Severe Moderate Delusions: Fracking Stupidity Edition

One of the things I like about this is that during the Bush administration, Vice President Cheney's energy task force made sure that the gas companies did not have to reveal what the chemicals were that were being pumped into the ground. Now, it's been reported that some are things like kerosene, benzene, urea, toluene... how many of those can I feed my toddler? Because it’s perfectly safe, right? ~ Stephen Colbert in a 6/9/2011 interview with former bush Homeland Security advisor and current natural gas lobbyist Tom Ridge.

Hydraulic fracturing is fracking awesome according to the self-proclaimed "Moderate" Willis V. Hart, but I say he is a fracking idiot. On 6/6/2013 Mr. Hart authored a post he called Oily Bed-fellows. In his commentary Hart trashed actor Matt Damon for his role in co-writing and starring in a particular Hollywood film...

Willis Hart: There are some things in life that are just so utterly delicious in their irony that you simply cannot pass them up. Take for instance this little factoid. DID YOU KNOW that one of the premium bank-rollers for Matt Damon's propagandist piece of shit hit-piece, "Promised Land" (a dramaturgical counterpart to Matthew Fox's anti-fracking HBO screed, "Gasland"), was none other that the royal family of the United Arab Emirates?

"Utterly delicious", huh? Well, recalling a certain climate change denying "scientist" he often cites, I view Willis' schadenfreude a wee bit hypocritical. I submitted a reply to Mr. Hart's post, although he has comment moderation enabled and has banned me from his blog, so the following most likely will not be published...

What about the "oily bedfellow" Dr. Richard S. Lindzen? According to this source... [1] Lindzen charged oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services. [2] His 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels. [3] A speech he wrote, titled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus" was underwritten by OPEC. Yet Mr. Hart has no issues citing this individual whose motives could be questioned seeing as Big Oil is providing some of his funding. Fact is Willis frequently sings his praises, claiming that Lindzen's works are "well thought out". Yeah, I bet he thinks long and hard about how big of a check from Big Oil it will take for him to sell out.

This is the comment I would have submitted if I were not banned, even though it doesn't actually address the issue of Promised Land being financed by a company owned by the royal family of the United Arab Emirates, which it was. Obviously the purpose of the reply would have been to provoke Mr. Hart (and it could have comments like this that contributed to me being banned). But, heck I couldn't have helped myself, due to him describing this film as a "propagandist piece of shit hit-piece". It isn't that at all. It is a film based on the legitimate concerns and dangers that come with fracking.

Unfortunately the film did tank, as the Hartster points out. It made a little over 8 million on a 15 million budget. Why that happened isn't hard to deduce. The topic is not one the apathetic public really cares about, plus the movie isn't that good. I wanted to like it, but I watched it (I doubt Mr. Hart did) and give it a "C". Mostly because the film plays fast and lose with the facts. Not the facts regarding fracking, about which it does not go into a lot of detail, but the facts regarding how it is decided if fracking will be allowed to take place in any particular area.

An NPR review of the film points out that "in Pennsylvania, where this film was made, municipalities have very little authority over what happens [and that] they certainly don't get an up-and-down vote [as depicted in the movie]". And a town vote is at the heart of the movie. An environmentalist comes to town (played by John Krasinski) and the energy company representative (played by Matt Damon) gets worried that he may sway the vote against allowing the fracking to go forward. But that's all BS and not at all how it actually works in the real world.

And then there's the "switcheroo" near the end... I can understand why people didn't like it. Several reviews I read mentioned it (but didn't give it away, so I won't either). One reviewer said it "insults both the characters and the audience" and is "unforgivable". Yikes. I wouldn't go quite that far. IMO this "town vote" contrivance is more "unforgivable" than the switcheroo which didn't bother me nearly as much.

Regarding the film's financing... yes, that is troubling. They really shouldn't have jumped into bed with a company that could be seen as having ulterior motives for putting up the cash. Do a internet search on this movie and you'll find that the Right is slamming this movie because the Saudis would like it very much if we didn't frak so much (which is why they financed the movie). That way they could sell us more oil than if we took our foot off the breaks and started fraking like crazy.

So their financiers may have had, or probably had an ulterior motive, but what about the film makers? I say no. They probably knew this type of movie was a little more risky than another mindless action film, but they felt passionately that people needed to be informed. In any case, who financed the film is a legitimate criticism, just like it is valid to criticize the climate change deniers that are financed by Big Oil.

But I wouldn't say the criticisms are equal. I say it is MORE suspect that the Big Oil funded "climate scientist" Dick Lindzen says climate change is "no big deal" (he acknowledges it is happening to some extent), and that it is LESS suspect that the filmmakers had ulterior motives.

I say they didn't have any at all. Their financiers, yes, they probably did. But the filmmakers? No. And for that reason I most certainly would not call Promised Land a "propagandist piece of shit hit-piece". I'd call it an average (or slightly less than average) movie, but one where those involved (aside from the financiers) had the RIGHT motives.

OK, so Promised Land isn't that good, and is also light on facts regarding the dangers of fracking. If you want those facts I say you need to watch the superior documentary Gasland by Josh Fox (which I have also viewed). Here we get the in-depth low-down regarding the very serious problems that come with fracking. Problems that Mr. Hart totally denies with the following comment...

Willis Hart: ...when you find something that is a) plentiful, b) relatively safe (Obama's own EPA chief has said that there's never been a documented case of fracking causing well-water contamination), and c) relatively clean (gas has a hydrogen to carbon ratio of 2:1, coal a 1:2 ratio), you really gotta go for it (not without adequate regulations, I grant you), I think.

Adequate regulations? Are you kidding? I'm not aware of there being any at all! OK, I'm sure there must be SOME, but as Gasland points out... the 2005 energy bill pushed through Congress by Dick Cheney exempts the oil and natural gas industries from the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the CERCLA Superfund law, and about a dozen other regulations. Does that sound to YOU like there are "adequate regulations"? REALLY? And if fracking is "relatively safe" as Willis claims, why would the companies that do it need all these exemptions?

In Gasland director Josh Fox interviews EPA whistleblower Weston Wilson who discusses what happened after the bush administration pushed through the Halliburton Loophole...

