cup competition.
Striker Luís Fabiano, whose task is to score goals for Brasil, sounded like a character from Invasion of the Body Snatchers complaining about his spouse’s odd, “supernatural” behavior. An estrangement between striker and ball in such a relatively short competition with little time for recovery and adapting can have dire consequences. Only the immortal gods of the game like the greatest of them all, Pelé, reserve for themselves the luxury of painting masterpieces of goals not scored:
So the concern with the new ball is we’ll see a whole lot more of this:
The New York Times has a nice interactive feature on the evolution of the World Cup ball. It’s not just in baseball, it seems, that the ball has evolved to become “livelier” and jump off the foot as it has jumped off the bats.
Speaking of baseball, on behalf of sports fans everywhere, memo to Baseball Commissioner, Bud Selig: Give Detroit Tigers pitcher Armando Galarraga his perfect game, you Republican’t jerk! Or does he have to produce his “papers” for a perfect game earned on the field and taken away in the League Office to count?
Thursday, June 03, 2010
Israel’s Stupidity
Imagine what would happen if someone like Israeli Prime Minister “Bibi” Netanyahu was managing the U.S. naval blockade during the Cuban Missile Crisis. This planet would now be overrun by insects, a few sturdy plants, and weird mutant life forms in Night-Glo oceans. There was, in fact, a lunatic military fringe led by General Curtis LeMay whose solution to just about any threat was “bomb [the enemy] back to the stone age.” As the architect of history’s most destructive air raids -- “carpet bombing” in Japan and later Vietnam –- LeMay believed in a disproportionate military response no matter what the circumstance.
Israel’s assault on a flotilla ship in international waters ferrying peace activists (many of whom are American citizens) with relief supplies to the Gaza Strip, drew worldwide condemnation and has once again placed the United States in the untenable position of having to defend the conservative Netanyahu government from actions strongly criticized in Israel itself. No one would deny Israel’s right to defend itself. But to invoke this posture by forcing a confrontation with a civilian ship transporting civilian peace activists, including women and children, in international waters is not only “unacceptable” (British PM David Cameron), “disproportionate” (French President Sarkozy), but downright stupid.
Israel claims it was “provoked” by the activists in the flotilla into taking the FUBAR actions it took. Yet no amount of “provocation” would result in deaths and shootings if Israeli commandos had not seized the civilian vessel in a botched raid. If the Israeli Navy is incapable of turning away a ferry ship in international waters, then it does not have a very effective naval blockade. Israel claims the activists were provocateurs bent on a confrontation with the IDF. If this is the case, then the activists scored a major victory for their cause courtesy of Israel’s lack of restraint.
Turkey, whose vessel the Israeli commandos seized, had even harsher words. Its foreign minister called the Israeli raid “banditry and piracy” on the high seas and “murder conducted by a state.” Turkey used to be one of the few remaining Muslim nations friendly to Israel, and had been playing a constructive role mediating between Israel and its regional foes, such as Syria. Now, according to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, this “is a turning point in history. Nothing will be the same again.”
Way to go, Bibi.
Israel’s assault on a flotilla ship in international waters ferrying peace activists (many of whom are American citizens) with relief supplies to the Gaza Strip, drew worldwide condemnation and has once again placed the United States in the untenable position of having to defend the conservative Netanyahu government from actions strongly criticized in Israel itself. No one would deny Israel’s right to defend itself. But to invoke this posture by forcing a confrontation with a civilian ship transporting civilian peace activists, including women and children, in international waters is not only “unacceptable” (British PM David Cameron), “disproportionate” (French President Sarkozy), but downright stupid.
Israel claims it was “provoked” by the activists in the flotilla into taking the FUBAR actions it took. Yet no amount of “provocation” would result in deaths and shootings if Israeli commandos had not seized the civilian vessel in a botched raid. If the Israeli Navy is incapable of turning away a ferry ship in international waters, then it does not have a very effective naval blockade. Israel claims the activists were provocateurs bent on a confrontation with the IDF. If this is the case, then the activists scored a major victory for their cause courtesy of Israel’s lack of restraint.
Turkey, whose vessel the Israeli commandos seized, had even harsher words. Its foreign minister called the Israeli raid “banditry and piracy” on the high seas and “murder conducted by a state.” Turkey used to be one of the few remaining Muslim nations friendly to Israel, and had been playing a constructive role mediating between Israel and its regional foes, such as Syria. Now, according to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, this “is a turning point in history. Nothing will be the same again.”
Way to go, Bibi.
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
When Love is Never Having to Say You’re Sorry, What’s the Flip Side?
If the impacted Gulf states had a BP billion for every time its colonial Maharajah CEO Tony Hayward opened his mouth to apologize for something stupid and outrageous he said … First, it was the proverbial “tiny” drop in a “very big ocean.” So tiny, in fact, that it can be seen from space in all its sickening killing zone bigness. This is a NASA photo of the BP Gulf disaster –- the grayish-beige is the BP oil hemorrhage spreading death and destruction in every direction. This is a tragedy of unimaginable proportions that could threaten life itself on this planet:
Then, in the midst of BP’s crime Hayward whines about wanting “my life back,” anticipating the 15% cratering of BP stock, perhaps, and the loss of some of his significant personal fortune:
What about the lives that were lost on that rig, Mr. Hayward? What about the livelihoods of millions of Gulf state residents irreparably damaged and destroyed, and what about the wanton destruction and killing of millions of animal and marine species, for generations, by BP’s criminal corporate greed? Tony was quick to apologize. Again.
It’s difficult to select the single most despicable thing Hayward has said, but this one, because it is so callous and disdainful of the human lives of the oil cleanup workers -- slowly poisoned by chemical toxins released into our environment by BP to die of untreatable disease and cancers, out of sight and out of mind -- is the cold BP calculation of the worthlessness of human life when pitted against the “life” and survival of BP as the corporate entity right wing extremists on the Supreme Court have declared to be a “person.”
Food poisoning? Hayward’s calculated disinformation was dismissed by an expert on foodborne illness, Dr. Michael Osterholm, a professor at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health. “Headaches, shortness of breath, nosebleeds — there’s nothing there that suggests foodborne illness. I don’t know what these people have, but it sounds more like a respiratory illness.” Despite BP’s propaganda, which tries to paint Corexit as an upscale beauty product –- “a second ingredient is used in a brand-name dry skin cream and also in a body shampoo” (does BP plan to market Corexit shampoo?) –- the label tells a different story:
Corexit 9500 is a solvent originally developed by Exxon and now manufactured by Nalco of Naperville, Illinois. Corexit is four times more toxic than oil (oil is toxic at 11 ppm (parts per million), Corexit 9500 at only 2.61ppm). In a report written by Anita George-Ares and James R. Clark for Exxon Biomedical Sciences, Inc. titled “Acute Aquatic Toxicity of Three Corexit Products: An Overview,” Corexit 9500 was found to be one of the most toxic dispersal agents ever developed. And it becomes even more toxic when mixed with the higher gulf coast water temperatures.
Activist attorney Mike Papantonio reported that the Davis-Bacon Act which sets prevailing wages in the locality for government contract workers was suspended, and BP has been hiring Mexican labor at below the minimum wage for the cleanup. These workers are being deliberately denied protective clothing and respirators, required for work around hazardous materials, because the “optics” of workers dressed in space suits would be bad for the company’s image.
This comes on the heels of BP hiring Dick Cheney’s former press secretary, Anne Kolton, to head up its PR effort. It wouldn’t surprise if one of Kolton’s first decision in her new role was to condemn those Mexican laborers to horrible premature deaths by denying them protective gear.