Weston Wilson: All science, all data. Everything stopped. We were appalled that we were burying this secret, that [the fracking fluid] was known to be toxic. When the president says don't investigate, expedite things for industry. We do those things well too. We're still asleep at the wheel. Don't assume that since Obama was elected something has changed (yet) at the EPA in that regard.

Huh. That might explain why Obama's EPA chief Lisa Jackson said the EPA hasn't confirmed any contamination. You can't find what you aren't looking for. Mr. Hart frequently authors commentaries where he complains about how the government has gotten into bed with industry, but here he turns a blind eye to it. Wanna bet that if a commenter mentioned this on his blog he'd call it a "conspiracy theory"?

Things are slowly changing, however. It was on 5/24/2011 that Lisa Jackson said that, while no cases of contamination were proven yet, there are ongoing investigations. Where any particular pollutant came from and how it got there (in the water) is something that is hard to prove. Since EPA Chief (now ex-chief) Jackson made her comments there has been a report issued by the EPA regarding the possibility of groundwater contamination caused by fracking in Pavilion Wyoming. On 12/9/2011 the EPA released their draft finding for public comment and independent scientific review. In part the EPA report said...

...three years ago... two deep monitoring wells [were drilled] to sample water in the aquifer... [Tests indicate] groundwater in the aquifer contains compounds likely associated with gas production practices, including ... synthetic chemicals, like glycols and alcohols consistent with gas production and hydraulic fracturing fluids, benzene concentrations well above Safe Drinking Water Act standards and high methane levels. [Sampled water] in the private and public drinking water wells [revealed] chemicals [that]... include methane [and] other petroleum hydrocarbons... [The EPA's conclusion is that] the presence of these compounds is consistent with migration from areas of gas production.

In his film Josh Fox says fracking fluid is a mix of over 596 chemicals, some the frackers refuse to disclose... to others that are known carcinogens (ethylbenzene). Doing some rough math Josh estimates that [1] 1-7 million gallons of water is used per fracked well, [2] each well can be fracked up to 18 times, and [3] around 450,000 wells have been drilled in the US... which means that approximately 40 trillion gallons of fracking fluid contaminated water has been pumped into the ground.

We're supposed to believe that absolutely none of this contaminated water has made it into any groundwater, aquifer, lake or stream? I think you've got to be fracking stupid if you believe that.

Video Description: Former Secretary of Homeland Security and current natural gas lobbyist Tom Ridge repeats the now proven false Lisa Jackson EPA claim that there are no confirmed cases of fracking contaminating groundwater (at 3:09 minutes into the video). The Colbert Report, 6/9/2011. (6:20).

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,The Colbert Report on Facebook,Video Archive

SWTD #164, wDel #28.

My Message From The Extraterrestrials

When it talks about the sky people, how everyone comes from the sky and how the Pyramids were used for star observations, it's too much for me. It all seems to connect the dots. It's blowing my mind -- Katy Perry (dob 10/25/1984) as quoted in a 6/22/2011 Rolling Stone article during which Perry discusses her obsession with the History Channel show Ancient Aliens.

Someone recorded an episode of Ancient Aliens on my DVR. Another individual in the household who has an interest in this type of nonsense. I know I surely did not record it, as the message of the program is that aliens have been guiding humanity throughout our history... keeping us on the right path and nudging humans in the right direction from time to time, mostly thorough "unearthly inspirations compelling ordinary people to perform extraordinary acts". According to the show the aliens "thought it best to use members of the human population to communicate their message".

I decided to watch the program, despite my extreme skepticism. In the last 20 minutes of the hour-long program the narrator said, "in the Bible's book of Genesis, God instructs Abraham to kill his only son". Then the narrator asked, "but was this command really given by God?". An on screen "expert" theorized that "Abraham received multiple messages from more than one being", and that this explained why Abraham received contradictory messages... one message instructing him to kill his son and another telling him to spare his son's life.

It was because two different groups of aliens were feeding him messages. These two contradictory messages were given by representatives of two warring civilizations, or tribes of aliens who each wanted something completely different for humanity.

The people who came up with the Ancient Astronaut theory must be completely nuts, right? The Wikipedia page for the show says detractors have criticized the theories presented on the program as pseudoscience and pseudohistory. Another critic says "Ancient Aliens defies all ability to suspend disbelief for the sake of entertainment". Finally, a science writer for the Smithsonian website "characterized the show as some of the most noxious sludge in television's bottomless chum bucket".

Wow. That is pretty damning, right? You'd have to be pretty stupid to even entertain for one second that any of the theories presented in this program are remotely plausible. So imagine my surprise when I realized that I was one of the ordinary humans compelled to perform extraordinary acts! Yes, watching this program triggered a repressed memory of the time I was abducted by aliens from another planet and instructed to spread their message... a message designed to guide humanity along the right path, so that we might reach our true potential.

But the show said many people chosen to carry this message might decide to keep quiet due to fear of being branded as crazy. And that is exactly what happened in my case. I told the aliens to find someone else to relate their message to the world. But then they explained that all I needed to do was start a blog with which I could educate the public regarding the virtue of Progressive politics. We must all come together and help one another my alien friend explained. That is the only way humanity can move forward. If we chose the wrong path it would lead to our extinction at our own hands he told me.

What is the wrong path?, I asked. The wrong path is the one presented by Conservatives, a tall lanky gray-skinned extraterrestrial informed me via mental telepathy. I starred into a pair of large black eyes in an even larger egg-shaped bald head. The alien next informed me that some humans are finding their inspiration from another group of ETs who they are engaged in a centuries old conflict with. After eons of war resulted in an unending stalemate the two warring groups got together and worked out a method by which they would resolve their differences without any further bloodshed.

Humanity, they decided, would serve as their proxies. Both groups would try to guide humanity down the path they thought would bring them (humanity) prosperity. The two alien tribes were of the same species, but each held very different beliefs. The first group are a brutal and nasty lot who strongly believe in the theory of "survival of the fittest". This alien tribe became known as "Conservatives". The second group of ETs are peaceful and caring. They believe they are their brother's keepers. These aliens are known as "Progressives".

My Progressive alien friend told me that the Conservative ETs gave their "unearthly inspirations" to humanity in an attempt to persuade them to follow the Conservative path. In America those who have subscribed to these inspirations are known as Republicans. If the Republicans won the Progressive aliens would also lose and the government on the alien home world would be turned over to the Conservatives... as they had agreed when they consented to this proxy war.