Cheap labor. Expendable human lives. Out of sight, out of mind. That is the corporate way. Is there any chance, Mr. Attorney General, any chance at all, that we can put Tony Hayward in leg irons and handcuffs? We’ll take “community work” for the corporate executives responsible for this epic disaster. They should be forced to work the cleanup side-by-side with their expendable laborers, without protective clothing and gear. Tony Hayward would be forced to seek asylum in the British Consulate.
Then, in the midst of BP’s crime Hayward whines about wanting “my life back,” anticipating the 15% cratering of BP stock, perhaps, and the loss of some of his significant personal fortune:
What about the lives that were lost on that rig, Mr. Hayward? What about the livelihoods of millions of Gulf state residents irreparably damaged and destroyed, and what about the wanton destruction and killing of millions of animal and marine species, for generations, by BP’s criminal corporate greed? Tony was quick to apologize. Again.
It’s difficult to select the single most despicable thing Hayward has said, but this one, because it is so callous and disdainful of the human lives of the oil cleanup workers -- slowly poisoned by chemical toxins released into our environment by BP to die of untreatable disease and cancers, out of sight and out of mind -- is the cold BP calculation of the worthlessness of human life when pitted against the “life” and survival of BP as the corporate entity right wing extremists on the Supreme Court have declared to be a “person.”
Food poisoning? Hayward’s calculated disinformation was dismissed by an expert on foodborne illness, Dr. Michael Osterholm, a professor at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health. “Headaches, shortness of breath, nosebleeds — there’s nothing there that suggests foodborne illness. I don’t know what these people have, but it sounds more like a respiratory illness.” Despite BP’s propaganda, which tries to paint Corexit as an upscale beauty product –- “a second ingredient is used in a brand-name dry skin cream and also in a body shampoo” (does BP plan to market Corexit shampoo?) –- the label tells a different story:
Corexit 9500 is a solvent originally developed by Exxon and now manufactured by Nalco of Naperville, Illinois. Corexit is four times more toxic than oil (oil is toxic at 11 ppm (parts per million), Corexit 9500 at only 2.61ppm). In a report written by Anita George-Ares and James R. Clark for Exxon Biomedical Sciences, Inc. titled “Acute Aquatic Toxicity of Three Corexit Products: An Overview,” Corexit 9500 was found to be one of the most toxic dispersal agents ever developed. And it becomes even more toxic when mixed with the higher gulf coast water temperatures.Activist attorney Mike Papantonio reported that the Davis-Bacon Act which sets prevailing wages in the locality for government contract workers was suspended, and BP has been hiring Mexican labor at below the minimum wage for the cleanup. These workers are being deliberately denied protective clothing and respirators, required for work around hazardous materials, because the “optics” of workers dressed in space suits would be bad for the company’s image.
This comes on the heels of BP hiring Dick Cheney’s former press secretary, Anne Kolton, to head up its PR effort. It wouldn’t surprise if one of Kolton’s first decision in her new role was to condemn those Mexican laborers to horrible premature deaths by denying them protective gear.
Cheap labor. Expendable human lives. Out of sight, out of mind. That is the corporate way. Is there any chance, Mr. Attorney General, any chance at all, that we can put Tony Hayward in leg irons and handcuffs? We’ll take “community work” for the corporate executives responsible for this epic disaster. They should be forced to work the cleanup side-by-side with their expendable laborers, without protective clothing and gear. Tony Hayward would be forced to seek asylum in the British Consulate.
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
Sister Sarah Was Projecting, Here's Your Chance Rich!
ravish [ˈrævɪʃ]
vb (tr)
1. (often passive) to give great delight to; enrapture
2. to rape
3. Archaic to carry off by force
O Sarah, I think I see Rich Lowry clambering up your berms, panting, promising, pleading to be the “leadership&action” to your “ravished coast” … to “ask forgiveness later” for adulterous sin.
Here is an example of correct usage, from this blog: “Fingers crossed, for the sake of economically devastated residents and our ravaged ecology.”
Now go fulfill Rich’s ITILF fantasy. Idiot.
vb (tr)
1. (often passive) to give great delight to; enrapture
2. to rape
3. Archaic to carry off by force
O Sarah, I think I see Rich Lowry clambering up your berms, panting, promising, pleading to be the “leadership&action” to your “ravished coast” … to “ask forgiveness later” for adulterous sin.Here is an example of correct usage, from this blog: “Fingers crossed, for the sake of economically devastated residents and our ravaged ecology.”
Now go fulfill Rich’s ITILF fantasy. Idiot.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Memorial Day Tribute
Today as we honor the military service of Americans who died from all wars, we should heed the voices of those who have experienced first-hand the horrors of war:
I’m fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in.
~George McGovern
When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die.
~Jean-Paul Sartre
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
~Dwight D. Eisenhower
You can always tell an old battlefield where many men have lost their lives. The next spring the grass comes up greener and more luxuriant than on the surrounding countryside; the poppies are redder, the corn-flowers more blue. They grow over the field and down the sides of the shell holes and lean, almost touching, across the abandoned trenches in a mass of color that ripples all day in the direction that the wind blows. They take the pits and scars out of the torn land and make it a sweet, sloping surface again. Take a wood, now, or a ravine: In a year’s time you could never guess the things which had taken place there.
…To me it has always seemed that God is so sickened with men, and their unending cruelty to each other, that he covers the places where they have been as quickly as possible.
If the common soldiers of each army could just get together by a river bank and talk things over calmly, no war could possibly last as long as a week.
~William March, from Company K (1933)
Friday, May 28, 2010
President Steps Up In Louisiana PLUS a Truman Moment
Today, President Obama visited Louisiana and got an earful from local officials. The President also dropped the “in situ” (whaat? Sounds like something on a Suchi restaurant menu) Admiral Allen jargon in favor of the people’s plain talking “on site.” He gets it:
“As I said yesterday, and as I repeated in the meeting that we just left, I ultimately take responsibility for solving this crisis. I’m the President and the buck stops with me. So I give the people of this community and the entire Gulf my word that we’re going to hold ourselves accountable to do whatever it takes for as long as it takes to stop this catastrophe, to defend our natural resources, to repair the damage, and to keep this region on its feet. Justice will be done for those whose lives have been upended by this disaster, for the families of those whose lives have been lost -- that is a solemn pledge that I am making.”Thank you, Mr. President. Forgive us if we keep holding your feet to the fire. Yay for Zeitgeist! (You read it here first, with the correct historical Truman references to boot.):)
Thursday, May 27, 2010
President Steps Up Minus a Harry Truman Moment
In his presser today President Obama sought to allay the growing criticism that the Administration’s response to the disaster unfolding in the Gulf is inadequate, insisting he, not BP, is in charge. We’re not entirely convinced. The measures announced by the President are necessary but prospective and do not address the immediate crisis. The best thing that could happen at this point is for the “Top Kill” maneuver that is underway to force drilling mud into that hole is successful in plugging it.
If not, all bets are off, and the Administration will have to take complete ownership of this catastrophe and move BP aside. Fingers crossed, for the sake of economically devastated residents and our ravaged ecology. Then we can move on to phase II –- the cleanup of this mess –- which should have been concurrent and with resources equal to the enormity of the task. Clearly, this has not been happening.
BP must be held accountable for the deaths of its workers, to “make things right, if they have a heart,” as a grieving father implored. Instead they are feverishly moving on the legal front to limit their losses and liability. This will not do, Mr. President. The Justice Department must start investigating this as a criminal matter. When you visit the region blighted by BP tomorrow, Mr. President, you need to look Louisiana native James Carville in the eye and the thousands of Gulf state residents who are as angry and frustrated as he is, and assure them you’re taking charge of this catastrophe on their behalf:
President Obama, these are the questions and issues that need immediate redress:
1. Where are those supertankers that were so effective in cleaning up an oil spill in the Gulf of Arabia in 1993? The question was asked at the presser, and not answered. Experts, including the former CEO of Exxon, have affirmed the effectiveness of this response.
From the moment this disaster was no longer a search and recovery operation, the federal government should have deployed supertankers to patrol the entire width and breadth of the spill -- as those NOAA maps showed in slow-mo GLOB growth moving inexorably toward our precious wetlands -- sucking up the surface muck, treating and disposing of it, and returning to the fray. At this point in time, the area covering the spill should look like the English Channel on D-Day: ships as far as the eye could see; only this time, they’d not be warships but supertankers dredging the surface of oil. This should be an operation led by the U.S. Navy.
It hasn’t happened. Why? WHY?
2. BP must be made to cease using Corexit immediately. It is a known toxin, banned in the UK, and to subordinate its use to commercial and proprietary reasons is entirely inappropriate and unacceptable when people’s health is at stake. This is not an abstract legal issue, Sir -- as we speak, cleanup workers hired by BP are getting sick with headaches, breathing difficulties, nervous system disorders, and a number of them have been hospitalized. Congressman Jerry Nadler of New York worried that we might have another 9/11 air quality issue at hand, when the EPA made false assurances that the air quality was non-toxic for recovery workers. Today, this repeats itself, aggravated by the fact that BP has sent these contract cleanup workers out without protective gear or respirators. And they are getting sick. As James Carville said, BP “does not wish us well.”
With all due respect, Mr. President, the EPA has been MIA. Director Jackson’s failing leadership is unacceptable. We need someone in charge of the agency who reflects the passion, commitment, and toughness in defense of our environment of Robert Kennedy Jr. My suggestion, Mr. President, is that you ask Mr. Kennedy to step in either as EPA Director or as Special Adviser to the President on the BP oil disaster. I’m certain he’d accept a call to duty. Environmentalists would rest much easier knowing Mr. Kennedy is advising you. And the polluters, including BP and Massey, would be quacking in their boots.
3. Mr. President, you should outright wrest control of the coastal and beach head response from BP. The numbers of personnel cited are clearly inadequate to the task, and BP’s effort here reflects its history of negligence and disdain for the environment. This is directly linked to issue #2, but the resources to hold the despoiling of our beaches and coastal environment have been woefully inadequate.
We need a military response to this crisis and an all-hands-on-deck commitment. People are ready to go to work to clean up their environment. The only thing lacking is leadership.
When Harry Truman nationalized the steel industry on national security grounds to end a strike that was crippling the Korean War effort, he said “these are not normal times.” The union had accepted his administration’s wage increase proposal, a compromise which the steel barons rejected out of hand. So Truman acted, announcing to the nation he was seizing the steel mills. “The President has the power to keep the country from going to hell,” he told his staff.
The steel industry sued and the case moved swiftly to the Supreme Court, which ruled against the President. Given this setback, Truman did not sit pat. He summoned the steelmakers and union to the White House. To the industry leader he said: “You can settle this thing, and you've got to settle it. I want it settled by tomorrow morning, or I will have some things to say that you won't like to hear, and I will have to do some things you won't like.”
The strike was settled. When the national interest was imperiled, Truman acted decisively without regard for legalisms or political fallout, so long as he believed he had the Constitutional authority. There is a lesson in this for President Obama. Republican Senator Lamar Alexander recognized Obama’s authority to “take over” BP if that became necessary.
Truman wouldn’t have hesitated on this question; and perhaps a government takeover of BP won’t become necessary after all. But it sure would be refreshing if President Obama summoned BP CEO Tony Hayward to the White House and gave him a Trumanesque presidential dressing-down. He’s got the script from the president who never trusted the corporations and never betrayed the people’s trust: Either this thing is “settled … [or] I will have to do some things you won't like.”
Take a page from “give ‘em Hell, Harry,” Mr. President. America needs a Truman moment.
If not, all bets are off, and the Administration will have to take complete ownership of this catastrophe and move BP aside. Fingers crossed, for the sake of economically devastated residents and our ravaged ecology. Then we can move on to phase II –- the cleanup of this mess –- which should have been concurrent and with resources equal to the enormity of the task. Clearly, this has not been happening.
BP must be held accountable for the deaths of its workers, to “make things right, if they have a heart,” as a grieving father implored. Instead they are feverishly moving on the legal front to limit their losses and liability. This will not do, Mr. President. The Justice Department must start investigating this as a criminal matter. When you visit the region blighted by BP tomorrow, Mr. President, you need to look Louisiana native James Carville in the eye and the thousands of Gulf state residents who are as angry and frustrated as he is, and assure them you’re taking charge of this catastrophe on their behalf:
President Obama, these are the questions and issues that need immediate redress:
1. Where are those supertankers that were so effective in cleaning up an oil spill in the Gulf of Arabia in 1993? The question was asked at the presser, and not answered. Experts, including the former CEO of Exxon, have affirmed the effectiveness of this response.
From the moment this disaster was no longer a search and recovery operation, the federal government should have deployed supertankers to patrol the entire width and breadth of the spill -- as those NOAA maps showed in slow-mo GLOB growth moving inexorably toward our precious wetlands -- sucking up the surface muck, treating and disposing of it, and returning to the fray. At this point in time, the area covering the spill should look like the English Channel on D-Day: ships as far as the eye could see; only this time, they’d not be warships but supertankers dredging the surface of oil. This should be an operation led by the U.S. Navy.
It hasn’t happened. Why? WHY?
2. BP must be made to cease using Corexit immediately. It is a known toxin, banned in the UK, and to subordinate its use to commercial and proprietary reasons is entirely inappropriate and unacceptable when people’s health is at stake. This is not an abstract legal issue, Sir -- as we speak, cleanup workers hired by BP are getting sick with headaches, breathing difficulties, nervous system disorders, and a number of them have been hospitalized. Congressman Jerry Nadler of New York worried that we might have another 9/11 air quality issue at hand, when the EPA made false assurances that the air quality was non-toxic for recovery workers. Today, this repeats itself, aggravated by the fact that BP has sent these contract cleanup workers out without protective gear or respirators. And they are getting sick. As James Carville said, BP “does not wish us well.”
With all due respect, Mr. President, the EPA has been MIA. Director Jackson’s failing leadership is unacceptable. We need someone in charge of the agency who reflects the passion, commitment, and toughness in defense of our environment of Robert Kennedy Jr. My suggestion, Mr. President, is that you ask Mr. Kennedy to step in either as EPA Director or as Special Adviser to the President on the BP oil disaster. I’m certain he’d accept a call to duty. Environmentalists would rest much easier knowing Mr. Kennedy is advising you. And the polluters, including BP and Massey, would be quacking in their boots.
3. Mr. President, you should outright wrest control of the coastal and beach head response from BP. The numbers of personnel cited are clearly inadequate to the task, and BP’s effort here reflects its history of negligence and disdain for the environment. This is directly linked to issue #2, but the resources to hold the despoiling of our beaches and coastal environment have been woefully inadequate.