However, as my alien friend explained, going down the Republican path would also lead to the destruction of America. This is where I came in... my place in this conflict would be to spread the word of Progressivism. My medium would be the internet, where I was instructed to start a Left-leaning blog.

Then the alien erased the memory of our encounter from my brain, leaving nothing but the seed of an idea behind. It was that seed which became this blog. I had forgotten it until now. That night I felt compelled to go on a moonlit stroll. Suddenly I saw a bright light in the sky. Looking up I saw a saucer-shaped craft hovering above. The craft slowly descended and landed a few yards away.

I did not run in fear. Instead a feeling of extreme calm and peace overcame me. A familiar lanky gray skinned being descended a ramp from the ship. "I sent you a subliminal message via that television program", the Progressive ET informed me via telepathy. "I saw the posting on your blog in which you contemplated quitting".

You must not quit, he said. Or I perceived him to say that, as he did not speak. I only heard his words in my head. "All this time you have spent writing has been in preparation for what is to come. Your writing is not yet strong enough to attract a large following, but soon it will be", the alien assured me. "How much longer will I have to go on writing posts that no one reads?" I asked. The alien told me I must not lose hope, because soon I would attract a enormous readership... although he could not provide a specific time-frame in which that would happen.

I was further informed that the Progressive postings on my blog were only a small part of the plan, but a vital one... which is why I had to continue. The Progressive ET said this time he would not wipe my memory. Dark days are ahead and the knowledge of what I was fighting for (and my importance in the alien plan to save humanity) was needed to keep me going. The alien told me the "dark days" that were coming were endless hearings concerning bogus scandals of the Obama administration.

That I must refute these phony scandals were among the final words the friendly ET imparted. Should I keep my alien encounter a secret? "That would probably be best", the gray-skinned being said, but I could write it up as a work of "fiction" if I so desired. And so I decided to do just that... present the completely true events exactly as they transpired as a story pulled from my imagination.

History professor Ronald H. Fritze says stories about aliens have a "periodic popularity in America", which explains why Ancient Aliens has been on for five seasons and 54 episodes. The viewing public likes it even if it is "noxious sludge", so me writing a post summing up my experiences might attract some people who are into that kind of thing. If some of them read my other writings (on Progressive politics), all the better. Whether or not they believe that I actually encountered extraterrestrials from another planet or not isn't important.

Video: "E.T." is a song by American singer Katy Perry from her third studio album, Teenage Dream (2010).

 swtd-161. mes-1.  Next.

Angry John McCain Shameful Benghazi Lies Due To Republican Sore Loserness

The biases the media has are much bigger than conservative or liberal. They're about getting ratings, about making money, about doing stories that are easy to cover ~ Al Franken the junior Senator from Minnesota, serving since 2009. Prior to serving in the Senate, he was an acclaimed writer and performer for the popular television show Saturday Night Live. After SNL Franken acted in TV and movies, hosted a nationally syndicated political radio talk show and authored six books.

I've previously given my take on an article by Sean Hannity butt kisser Dylan Stableford of Yahoo! News, and this is going to be another one. Although, I did not notice that Mr. Stableford was the author until I finished reading. I was not all that surprised, however, as it gives just the Republican perspective on the Benghazi so-called cover-up. In his Republican-version-of-events-only article Stableford reports on what former (and still angry about losing) presidential contender John McCain has to say dissemble about the tragic events that took place in Benghazi.

Following are some excerpts from the Stableford story (which concerns how the Republicans are spinning Benghazi for political advantage Democrats are covering up their lying after Benghazi so they wouldn't lose the presidential election) and my commentary regarding said excerpts...

Dylan Stableford Reports: Sen. John McCain continued his criticism of the White House's handling of the Sept. 11 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, calling for a select committee to investigate what he called the Obama administration's "cover-up".

My Commentary: There was no cover-up. There have already been 3 investigations! Is that not enough to get all the facts out? Answer - YES it is! The only reason to drag this out further is for political advantage. McCain (along with all the other Republicans) want to use this for political advantage in the 2014 midterms and for political advantage in 2015 if Hillary Clinton decides to run.

DS Reports: McCain [says] "We are in the midst of a presidential campaign. The narrative by the Obama campaign is that bin Laden is dead, that al Qaeda is on the run, not to worry about anything, and here comes this attack on Benghazi.

My Commentary: Obama did get bin Laden. Clearly that chafes McCain's hide - and he realizes that YES, it did help Obama in the election - and that really makes McCain mad, as he remembers it was the bush financial crisis that helped Obama defeat him. McCain just can't believe Obama's luck. And this time Obama stole the mantle of "strong on national security" from the Republicans! No wonder McCain is so enraged.

But, yes, it appears as though the Obama administration did downplay the Benghazi attack for political reasons. However, as we all know, the Republicans would have used did use Benghazi to try and help Mitt Romney win. So what if the Obama administration downplayed the events at Benghazi for political reasons to head off an attack by the Republicans done for political reasons? It turned out to be the wrong decision, but I don't blame them too much for their (totally justified) concern that Republicans would play dirty. And, MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT, they are playing very dirty.

DS Reports: James Inhofe suggested President Obama could be impeached for his role in the case [saying] "of all the great cover-ups in history - we're talking about the Pentagon Papers, the Iran-Contra, Watergate [blah, blah, blah]".

My Commentary: This bullplop from Inhofe is about as credible as his "global warming is a hoax" conspiracy theories. The voters of Oklahoma should be embarrassed that they've been sending this nut back to Congress since 1987!

DS Reports: "The president didn't call it an act of terror... In fact, two weeks later, before the U.N., he was talking about hateful videos and spontaneous demonstrations. What he did say the day after was he condemned acts of terrorism, but then that night... and throughout the next two weeks, he kept saying that it was caused by a spontaneous demonstration sparked by a hateful video. [blah, blah, blah, "cover-up"]. McCain said he'd like to see former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton... testify again.

My Commentary: Translation... I'm so mad that Obama kicked my ass in 2012! Remember when I said I'd follow bin Laden to the gates of hell? That should have been ME that killed him. Obama stole the mantle of national security from the Republicans and we want it back. We'll go on and on about this fake "cover-up" for as long as it takes. I missed my turn, and Hillary sure as hell isn't going to get another shot on my watch!