We need a military response to this crisis and an all-hands-on-deck commitment. People are ready to go to work to clean up their environment. The only thing lacking is leadership.
When Harry Truman nationalized the steel industry on national security grounds to end a strike that was crippling the Korean War effort, he said “these are not normal times.” The union had accepted his administration’s wage increase proposal, a compromise which the steel barons rejected out of hand. So Truman acted, announcing to the nation he was seizing the steel mills. “The President has the power to keep the country from going to hell,” he told his staff.
The steel industry sued and the case moved swiftly to the Supreme Court, which ruled against the President. Given this setback, Truman did not sit pat. He summoned the steelmakers and union to the White House. To the industry leader he said: “You can settle this thing, and you've got to settle it. I want it settled by tomorrow morning, or I will have some things to say that you won't like to hear, and I will have to do some things you won't like.”
The strike was settled. When the national interest was imperiled, Truman acted decisively without regard for legalisms or political fallout, so long as he believed he had the Constitutional authority. There is a lesson in this for President Obama. Republican Senator Lamar Alexander recognized Obama’s authority to “take over” BP if that became necessary.
Truman wouldn’t have hesitated on this question; and perhaps a government takeover of BP won’t become necessary after all. But it sure would be refreshing if President Obama summoned BP CEO Tony Hayward to the White House and gave him a Trumanesque presidential dressing-down. He’s got the script from the president who never trusted the corporations and never betrayed the people’s trust: Either this thing is “settled … [or] I will have to do some things you won't like.”
Take a page from “give ‘em Hell, Harry,” Mr. President. America needs a Truman moment.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
A Trip Back in Time to the Streets of San Francisco, Circa 1906
Saw this amazing historic video in a friend’s site. The footage is taken from the front of a streetcar traveling down Market Street in San Francisco at 10 miles an hour, only four days before the Great Earthquake and Fire of 1906. The clocktower at the end, near Embarcadero Wharf, is a local landmark that survived the devastation and still stands today. “It is believed to be the earliest 35mm film in existence and was lost for many years; it is one of the few films depicting San Francisco as it looked before the devastating earthquake and fire … and escaped destruction by virtue of the fact that it had been sent to New York by train for processing.” The music is like you’d imagine music of the spheres to be, guiding you through a time travel portal for a glimpse back in time …
Fascinating film that shows the earliest automobiles when there were no rules of the road, and it was shared with pedestrians, the horse-and-buggy, and cyclists. The people depicted seemed to have a more acute obstacle avoidance radar than we do today. Sit back and enjoy the ride. (For best results, watch it in full screen mode.)
Fascinating film that shows the earliest automobiles when there were no rules of the road, and it was shared with pedestrians, the horse-and-buggy, and cyclists. The people depicted seemed to have a more acute obstacle avoidance radar than we do today. Sit back and enjoy the ride. (For best results, watch it in full screen mode.)
BP “THREE LITTLE PIGGIES” MEMO
Let Mary Landrieu and Jim Inhofe defend/spin this one. An internal BP memo obtained by the Daily Beast argues against building blast resistant shelters for workers because they’d cost more than the workers are worth. (In another memo BP calculates the value of a worker’s life at $10 million.) BP uses the “Three Little Pigs” metaphor to present a cost benefit analysis and asks, “Which type house should the piggy build?”
The answer is a hand-written “optimal” next to the option that offers solid protection (brick house), but not the “blast resistant” trailer, welded steel structures that cost 10 times as much. BP rated the need for a blast-proof house as small and its cost too high, evidently: “Cost + Expectation Value” at $1,010 (“Expectation value of loss” $10 + “Cost of House” $1,000). The “optimal” profit vs. “loss” (of life) is the brick house: (“Expectation value of loss” $100 + “Cost of House” $100 = “Cost + Expectation Value” $200).
From a profit margin perspective, it was cheaper for BP to build the less safe brick house instead of the most costly blast resistant shelters. So much for valuing the lives of so many “piggy” workers with blast resistant structures.
The only inaccuracy in the memo is who or what constitutes “the big bad wolf” -- BP or TH?
The answer is a hand-written “optimal” next to the option that offers solid protection (brick house), but not the “blast resistant” trailer, welded steel structures that cost 10 times as much. BP rated the need for a blast-proof house as small and its cost too high, evidently: “Cost + Expectation Value” at $1,010 (“Expectation value of loss” $10 + “Cost of House” $1,000). The “optimal” profit vs. “loss” (of life) is the brick house: (“Expectation value of loss” $100 + “Cost of House” $100 = “Cost + Expectation Value” $200).From a profit margin perspective, it was cheaper for BP to build the less safe brick house instead of the most costly blast resistant shelters. So much for valuing the lives of so many “piggy” workers with blast resistant structures.
The only inaccuracy in the memo is who or what constitutes “the big bad wolf” -- BP or TH?
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Where Are Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman When We Need Them
Dear President Obama:
Where is “the fierce urgency of now” when it comes to saving our environment? As President, Sir, you have a solemn duty and responsibility to protect and preserve our natural resources and national patrimony from criminal exploitation and attack. What is happening in the Gulf of Mexico is a crime, not only against Nature but against the American people, our health and economic well-being, our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It’s hard to imagine Presidents Teddy Roosevelt, Nature’s most fierce presidential advocate, and Harry Truman, who bucked prima donna generals, corporate scofflaws and epitomized the can-do progressive Democratic creed of “the buck stops here,” ever tolerating BP’s actions. If they sat where you sit now, they’d come out swinging, demand swifter action, twist arms at BP, and take concrete steps to seize control of BP’s operations, federalizing them on behalf of the American people. It’s inconceivable, given their action-oriented presidential character, that they would behave otherwise.
The Republican corporate shills and Big Oil agents are complicit in this crime, having pushed deregulation to the very limits of negligent ineffectiveness. Only days before the BP oil spill, Republicans still railed against a “government takeover” of financial institutions as Democrats passed financial regulatory reform; they howled against a “government takeover” of the healthcare industry as Democrats passed healthcare reform; they wailed against a “government takeover” of the auto industry as Democrats saved our nation’s manufacturing base, enabling Ford to thrive and GM to profit for the first time in more than a year. Now, amid the disaster and devastation wrought by Republican-sanctioned deregulation, Senator Lamar Alexander, who had only recently howled that “increasingly, the majority seems to be doing what they did on health care now to Main Street. It looks like another Washington takeover,” had this to say on Face the Nation:
“Sure,” says Lamar without a hint of shame at his 180-degree turn, two-faced Republican to the last. Staring into the black abyss of an ecological tragedy suddenly he says, “the government can take it over if they choose.” I wonder if message guru Frank Luntz gets paid by the frequency with which his buzzphrase “government takeover” is uttered by his clients. But the truth of the matter is, as in 1932 and 1992, Democrats are once more given the responsibility to clean up the damage done to this nation by Republicans. David Axelrod may have apologized for “doing this to [you]” (getting you elected), but the truth is, Mr. President, the ball is now in your court and the American people expect you to act decisively in this crisis.
Long after you’ve left office, for how many more decades will our coastal economy and our fisheries be ruined, for how many generations will our fragile natural habitat and coral reefs, a thriving source of life to so many species of marine animals be irreparably damaged, before you emerge from your Carterite hand-wringing malaise and take decisive executive action? The American people are waiting for presidential action, with all the powers attendant as leader of the world’s vanishing superpower to end the rampant crime against Nature and the United States of America now raging in the Gulf of Mexico.