Remember when McCain skipped a hearing on Benghazi (11/14/2012) to hold a press conference expressing his outrage over Benghazi? I think that proves his "outrage" is political in nature, and has nothing to do with the Americans who died (including ambassador Christopher Stevens). This is about McCain being a sore loser. What he's outraged about is that Obama won a first term (thumping him) and then a second (thumping Romney).

Also, as reported by Think Progress, Obama did refer to Benghazi as an act of terror. Not just in that Rose Garden speech, but multiple times after that.

Stableford also mentions that "McCain did not invoke the i-word [impeachment], although he still strongly believes that "we need a select committee". No, we don't. Three hearings are more than enough. Obviously the Republicans think they can just keep holding hearings until they get the result they want. But McCain knows Obama isn't going to be impeached (he's smarter than Inhofe in that regard)... he just wants to inflict as much damage on Obama as he possibly can.

Finally, in regards to the author of the referenced article... good job getting the Republican talking points out on this Dylan! Your article was very "fair and balanced" in that, NOT ONCE, did you mention how the Democrats are responding to these bogus "cover-up" charges. Instead he lets McCain and Inhofe's allegations go unchallenged.

ABC News does a slightly better job (thanks "Liberal Media") by including a quote from the Democratic Senator of Rhode Island, Jack Reed, who said "absolutely not" to the cover-up allegation; then blamed all the revising of the talking points on "efforts to form a consensus document that avoided all of the difficult issues"... which does NOT amount to any kind of cover-up, just a careful consideration of what was said before an investigation had even begun (with the results of the upcoming presidential election in mind... sure).

Dylan concludes with a quote from McCain about maybe not impeaching Obama... McCain said, "I don't know what level of scandal this rises to". Then McCain again calls for a "select committee" because "the American people deserve it". Let me guess... "Select" means the Republicans select the members who will conclude there was a cover-up? And by "deserve" he means the American people deserved a Republican in the White House, but in consolation they'll settle for exacting revenge on Obama for stealing the mantle of national security from the Republicans AND mopping the floor with the last two candidates they ran for president?

SWTD #148

Dylan Stableford of Yahoo! News Nauseating Sean Hannity Butt-Kissing

A brown-noser is a person who acts favorably to his or her peers to gain stasis or fancy that will eventually be used to their advantage. Such as a raise, promotion, or acceptance in a group. Usually brown nosers will do anything to gain the approval of their person of choice ~ A definition from the Urban Dictionary, which is "a Web-based dictionary of slang words and phrases". Time magazine included it in a list of the "50 best websites of 2008".

I just saw a article on Yahoo! News that shocked me. I'd never seen a story from this organization with such a blantant partisan slant. Wikipedia says that Yahoo! News is an aggregator that gets it's content from a variety of sources, including Fox. However, they also note that "Since 2011 Yahoo! has expanded its focus to include original content, as part of its plans to become a major media organization".

Dylan Stableford is employed by Yahoo! News. The Business Insider reported on 5/6/2011 that "Yahoo snags media reporter Dylan Stableford". The "story" I'm objecting to is original content authored by him. Apparently the piece is from a Yahoo! News blog, so I guess Mr. Stableford sharing his opinions is appropriate. What he wrote sure as hell isn't straight news, that's for sure.

Following are some excerpts from the Stableford "story" (which concerns an appearance by the awesome progressive Representative for Minnesota's 5th congressional district, Keith Ellison on the 2/26/2012 airing of Fox Nooz's "Hannity") and my commentary regarding said excerpts...

Dylan Stableford: Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison exploded during a live interview with Sean Hannity on Tuesday, calling the Fox News host the "worst excuse for a journalist I've ever seen" and a "shill for the Republican Party". [Ellison] was on the program to discuss President Barack Obama's remarks on the sequester when he launched into a tirade aimed at Hannity, who [said] "The president is more concerned with fearmongering than finding a solution to the problem he created".

My Commentary: Oh, he "exploded" did he? I'd say Ellison took Hannity to task for his lies. The sequester isn't a problem the President created. Remember when Speaker Boner said "I got 98 percent of what I wanted in the debt deal"? The deal Boner was referring to was the deal that set up the sequester. But, instead of bringing this up, Stableford slimes Ellison by suggesting he "exploded".

Dylan Stableford: When Ellison called Hannity a "shill" for the GOP, the Fox News host tried to correct him. "I'm a registered conservative", Hannity said.

My Commentary: No, Dlyan, Hannity did not try to "correct" him. Ellison said Hannity is "the worst excuse for a journalist I have ever seen", and that Hannity is guilty of "yellow journalism". How could Hannity possibly correct Ellison regarding things the Representative GOT RIGHT?

Next Stableford reported that Hannity said, "Keep ranting", and Stableford wrote...

Dylan Stableford: Ellison did, and Hannity eventually ended the interview.

My Commentary: Wrong again, Dlyan. Ellison did not "keep ranting", he continued to take Hannity to task for his yellow journalism. Wikipedia defines yellow journalism as "a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers", and that "techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism".

This is EXACTLY what Fox Nooz does.

Stableford ends his article by quoting Hannity who dismissed Rep. Ellison by saying, "Congressman, you are a total waste of time... We're moving on, because our audience deserves better".

By ending with this quote how can one NOT conclude that Stableford agrees with Hannity - that Keith Ellison is "a total waste of time"? Snagging a hack like Stableford is part of Yahoo's plan to "become a major media organization"? Is Stableford angling for a job at Fox Nooz, or just a hardline partisan brown-noser? Either way, this progressive's stomach is churning. Egads! Could this Stableford fellow get his nose any further up Hannity's behind?

SWTD #125

Growing Uncertainty

The uncertainty meme is just mind boggling. Businesses always have a certain amount of regulatory uncertainty to deal with, and there's simply no evidence that this uncertainty is any greater now than it usually is ~ Kevin Drum (b. 10/19/1958) an American political blogger and columnist, as quoted from his 11/14/2010 Mother Jones article, "The Uncertainty Meme".

How uncertain are you? Answer the poll and leave a comment regarding what you are uncertain about.

View Poll Results (The poll has expired).

Further Reading
[1] The Uncertainty Canard by Jonathan Chait, The New Republic. 12/7/2010.
[2] The Uncertainty Myth: The Latest GOP Fraud on Taxes by Jon Perr, Crooks & Liars. 12/6/2010.

9/25/2014 Update: The poll expired a LONG time ago. In any case, my point with this commentary was to point out the stupidity of the Republican meme that business isn't hiring due to "uncertainty" - and poke fun at it. But I don't think I did a good job of it, and this post, IMO, is one of my worst.

I might delete it if not for the fact that it received a few comments. And I've been numbering my posts and deleting one would leave a hole. Anyway, this is a rare bad one, I think. On the whole I'm pretty proud of the body of work I've created here on this blog.

SWTD #58

Republican Lies About Fannie, Freddie, And Frank

It's very clear what the priorities are. The Republicans are looking after the financial interests of the wealthiest individuals in this country ~ Ted Kennedy (2/22/1932 to 8/25/2009) United States Senator from Massachusetts and a member of the Democratic Party. Serving almost 47 years, he was the second most senior member of the Senate when he died and is the 4th-longest-serving senator in US history (11/7/1962 to 8/25/2009).

I was recently made aware of the fact that the Democratic Representative from Massachusetts Barney Frank "admitted that Fannie and Freddie were largely responsible for the economic downturn". I read about this shocking admission on Lisa's brand new Conservative blog.

The post, titled "The Problem with Leftists" contained a link to a 8/19/2010 article on the "RealClearPolitics" website (RealClearPolitics is a political news and polling data aggregator). (Note: see update below regarding Lisa's blog.)

According to Wikipedia RealClearPolitics (RCP) claims to be "non-partisan" and that "their goal is to give readers ideological diversity". I'm not buying it considering they also describe themselves "as frustrated with what they perceive as anti-conservative, anti-Christian media bias". Playing the victim is a typical Con diversionary tactic. They claim they're being discriminated against when the actual bias is in their favor.

For instance - on the 8/22/2010 edition of "Meet the Press", when Mitch McConnell remarked that President Obama "says he's a Christian, and I take him at his word", host David Gregory offered no pushback.

What Gregory should have objected to was McConnell's use of weasel words to suggest that President Obama MIGHT be a Muslim, but Mitch McConnel isn't sure... all he can do is "take him at his word". President Obama is suspected of being a Muslim - even though he attended a Christian church for 20 years - because he spoke out in favor of upholding the Constitutional rights of all Americans; regardless of what religion they practice? The corporate media (in this case "Meet the Press" and David Gregory) is lending credence to Republican talking points by allowing them to frame the debate.

The biased RCP article, "Barney Frank: Fannie & Freddie Must Go" accuses Congressman Frank of "dissembling and denial", and the Left of "blaming heartless Republicans and Wall Street for the crisis caused by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac". Unfortunately for RPC these lies have been thoroughly debunked. Nobel prize winning Economist Paul Krugman, in a 5/31/2009 article titled "Reagan Did It", points out that "Reagan-era legislative changes essentially ended New Deal restrictions on mortgage lending - restrictions that... limited the ability of families to buy homes without putting a significant amount of money down".

Further deregulation shepherded through Congress by former Republican Congressman and McCain Campaign financial advisor Phil Gramm blew away the remaining FDR era protections. Republican deregulation caused the financial crisis, not Fannie and Freddie.

The problem with Lisa's claim that (according to the RCP article), Barney Frank "admitted that Fannie and Freddie were largely responsible for the economic downturn" - is that it's not true. RCP never states that Rep. Frank "admits" THEIR claim that "the crisis [was] caused by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" is accurate. The RCP article does contain several quotes from Rep. Frank, but none of them amount to an admission by Congressman Frank that Fannie and Freddie were responsible. This "admission" is one that Lisa either invented or imagined.

The RCP article quotes Rep. Frank as saying, "There were people in this society who for economic [reasons can't] be homeowners". If you apply for a loan but your income and/or savings suggest you won't be able to pay off the loan, clearly it is not wise for a bank to make the loan. This is simply stating what should have been obvious. Remember it was former President bush's "ownership society" that encouraged home ownership with new policies like the zero-down-payment initiative, "a government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment".

In another quote from the article Congressman Frank says he now believes that the two secondary mortgage market government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) "should be abolished". RCP's response is, "better late than never", and concludes that it is "refreshing to hear a member of the Democratic Party admit his mistakes". The mistake RPC thinks Rep. Frank made was "stopping GSE reform in the early 2000s, at a time when such a move might have prevented the financial meltdown".

This claim is utter nonsense, as the Republicans controlled Congress during this time (1/4/1995 to 1/3/2007). The Speaker of the House sets the the legislative agenda, and during this period both Speakers, Newt Gingrich and Dennis Hastert, were Republicans. According to Rep. Frank, "I did not try to stop them from passing legislation to control subprime lending or to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac". In his book "Financial Shock" economist Mark Zandi reveals that it was President Bush who "readily took up the homeownership baton... [and it was the] Bush administration [who] put substantial pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase their funding of mortgage loans to lower-income groups".

Rep. Frank says he "sought directly to regulate subprime lending", but the legislation he and Michael Oxley (R-OH) worked on, the Finance Reform Act of 2005, was "defeated because, in the words of Mr. Oxley, the Bush administration gave his efforts the one-finger salute". According to Media Matters, when the Democrats regained control of the House in 2007 Rep. Frank (who became the new chairman of the House Financial Services Committee), "sponsored HR 1427, a bill to create the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), granting that agency general supervisory and regulatory authority over Fannie and Freddie and directing it to reform the companies...".

President bush signed the bill on 7/30/2008, but only because it was clear by that time that there was a problem (the housing market peaked in 2006). Five weeks later FHFA seized temporary control of Fannie and Freddie.

bush's excuse was that "Wall Street got drunk", but according to Portfolio.com "bush neglected to add that he was behind the bar, pouring the tequila shots for most of the night, and refusing to cut off the drunks before they'd reached their limits".

The Republicans have some nerve thinking the American people will believe the Democrats were responsible for the housing bubble when they weren't in the majority when the Republicans, as part of the bush administration's "aggressive housing agenda", passed legislation like the American Dream Downpayment Assistance Act, the "Minority Homeownership Initiative", and (the previously mentioned) "Zero Down Payment Initiative".