The spectacle of public enemy No. 1, BP CEO Tony Hayward, shedding crocodile tears while bearing witness to his crime on a beach stained with BP’s oil greed and criminal negligence was surreal. The time is fast approaching that a seizure of BP’s assets and criminal prosecution of its top executives becomes more than an option. Absent federal government action, Mr. Hayward should think twice about setting foot on American soil and walking about like a colonial Maharajah, lest a citizen who is being economically decimated by BP decides to make a citizen’s arrest.
The spectacle of BP agent Senator Mary Landrieu making specific assertions, unconfirmed by either BP or the feds, that if affected persons earned $50,000 or a company $1 million pre-spill BP would cut them a check for that amount, is the height of insensitivity from a politician who will say anything to protect her oil patrons. BP has repeatedly made the legalistic qualification that it will repay only “legitimate” claims. Care to share with us BP’s (and your) definition of what constitutes a “legitimate” claim, Senator?
The likelihood is that many of the claims will end up in court, and be tied up for years by BP’s attorneys and deep pockets. From the very beginning, BP has lied about its responsibility and the size of the spill; now we’re supposed to take their word that the people of the Gulf states will be made whole in a timely fashion? The last claims derived from the Exxon Valdez were settled only last year. That’s 21 years for recovery. That’s the average small claimants’ livelihood and a good portion of their peak earning years.
Mr. President, it has become abundantly clear to the American people and to friendly media observers (Fox and the Republicans might be your best friends now, given their ties to Big Oil) that, in your insular White House surrounded by aides giving upbeat technocratic daily briefings of their efforts to supervise BP’s inept and unacceptable actions to stem its enormous crime, you have lost sight of the bigger picture. As one astute political observer said, you “just don’t get it.”
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s repeated assertion that the feds will keep “the boot on the throat of BP” until it fulfills its responsibility to the American people for this oil spill has become a bitter laughingstock in light of BP’s refusal even to heed EPA directives and switch to a less toxic dispersant than Corexit. And then we hear of regulators issuing drilling permits after Salazar’s directive that they stop, giving rise to speculation that the left boot of the feds doesn't know what the right boot is doing.
EPA Director Lisa Jackson’s fawning Senate testimony before key environmental foe James Inhofe, as he coached her on the biodegradability of the dispersants to state “for the record” that dispersants had “improved” since the Exxon Valdez spill -- a dubious claim once BP disclosed it was using Corexit, the same dispersant used on the Exxon Valdez spill rather than newer, less toxic chemicals -- was disgusting. Inhofe’s intent was to mislead the American people as to the toxicity of the chemical dispersant being used by BP, and Jackson was a collaborator.
Days later, after repeated alarms sounded by the media (ignored by the EPA) and then by Louisiana state environmental officials, Jackson finally, and belatedly ordered BP to cease using Corexit and switch to a less toxic dispersant. To date, BP has ignored EPA’s directive and has kept on using Corexit. This, weeks after the public interest media site ProPublica (linked by this blog) reported on Corexit’s long term toxicity to humans, including liver, nervous system, and reproductive disorders. Lisa Jackson is no Robert Kennedy Jr., that much is plain.
It is unbelievable that our government cannot bring the might of the military to bear on this disaster, commandeer every available technological resource, vessel, and aircraft worldwide, cooperatively whenever possible, by force if necessary, to resolve this crisis that is an assault not only on American sovereign territory but the entire planet. A state of war exists between the United States and British transnational corporation, BP, and it is incumbent on our government to take wartime measures to end this disaster. How can the nation that assembled the greatest invasion armada in history, on D-Day, be reduced to Nixon’s “pitiful, helpless giant” in the face of this catastrophe?
There is a cleanup solution that was reported in Esquire Magazine and broached by activist attorney Mike Papantonio:
Significantly, this information was available to the federal government in the media weeks –- WEEKS -– before the government finally considered the repeated, constant warnings on toxicity and proposed supertanker solutions with any degree of dispatch. It has not escaped notice that the Administration has come out against retroactive unlimited liability that would apply to BP, and that BP is a major fuel supplier for the U.S. military.
Who is calling the shots in this crisis, BP or the feds, is the question people are beginning to ask.
President Obama, your legacy is in the balance. Like it or not, history will judge the ultimate failure or success of your presidency by how you responded to this unfathomable disaster. It is your solemn responsibility to protect our nation and to put an end to this crime against Nature and the American people, and bring those responsible to justice. You’ve said before that you studied your predecessors, and sometimes hang out in the White House library reading their words for guidance and inspiration. In this environmental crisis, the most destructive man-made ecological disaster in our nation’s history, it’s perhaps fitting to read and commit to memory the words of America’s pre-eminent environmental president, Teddy Roosevelt:
Where is “the fierce urgency of now” when it comes to saving our environment? As President, Sir, you have a solemn duty and responsibility to protect and preserve our natural resources and national patrimony from criminal exploitation and attack. What is happening in the Gulf of Mexico is a crime, not only against Nature but against the American people, our health and economic well-being, our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It’s hard to imagine Presidents Teddy Roosevelt, Nature’s most fierce presidential advocate, and Harry Truman, who bucked prima donna generals, corporate scofflaws and epitomized the can-do progressive Democratic creed of “the buck stops here,” ever tolerating BP’s actions. If they sat where you sit now, they’d come out swinging, demand swifter action, twist arms at BP, and take concrete steps to seize control of BP’s operations, federalizing them on behalf of the American people. It’s inconceivable, given their action-oriented presidential character, that they would behave otherwise.
The Republican corporate shills and Big Oil agents are complicit in this crime, having pushed deregulation to the very limits of negligent ineffectiveness. Only days before the BP oil spill, Republicans still railed against a “government takeover” of financial institutions as Democrats passed financial regulatory reform; they howled against a “government takeover” of the healthcare industry as Democrats passed healthcare reform; they wailed against a “government takeover” of the auto industry as Democrats saved our nation’s manufacturing base, enabling Ford to thrive and GM to profit for the first time in more than a year. Now, amid the disaster and devastation wrought by Republican-sanctioned deregulation, Senator Lamar Alexander, who had only recently howled that “increasingly, the majority seems to be doing what they did on health care now to Main Street. It looks like another Washington takeover,” had this to say on Face the Nation:Alexander: “There’s one thing [the administration] could do. Under the law, they could fire BP and take it over. But the truth is the federal government probably doesn’t have the capacity to do that. [...]”
Q: “But would you favor taking over BP if that became necessary?”
Alexander: “Sure. That’s up to the President to decide…Under the law the federal government can take it over if they choose. And I understand why they might not choose, but that option exists.”
“Sure,” says Lamar without a hint of shame at his 180-degree turn, two-faced Republican to the last. Staring into the black abyss of an ecological tragedy suddenly he says, “the government can take it over if they choose.” I wonder if message guru Frank Luntz gets paid by the frequency with which his buzzphrase “government takeover” is uttered by his clients. But the truth of the matter is, as in 1932 and 1992, Democrats are once more given the responsibility to clean up the damage done to this nation by Republicans. David Axelrod may have apologized for “doing this to [you]” (getting you elected), but the truth is, Mr. President, the ball is now in your court and the American people expect you to act decisively in this crisis.
Long after you’ve left office, for how many more decades will our coastal economy and our fisheries be ruined, for how many generations will our fragile natural habitat and coral reefs, a thriving source of life to so many species of marine animals be irreparably damaged, before you emerge from your Carterite hand-wringing malaise and take decisive executive action? The American people are waiting for presidential action, with all the powers attendant as leader of the world’s vanishing superpower to end the rampant crime against Nature and the United States of America now raging in the Gulf of Mexico.
The spectacle of public enemy No. 1, BP CEO Tony Hayward, shedding crocodile tears while bearing witness to his crime on a beach stained with BP’s oil greed and criminal negligence was surreal. The time is fast approaching that a seizure of BP’s assets and criminal prosecution of its top executives becomes more than an option. Absent federal government action, Mr. Hayward should think twice about setting foot on American soil and walking about like a colonial Maharajah, lest a citizen who is being economically decimated by BP decides to make a citizen’s arrest.
The spectacle of BP agent Senator Mary Landrieu making specific assertions, unconfirmed by either BP or the feds, that if affected persons earned $50,000 or a company $1 million pre-spill BP would cut them a check for that amount, is the height of insensitivity from a politician who will say anything to protect her oil patrons. BP has repeatedly made the legalistic qualification that it will repay only “legitimate” claims. Care to share with us BP’s (and your) definition of what constitutes a “legitimate” claim, Senator?The likelihood is that many of the claims will end up in court, and be tied up for years by BP’s attorneys and deep pockets. From the very beginning, BP has lied about its responsibility and the size of the spill; now we’re supposed to take their word that the people of the Gulf states will be made whole in a timely fashion? The last claims derived from the Exxon Valdez were settled only last year. That’s 21 years for recovery. That’s the average small claimants’ livelihood and a good portion of their peak earning years.
Mr. President, it has become abundantly clear to the American people and to friendly media observers (Fox and the Republicans might be your best friends now, given their ties to Big Oil) that, in your insular White House surrounded by aides giving upbeat technocratic daily briefings of their efforts to supervise BP’s inept and unacceptable actions to stem its enormous crime, you have lost sight of the bigger picture. As one astute political observer said, you “just don’t get it.”Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s repeated assertion that the feds will keep “the boot on the throat of BP” until it fulfills its responsibility to the American people for this oil spill has become a bitter laughingstock in light of BP’s refusal even to heed EPA directives and switch to a less toxic dispersant than Corexit. And then we hear of regulators issuing drilling permits after Salazar’s directive that they stop, giving rise to speculation that the left boot of the feds doesn't know what the right boot is doing.
EPA Director Lisa Jackson’s fawning Senate testimony before key environmental foe James Inhofe, as he coached her on the biodegradability of the dispersants to state “for the record” that dispersants had “improved” since the Exxon Valdez spill -- a dubious claim once BP disclosed it was using Corexit, the same dispersant used on the Exxon Valdez spill rather than newer, less toxic chemicals -- was disgusting. Inhofe’s intent was to mislead the American people as to the toxicity of the chemical dispersant being used by BP, and Jackson was a collaborator.
Days later, after repeated alarms sounded by the media (ignored by the EPA) and then by Louisiana state environmental officials, Jackson finally, and belatedly ordered BP to cease using Corexit and switch to a less toxic dispersant. To date, BP has ignored EPA’s directive and has kept on using Corexit. This, weeks after the public interest media site ProPublica (linked by this blog) reported on Corexit’s long term toxicity to humans, including liver, nervous system, and reproductive disorders. Lisa Jackson is no Robert Kennedy Jr., that much is plain.It is unbelievable that our government cannot bring the might of the military to bear on this disaster, commandeer every available technological resource, vessel, and aircraft worldwide, cooperatively whenever possible, by force if necessary, to resolve this crisis that is an assault not only on American sovereign territory but the entire planet. A state of war exists between the United States and British transnational corporation, BP, and it is incumbent on our government to take wartime measures to end this disaster. How can the nation that assembled the greatest invasion armada in history, on D-Day, be reduced to Nixon’s “pitiful, helpless giant” in the face of this catastrophe?
There is a cleanup solution that was reported in Esquire Magazine and broached by activist attorney Mike Papantonio:
There's a potential solution to the Gulf oil spill that neither BP, nor the federal government, nor anyone — save a couple intuitive engineers — seems willing to try. As The Politics Blog reported on Tuesday in an interview with former Shell Oil president John Hofmeister, the untapped solution involves using empty supertankers to suck the spill off the surface, treat and discharge the contaminated water, and either salvage or destroy the slick.Only now, two weeks after the supertanker solution was reported is it being seriously considered by BP. This is where the federal government should have been proactive, doing what BP cannot do, mobilizing the supertankers and prepositioning them for rapid utilization:
Hofmeister had been briefed on the strategy by a Houston-based environmental disaster expert named Nick Pozzi, who has used the same solution on several large spills during almost two decades of experience in the Middle East — who says that it could be deployed easily and should be, immediately, to protect the Gulf Coast. That it hasn't even been considered yet is, Pozzi thinks, owing to cost considerations, or because there's no clear chain of authority by which to get valuable ideas in the right hands. But with BP's latest four-pronged plan remaining unproven, and estimates of company liability already reaching the tens of billions of dollars (and counting), supertankers start to look like a bargain.
The Politics Blog has learned that, over the weekend, BP's technical staff began to give serious attention to the supertanker strategy to attempt to recover some of the oil already in the Gulf of Mexico. … We also have learned that since the blowout in April, BP has received some 17,000 ideas for how to stop the flow or protect the coasts, and that it has taken the company considerable time to process the ideas, separating the good from the bad, the feasible from the impossible.
In addition to feasibility when it comes to implementing any of these ideas, BP is “bumping up against EPA concerns, NOAA concerns,” according to one BP official, who added that “BP can't put a boat in the water without Coast Guard approval.”Between EPA, NOAA and the Coast Guard, it seems there isn’t a single decisionmaker in the federal response, who can cut through the red tape and say, “this is what we’re going to do.” The same can be said for allowing BP to use toxic dispersants banned in the UK -- reported here and elsewhere early into the spill -- for so long, inflicting incalculable damage on the fragile Gulf ecosystem before EPA Director Jackson reluctantly stepped in, only after complaints from Louisiana state officials and Democratic Congressmen and Senators sounding the alarm on Corexit, despite Senator Inhofe’s best efforts to keep it quiet.
Significantly, this information was available to the federal government in the media weeks –- WEEKS -– before the government finally considered the repeated, constant warnings on toxicity and proposed supertanker solutions with any degree of dispatch. It has not escaped notice that the Administration has come out against retroactive unlimited liability that would apply to BP, and that BP is a major fuel supplier for the U.S. military.
Who is calling the shots in this crisis, BP or the feds, is the question people are beginning to ask.
President Obama, your legacy is in the balance. Like it or not, history will judge the ultimate failure or success of your presidency by how you responded to this unfathomable disaster. It is your solemn responsibility to protect our nation and to put an end to this crime against Nature and the American people, and bring those responsible to justice. You’ve said before that you studied your predecessors, and sometimes hang out in the White House library reading their words for guidance and inspiration. In this environmental crisis, the most destructive man-made ecological disaster in our nation’s history, it’s perhaps fitting to read and commit to memory the words of America’s pre-eminent environmental president, Teddy Roosevelt:
The conservation of our natural resources and their proper use constitute the fundamental problem which underlies almost every other problem of our national life. … As a nation we not only enjoy a wonderful measure of present prosperity but if this prosperity is used aright it is an earnest of future success such as no other nation will have. The reward of foresight for this nation is great and easily foretold. But there must be the look ahead, there must be a realization of the fact that to waste, to destroy, our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand down to them amplified and developed. The government has been endeavoring to get our people to look ahead and to substitute a planned and orderly development of our resources in place of a haphazard striving for immediate profit.