Rep. Frank warned of the potential danger of a deregulated subprime lending market, but "House Republicans blocked any efforts to legislate against it" and "Alan Greenspan refused to use congressional authority he'd been given in 1994 to regulate it". The reason was because gouging lower-income minorities (and non-minorities) was very profitable for the fat-cat bankers pulling the administration's strings. Republicans looking out for the interests of the upper-class lead directly to the economic downturn - any other assertion is revisionist propaganda.

Instead of "admitting" Fannie and Freddie are to blame, Congressman Frank defended the two GSEs by pointing out that "private companies sold Fannie and Freddie loans or securities based on fraudulent documents", and that "these transactions created private profits at public expense". In other words, Fannie and Freddie are the VICTIMS of fraud, and the federal government should go after the banks that sold them the bad loans and attempt to recover some of the money they lost.

The reason why Rep. Frank is now in favor of abolishing the GSEs is because he believes there should be "no more hybrid private-public", and because "if we want to subsidize housing then we [should] do it upfront and let the budget be clear about that".

I agree completely. Fannie and Freddie suffered such huge losses because of the bush initiatives which were designed to increase the profits of their banker buddies, and because the GSEs had been partly privatized. If they had been acting in the public interest using a not-for-profit model - I think it is highly unlikely they would have been swept up in the derivative fever.

But because the GSE CEOs were seeking to increase their profits (and their bonuses) Fannie and Freddie didn't do their due diligence in researching the soundness of the loans they purchased. They were blinded by the profit motive in exactly the same manner as the other financial institutions that we bailed out. And let us not forget the fraud that Rep. Frank mentioned, which wouldn't have occurred either if not for Republican deregulation.

I agree with Rep. Frank that Fannie and Freddie should be abolished and REPLACED. Let the shareholders suffer some of the losses while the federal government puts a new, not-for-profit 100% public agency in charge of providing financial support to the secondary mortgage market. Homeownership is a good thing, and should be encouraged, but (obviously) should only be an option for people who can afford it. And we can do our best to make it more affordable by returning to the not-for-profit model Fannie Mae operated under after it's founding in 1938 until it "was converted into a private shareholder-owned corporation" in 1968 (by Democratic President LBJ, although for non-ideological reasons).

Unfortunately Fannie and Freddie being "partially private" allowed the Republicans to corrupt the institutions from within. If the Cons can't get rid of a popular government program they hate they will attempt to convert it into a money making vehicle for the wealthy elites. Which is exactly what the bush administration did - the wealthy bankers profited (and collected record bonuses) while the American taxpayer got shafted to the tune of (approximately) $248 billion.

When the hell are the voters going to wake up and realize that Republican thieves are robbing us blind? Their campaign to extend the bush tax cuts is just the latest example of their continuing reverse-Robin Hood master plan to destroy the middle class and create a land of gentry. Perhaps I'm being a wee bit hyperbolic, but significantly less so than Righties who claim the Obama Administration is plotting a Marxist "fundamental transformation" of our country.

1/13/2011 Update: Lisa deleted her blog and started over, creating a new blog with the same name... Originally I updated the link to her post with a link to the page as cached by Google, but the Google cache has since expired. Fortunately I copied down the text and have posted it in my comments section. You'll just have to take my word for it that I didn't make any alterations.

See also: America Without A Middle Class by Elizabeth Warren, The Huffington Post 12/3/2009.

SWTD #51

GOP Propaganda Campaign Turns Failed Petraeus Iraq Surge Into Success

With the passage of time, President Bush's decision to champion a new counterinsurgency strategy, including sending 30,000 additional troops to Iraq when most Americans were bone-weary of the war, will be seen as one of the most impressive and important acts of political courage in our lifetime. And those who fiercely opposed the so-called surge were not only wrong in their judgment; in some instances their actions were shameful ~ Peter Wehner, former bush speechwriter (and butt kisser), revising the bush legacy.

You were probably unaware that the Petraeus Iraq surge failed. The reason being that the Con propaganda campaign has largely been a success. Even our President (the current one, not the "courageous" unelected war criminal), has been taken in by the Con disinformation exemplified by the factually inaccurate Peter Wehner quote. Even though he originally criticized the surge, correctly stating, "the surge is not working", now, according to General Petraeus, "President Barack Obama acknowledged that the troop surge in the Iraq war was a success". Sadly this erroneous conclusion was cited "during deliberations over whether to enact a troop surge in Afghanistan".

According to Robert Woodward's book, "The War Within", the decline in violence can be attributed to three factors (none of which is an increase in US troop strength). First, "the Sunni rejection of al-Qaeda extremists in Anbar province". This was the so-called "Sunni Awakening", and it isn't that big of a surprise that they "laid down their arms against coalition forces, patroled neighborhoods, and fought against other Sunni insurgents", since we paid them to do these things (although some of the Sunni militia decided two monthly paychecks were better than one, and "moonlighted" with the insurgency).

The other two factors contributing to the decline in violence, according to Woodward's book, were "the surprise decision of al-Sadr to order a ceasefire", and "the use of new highly classified U.S. intelligence tactics that allowed for rapid targeting and killing of insurgent leaders". (This information is from the 6/29/2010 article "Gen. Petraeus and the Surge Myth by investigative journalist Robert Parry. See also "Iraq War troop surge of 2007: Opposition", on Wikipedia).

There is also the fact that a civil war was fought in Iraq, unlike in Afghanistan. The Shia and Sunni were fighting and killing each other, and so had less resources to devote to fighting and killing American troops. But when then Senator Biden suggested dividing Iraq into a loose federation of three ethnic states, thus quelling the sectarian violence, the bush administration (and Iraq's majority Shia government) rejected a partitioning of the country, deciding to allow the bloodbath to continue. The level of violence went down because the numerically superior Shia (55% of Iraq's population versus 18.5% Sunni) eventually either killed or displaced enough of their enemies to effectively win the war.

More than 1.3 million Iraqis have lost their lives since the start of the war. 4.7 million Iraqis lost or were forced to flee their homes (16% of the population). What portion of each of these estimates can be attributed to the US invasion and what portion can be attributed to the civil war isn't known, as the bushies certainly had no motivation to look into the matter.