Optimism is a good characteristic, but if carried to an excess it becomes foolishness. We are prone to speak of the resources of this country as inexhaustible; this is not so. The mineral wealth of the country, the coal, iron, oil, gas, and the like, does not reproduce itself, and therefore is certain to be exhausted ultimately; and wastefulness in dealing with it today means that our descendants will feel the exhaustion a generation or two before they otherwise would.
Theodore Roosevelt's Seventh Annual Message to Congress Dec. 3, 1907.
“The conservation of our natural resources and their proper use constitute the fundamental problem which underlies almost every other problem of our national life.”
Jamestown, Virginia June 10, 1907“Conservation means development as much as it does protection. I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful means, the generations that come after us.”
Osawatomie, Kansas, August 31, 1910
“It is entirely our power as a nation to preserve large tracts of wilderness...as playground for rich and poor alike, and to preserve the game...But this end can only be achieved by wise laws and by a resolute enforcement of the laws. Lack of such legislation and administration will result in harm to all of us, but most of all harm to the Nature lover who does not possess vast wealth.”
Theodore Roosevelt excerpt from essay on Yellowstone National Park
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Pat Buchanan’s “Culture War” Is Alive and Well in Texas and Arizona
When the Texas Board of Education approved its politicized history curriculum on a straight party-line vote, 10-5, the fanatical revisionism of the Board’s right wing faction went beyond the foolishness of one member’s insecurity over the branding of an economic system. One of the absurd changes adopted was to replace the word “capitalism” with “free-enterprise system.” Apparently, a member of the Christian Right faction led by dentist Don McLeroy (who has no wisdom teeth and takes his history from the Tooth Fairy) worried that capitalist has negative connotations as in “capitalist pig.” Perhaps we should embrace “free-enterprise pigs” to describe BP, Transocean, and Halliburton –- it’s got a nice ring to it. (Parenthetically, socialists could raise a similar and more valid grievance, given the Teabaggers’ signs, over the distortion of their ideology.)
The battle lines were drawn even before the debate began when Board member Cynthia Dunbar led the opening prayer by affirming her inaccurate belief that we are “a Christian land governed by Christian principles,” in the name of “my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” That’s all well and good, except that we are a secular nation governed by secular laws, with no Christian state religion, but rather a “wall of separation” between church and state, as most famously enunciated by deist Thomas Jefferson.
One of the Board’s most galling changes was to rebrand “Slave Trade” as “Atlantic Triangular Trade.” This goes to the heart of what is most disturbing about ideological right wing historical revisionism –- the introduction of half-truths, distortions, and vexing omissions to textbooks in an effort to “whitewash” 246 years of slavery in America. From its beginnings in 1619 when African slaves were first brought to America, captured like animals in their native lands and chained in the holds of slave ships to be sold as chattel in colonial Jamestown, to slavery’s official end in 1865 coinciding with the end of the Civil War and beyond, slavery has been a dark and tragic narrative in our nation’s history.
What the Texas Board of Education has done is to compel the writing of a parallel history of America, one in which slavery is concealed, and its central role as the cause of America’s bloodiest internecine conflict claiming more than 600,000 lives, discarded. Not only does this fantasy entertained by white Christian fanatics violate the history of our nation –- for to disregard truth and facts is to empower lies and violence -- but it deeply disrespects the history and contributions of African Americans.
The history of racism in this nation, which parallels slavery’s beginnings in 1619, is alive and well in the deliberations of the Texas Board of Education, circa 2010 –- 391 years later, and counting. It is a festering wound that is further infected by the lies of white ideologues on the Board who would dismiss the civil rights movement as creating “unrealistic expectations of equal outcomes” among minorities and remove any reference to race, sex or religion in discussing what different groups have contributed to the national identity. The same thing is happening in Arizona with another law signed by its lily white governor outlawing “ethnic studies” as somehow antithetical or divisive, when in fact it constitutes part of the multicolored fabric that built this nation and its capital, brick by brick.
Anyone who fails to see the ideological connection between the Texas Board vote, long in the making, and the Arizona curriculum slam of nonwhite Americans, has not been paying attention. There is much cause for alarm, not only for parents who wish for their children to receive a well-rounded and truthful education that teaches facts and unbiased, objective history and science, but for all citizens who thought the struggles for civil rights and the ongoing fight to keep Christian religious dogma out of science and history textbooks were settled history. For those who were there at the start of the troubles, there must be in all of this a sickening, familiar odor of déjavu, from Texas to Arizona to Rand Paul revisiting the Civil Rights Act of 1964, like Robert Duvall’s glorification of war in Apocalypse Now: “You smell that? Do you smell that? Napalm, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of napalm in the morning.” Pat Buchanan framed its current context:
The battle lines were drawn even before the debate began when Board member Cynthia Dunbar led the opening prayer by affirming her inaccurate belief that we are “a Christian land governed by Christian principles,” in the name of “my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” That’s all well and good, except that we are a secular nation governed by secular laws, with no Christian state religion, but rather a “wall of separation” between church and state, as most famously enunciated by deist Thomas Jefferson.
One of the Board’s most galling changes was to rebrand “Slave Trade” as “Atlantic Triangular Trade.” This goes to the heart of what is most disturbing about ideological right wing historical revisionism –- the introduction of half-truths, distortions, and vexing omissions to textbooks in an effort to “whitewash” 246 years of slavery in America. From its beginnings in 1619 when African slaves were first brought to America, captured like animals in their native lands and chained in the holds of slave ships to be sold as chattel in colonial Jamestown, to slavery’s official end in 1865 coinciding with the end of the Civil War and beyond, slavery has been a dark and tragic narrative in our nation’s history.
What the Texas Board of Education has done is to compel the writing of a parallel history of America, one in which slavery is concealed, and its central role as the cause of America’s bloodiest internecine conflict claiming more than 600,000 lives, discarded. Not only does this fantasy entertained by white Christian fanatics violate the history of our nation –- for to disregard truth and facts is to empower lies and violence -- but it deeply disrespects the history and contributions of African Americans.
The history of racism in this nation, which parallels slavery’s beginnings in 1619, is alive and well in the deliberations of the Texas Board of Education, circa 2010 –- 391 years later, and counting. It is a festering wound that is further infected by the lies of white ideologues on the Board who would dismiss the civil rights movement as creating “unrealistic expectations of equal outcomes” among minorities and remove any reference to race, sex or religion in discussing what different groups have contributed to the national identity. The same thing is happening in Arizona with another law signed by its lily white governor outlawing “ethnic studies” as somehow antithetical or divisive, when in fact it constitutes part of the multicolored fabric that built this nation and its capital, brick by brick.
Anyone who fails to see the ideological connection between the Texas Board vote, long in the making, and the Arizona curriculum slam of nonwhite Americans, has not been paying attention. There is much cause for alarm, not only for parents who wish for their children to receive a well-rounded and truthful education that teaches facts and unbiased, objective history and science, but for all citizens who thought the struggles for civil rights and the ongoing fight to keep Christian religious dogma out of science and history textbooks were settled history. For those who were there at the start of the troubles, there must be in all of this a sickening, familiar odor of déjavu, from Texas to Arizona to Rand Paul revisiting the Civil Rights Act of 1964, like Robert Duvall’s glorification of war in Apocalypse Now: “You smell that? Do you smell that? Napalm, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of napalm in the morning.” Pat Buchanan framed its current context:
“There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself. And in that struggle for the soul of America.This speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention was the high point of Pat Buchanan’s political career. Ironically, it is known as the “culture war” speech, and even though Buchanan mellowed, it lives on in the hearts and minds of Christian conservatives such as Don McLeroy, Cynthia Dunbar, and their allies in Texas and Arizona like a secret covenant that informs their radical right ideological agenda. The Christian Right’s culture war isn’t just a bumper sticker –- it’s real and it’s on the march.