The majority Shia government rejected partitioning because they deemed that it was payback time for their former Sunni oppressors. Under Saddam Hussein's Baathist dictatorship, which was Sunni-led, the Shia and Kurds were mercilessly persecuted. The Saddam regime also convinced their fellow Sunnis that they were not a minority - which explains why, when the US sponsored elections resulted in the Sunni netting "only a modest minority of seats", many Sunnis suspected fraud. This suspicion became one of the primary forces that fueled the insurgency. (They also overwhelmingly rejected the new Iraq constitution).

The bush administration knew that a civil war would produce an eventual victor, and then they could claim success when the violence decreased. Which explains why they worked so hard to deny one was taking place. This course of action resulted in a high of 3000 murders per month (according to a 2007 report issued by retired US Army General Barry McCaffre) - but the price was deemed quite acceptable. My opinion is that the bushies believed that if Iraqi ragheads wanted to kill each other there is no reason they should not allow it to happen, especially when the result was to make the war effort appear to be going better than it was.

An article published by "The Economist" on 6/17/2010 reports, "sectarian animosity still prevails", and that "Iraq's fledgling democracy remains frighteningly fragile" due to there being "little sign of a genuine cross-sectarian consensus". Despite these facts victory has been declared in Iraq, news coverage has dropped to virtually nill, and focus has shifted to the other war. The ouster of McChrystal and the installation of Petraeus led John Arquilla of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey CA to remark, "It's kind of sad and ironic that the fall of McChrystal will result in the reaffirmation of a highly problematic strategy".

On Friday 7/2/2010 (a day after General Petraeus won Senate confirmation) the House approved $37 billion in Afghan war spending and a 30,000 troop surge. Both the President and Congress are still fully behind the war, even though a poll in March revealed that "American support for the war in Afghanistan has ebbed to a new low", with "42% of respondents saying the United States made a mistake in sending military forces to Afghanistan" (Americans who considered the war a mistake was only 6% in January of 2002).

The President, who, on 12/1/2009 explained to the American people that we would give the war one last shot, and then begin a draw down in July 2011 (with a goal of withdrawing most U.S. forces by January 2013), is now walking back that promise, calling people who keep bringing up the draw down date "obsessed", and insisting "his focus is on making sure the mission there is successful".

Translation? The withdraw will be delayed to allow the new commander a chance to achive results. Even though the strategy isn't changing. How many more US soldiers will lose their lives or their limbs, and how many more billions will be wasted (money which could be used here to improve our economy) before Congress pulls funding and forces an end to this debacle? The Karzai government is corrupt. Accepting the results of Afghanistan's last "election" was the final nail in the coffin. If we ever had a chance of successfully completing the mission, any possibility of that happening ended when we allowed the former Unicol (Union Oil Company of California) consultant to steal the Afghan presidency.

The bushies hand picked Hamid Karzai to be Afghanistan's figurehead, installing him so that he could approve the proposed Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline (The pipeline will transport Caspian Sea natural gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan into Pakistan and then to India).

Following the 8/20/2009 elections in Afghanistan, former President Jimmy Carter announced, "Hamid Karzai has stolen the election", and that "now the question is whether he gets away with it". (Incidentally, Mr. Carter was also right about the Petraeus Iraq surge, correctly noting that "it wasn't the surge of American troops that had caused an increase in calm, but General David Petraeus' willingness to pay bribes and pay Iraqi soldiers").

There were some brief grumblings from the Obama administration regarding the legitimacy of the Afghan elections, but in the end Karzai was allowed to get away with it. I'm positive that if bush were still in power the election would have been heralded as a victory for democracy and the Afghan people - the same purple-finger nonsense they pulled in Iraq. The Obama Administration, knowing that contesting the election would be very bad for the war effort, stopped it's grumbling, and instead congratulated Karzai on "winning" a second term. President Obama, while visiting the country, told Karzai "Although the process was messy, I'm pleased to say that the final outcome was determined in accordance with Afghan law".

Unfortunately Obama's proclamation was complete baloney. He knows the election was stolen. The American people and the Afghan people also know that Karzai's win was illegitimate (Karzai has been president since being "chosen" as interim president in 2002, served one five year term beginning in 2004, but will be ineligible to run again in 2014 due to term limits). How in the hell can we expect to win Afghan hearts and minds when they see our government give it's blessing to a corrupt administration's theft of it's supposedly democratic election?!

President Karzai (who says the US has undermined his legitimacy with the ballot stuffing allegations, even though they were made by independent monitors) is seeking to make his "own deal with the Taliban and the country's archrival, Pakistan, the Taliban's longtime supporter". A 6/11/2010 story in the New York Times reports that, when presented of evidence that the Taliban were behind a "spectacular rocket attack on a nationwide peace conference earlier this month", president Karzai said "he believed the Taliban were not responsible" and then suggested that Americans were behind the attack.

58% of Americans favor a timetable for withdrawl of US troops. 73% of Afghans opposed the Obama surge (according to a 2009 poll). The Taliban are united in their opposition to our military (unlike, as I pointed out earlier, there being multiple factions fighting each other). And the corrupt Karzai government is seeking to make deals with the Taliban and "blocking corruption probes [regarding the theft of] huge amounts of foreign aid" (a 6/30/2010 Huffington Post article alleges that "Afghan powerbrokers are moving millions of dollars out of the country").

Karzai will use the money he has stolen from the US, the proceeds from the Unicol pipeline (what this war was really all about in the first place), and eventually, the estimated 1 trillion in mineral wealth to create a "coalition government" by bribing the Taliban, cementing the country's status as a criminal and oppressive oligarchy. Foreign corporations will move in to build the pipeline and extract Afghanistan's mineral wealth. The rich will get richer, the corrupt will retain power, and the poor of Afghanistan will remain poor and oppressed. Mission accomplished. BTW, these things will happen regardless of when we pull out.

Continuing on this path is complete insanity. We either need to begin an orderly withdrawal as soon as possible, or come up with a plan for a negotiated peace. This isn't ideal solution, especially with Karazi still in charge for at least another 4 and a half years. I don't think it matters, as this war was lost some time ago (certainly before Obama's surge). That is, if it was ever winnable. Unfortunately, with the Republicans set to gain seats in the upcoming election, the prospect of a draw down anytime soon is looking quite dim.

Further Reading
[1] Petraeus: We Are In This To Win in Afghanistan by Deb Richman, AP 7/4/2010.
[2] Is Karzai punking Obama, yet again? by Laurence Lewis, The Daily Kos 6/11/2010.
[3] Afghanistan, the Taliban and the Bush Oil Team by Wayne Madsen, Democrats.com 1/2002.