My friends, even in tough times, these people are with us. They don't read Adam Smith or Edmund Burke, but they came from the same schoolyards and playgrounds and towns as we did. They share our beliefs and convictions, our hopes and our dreams. They are the conservatives of the heart. […]
And as they took back the streets … block by block, so we must take back our cities, and take back our culture, and take back our country.”
Friday, May 21, 2010
"Ayn" Rand Paul Opines on BP and Massey Mining: Too Regulated
After his self-inflicted wound, declaring opposition to Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, “Ayn” Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican nominee for the Senate, tried to walk back his remarks by saying he would have voted for the Act. This is a new position. Stoking the fire, Dr. Paul confirmed his extremism with more sophistry, characterizing the explosions in the Massey Mine and BP rig as “accidents happen” even though preliminary reports point to negligence, probably willful and criminal in each instance, coupled with the devastating failure of a lax regulatory regime to prevent corporations from placing profits above appropriate worker safety protocols. He would oppose any increase in the minimum wage based on the groundless right wing talking point that it’s a job killer. Keep digging, Dr. Paul:
The common thread among these corporate CEOs and their champion, Dr. Paul, is (1) corporations know best and can self-regulate; and (2) regulators are the enemy to be kept at arm's length, bought off at the source (MMS), and in Congress, with campaign contributions to ease regulatory burdens. Deep pockets transnationals will push back with threats and dilatory tactics, including endless appeals (Massey) and lawsuits to lock in limited liability (Transocean). These operators and their proxies -- Dr. Paul, James Inhofe, Mary Landrieu, and Lisa Murkowski among them -- are so brash they believe any calamity can be overcome with enough money flowing through Congress, high-powered lawyers, and public relations.
They may be right.
Dr. Rand Paul (Opthalmologist), insistently pressed by Rachel Maddow, still refused to say whether he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act. Instead he clung to the life preserver that he never said he would repeal the law. Pure semantics. One can reasonably infer from what Dr. Paul says that, given the opportunity, he would repeal Title II of the Civil Rights Act. Opponents of laws repeal specific provisions, if they have the votes, without actually repealing an entire law. Amendments give and they taketh away.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
“[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;”
This is settled law. It's not an abstraction, as Dr. Paul has tried to insinuate, or a college pow-wow at 2 a.m. in the morning, as dismissed by Senator John Kyl of Arizona. Thousands of racial discrimination lawsuits are filed annually. One of the more notorious involved Denny's restaurant denying or refusing to serve African American patrons. Under Dr. Paul’s worldview, this would be perfectly acceptable. But it’s not. The vast majority of the American people are repulsed by such discrimination and find such parsing views abhorrent. We have moved on, Dr. Paul. And so should you. Either voluntarily, or rejected by the electorate at the polls.
[Update: Citing “exhaustion” “Ayn” Rand Paul has cancelled his appearance with David Gregory on Meet the Press. To quote a fellow libertarian radio host for Dr. Paul, “take a pill and lie down.” Rachel, don't feel bad, no long-winded apologias on your show ... but you might want to stay out of Gregory’s way for a couple of days. Rachel, you’re eeeevil!]
The common thread among these corporate CEOs and their champion, Dr. Paul, is (1) corporations know best and can self-regulate; and (2) regulators are the enemy to be kept at arm's length, bought off at the source (MMS), and in Congress, with campaign contributions to ease regulatory burdens. Deep pockets transnationals will push back with threats and dilatory tactics, including endless appeals (Massey) and lawsuits to lock in limited liability (Transocean). These operators and their proxies -- Dr. Paul, James Inhofe, Mary Landrieu, and Lisa Murkowski among them -- are so brash they believe any calamity can be overcome with enough money flowing through Congress, high-powered lawyers, and public relations.
They may be right.
Dr. Rand Paul (Opthalmologist), insistently pressed by Rachel Maddow, still refused to say whether he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act. Instead he clung to the life preserver that he never said he would repeal the law. Pure semantics. One can reasonably infer from what Dr. Paul says that, given the opportunity, he would repeal Title II of the Civil Rights Act. Opponents of laws repeal specific provisions, if they have the votes, without actually repealing an entire law. Amendments give and they taketh away.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
So, the correct question is: If Dr. Paul has no problem with 9 out of 10 sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, what does he propose to do with Title II, the section he is on record as firmly opposing? If given the opportunity, would Dr. Paul vote to repeal Title II of the Civil Rights Act -- Yes or No? (See below, with relevant sections emphasized.) It prohibits discrimination in a place of public accomodation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. Interestingly, Dr. Paul celebrated his primary victory in a private club. That’s his right. It’s also their right to discriminate against persons on the basis of sex, color, religion, national origin, party affiliation, attire, whatever. Section 2000a(e) provides that:The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the publicBut not for private commercial establishments serving the public. It's pretty clear and unambiguous:
TITLE II OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT (PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS)Owners of private establishments that serve the public cannot discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. Title II makes reference to “a place of public accommodation within this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action,” meaning that the federal government’s constitutional authority to enforce civil rights against private and state-backed discrimination is grounded in the commerce clause of the Constitution:
42 U.S.C. §2000a
(a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
42 U.S.C. §2000a(b)
(b) Each of the following establishments is a place of public accommodation within this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence.
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment, or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of any such covered establishment.
42 U.S.C. § 2000a(c)
(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if ... For purposes of this section, “commerce” means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any state or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.
42 U.S.C. § 2000a(e)
The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).
42 U.S.C. § 2000a-6(a)
Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the rights granted by this title, and that the pattern or practice is of such a nature and is intended to deny the full exercise of the rights herein described, the Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate district court of the United States by filing with it a complaint (1) signed by him (or in his absence the Acting Attorney General), (2) setting forth facts pertaining to such pattern or practice, and (3) requesting such preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order or other order against the person or persons responsible for such pattern or practice, as he deems necessary to insure the full enjoyment of the rights herein described.
42 U.S.C. § 2000a-6(b)
* * *
It shall be the duty of the judge designated pursuant to this section to assign the case for hearing at the earliest practicable date and to cause the case to be in every way expedited.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
“[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;”
This is settled law. It's not an abstraction, as Dr. Paul has tried to insinuate, or a college pow-wow at 2 a.m. in the morning, as dismissed by Senator John Kyl of Arizona. Thousands of racial discrimination lawsuits are filed annually. One of the more notorious involved Denny's restaurant denying or refusing to serve African American patrons. Under Dr. Paul’s worldview, this would be perfectly acceptable. But it’s not. The vast majority of the American people are repulsed by such discrimination and find such parsing views abhorrent. We have moved on, Dr. Paul. And so should you. Either voluntarily, or rejected by the electorate at the polls.
[Update: Citing “exhaustion” “Ayn” Rand Paul has cancelled his appearance with David Gregory on Meet the Press. To quote a fellow libertarian radio host for Dr. Paul, “take a pill and lie down.” Rachel, don't feel bad, no long-winded apologias on your show ... but you might want to stay out of Gregory’s way for a couple of days. Rachel, you’re eeeevil!]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