7/6/2015 Update: The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart asks "if the surge was so damned successful, then why did it all come apart as soon as we took our finger out of the dike". Answer: gwb (and John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Joe Lieberman and anyone else who claims the surge was a success) were/are lying.

SWTD #44

Conservatives Pushing For BP Bailout

...I think it's part of this sort of blame-game society in the sense that it's always got to be somebody's fault instead of the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen ~ Rand Paul, referring to BP's underwater Gulf of Mexico oil geyser on ABC's Good Morning America (5/21/2010).

As I've alluded to in previous posts, I am no fan of Ayn Rand, Objectivism, or Libertarians. Objectifiers of greed and selfishness, is more like it. Let us pray that Kentuckian voters send this fool packing. The record clearly shows that Randal Paul (his actual name) was dead wrong to suggest that this was an accident.

Gulf Oil Disaster Not An Accident

According to an oil industry whistleblower, "BP had been aware for years that tests of blowout prevention devices were being falsified". During Congressional hearings it was revealed that the blowout preventer attached to the well that the Deepwater Horizon was in the final stages of completing, "had a leak in a crucial hydraulic system and had failed a negative pressure test just hours before the April 20 explosion".

A recent ProPublica investigation revealed that "Years of Internal BP Probes Warned That Neglect Could Lead to Accidents", and that BP had "systemically ignored its own safety policies across its North American operations".

Finally, let's not forget that the CEO of BP, Tony Hayward recently admitted, "We did not have the tools you would want in your toolkit". Which, even though he probably did not realize it at the time, is an admission that BP lied when it stated, in their drilling application to the Minerals Management Service, it could "handle a spill involving as much as 12.6 million gallons of oil per day, a number 60 times higher than its current estimate of the ongoing Gulf disaster".

Criminal Negligence

Legally, when you cut this many corners in complete disregard for even your own safety protocols, you can no longer claim that the resulting disaster is an "accident". This is, without a doubt, a brazen case of criminal negligence. (For the record, BP has yet to be convicted of criminal negligence in the case of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, although AG Eric Holder is investigating).

So when Mr. Paul feigned outrage at Obama administration's declaration to keep its "boot heel on the throat of BP", saying, "I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business", I do not believe he was being sincere. This reminds me of Sarah Palin praising the "pro-America" parts of the country during the Presidential campaign. Obviously the "pro-American" parts of the country are were the majority of the voters fall for Conservative chicanery and put the interests of the wealthy and corporations above their own by electing Republicans.

Of course, to a Conservative, saying anything in support of the Average Joe and against the wealthy and corporations would be grounds for being accused of "un-American activities". Strike that, DOING anything in support of the average Joe. Conservatives routinely lie about their policies being good for everyone.

For instance, on the oil spill, Randal Paul also said that, "he had heard nothing from BP indicating it wouldn't pay for the spill". This is a completely ridiculous thing for Mr. Paul to say. Under President Doofus our government routinely let oil companies off the hook in regards to paying for the accidents their reckless disregard for safety caused. (In fact, "Bush's DOJ Killed a Criminal Probe Into BP That Threatened to Net Top Officials".)

Final Price For Disaster Could Be Beyond Astronomical

Apparently BP doesn't even intend on paying for all the immediate costs of the cleanup, which, according to a current estimate will total approximately 12.5 billion. If they were, why would Tony Hayward, in an attempt to reassure the financial industry, say "BP can escape this disaster paying no more than $3 billion in costs and damages"?

But 12.5 Billion for the clean up is just an initial estimate - the final cost may be several hundred billion. Although, as far as economic damages go, Congress capped those at 75 million after the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

In regards to the issue of "liability caps", Senator Patrick Leahy has stated, "It reduce[s] the consequences of [any] misconduct to a discounted cost of doing business. That's almost like saying, 'We're giving you a green light to do whatever you want to do'. I can't imagine why anyone would be surprised that... oil companies cut corners and compromised safety".

The liability cap, however, only applies to economic damages. There is no cap so far as the cleanup costs. There is also no cap on fines that may be imposed. An EPA imposed per-barrel "spilled" fine under the Clean Water Act could amount to as much as $10.7 billion (estimated by Rachel Maddow on her 6/1/2010 broadcast). Rachel went on to say, "That would be $10.7 billion on top of all of the other cleanup costs, all of the economic injury claims from local businessmen, all of the liability to states for tourism lost and whatever criminal charges the Justice Department turns up".

Criminal charges will most certainly result in criminal fines, and BP has a long history of convictions. In 2005 BP was cited for "willful negligence" and paid two of the largest fines in OSHA history. Including these two citations, BP's fines since 2005 total more than $730 million. In regards to this latest disaster, one expert says the case against BP is a "slam dunk".

Also, if the criminal proceedings determine that BP was "grossly negligent or... engaged in willful misconduct or conduct in violation of federal regulations", the $75 million economic liability cap is nullified. So, despite their horrendous track record, Randal Paul thinks we should take BP at their word. Like when we trusted BP employees to fill out their own inspection reports honestly and accurately.

There is also the issue of the 18.75% royality BP agreed to pay when they signed the lease. Although there is a question regarding whether or not this royalty should be applied to the oil "recovered", or all the oil removed from the ground. A 6/4/2010 Politico story reports that the Democratic Representative from West Virginia, Nick Rahall says that "the Minerals Management Service, the agency that oversees offshore drilling, has been unclear whether BP would be required to pay royalties on any oil captured from the Deepwater Horizon spill".

Why only assess royalties on the captured oil? I believe BP should pay royalties on ALL the oil that escapes from the well, whether they capture it or it escapes into the gulf - plus the per-barrel fine.

Finally, NOLA.com reports that the White House has suggested that BP reimburse "offshore oil rig workers who lose wages as a result of the administration's moratorium on deep water oil and gas exploration". This would cost BP an additional $150 million to $300 million a month.

Incredibly Unlikely That BP Will Pay "Every Cent"

I would have guessed that a Libertarian would believe in the old axiom, "trust must be earned". BP has clearly not earned our trust. That, plus the rumor I've heard is that BP may file for bankruptcy protection to avoid paying. An ABC news story states that "respected oil industry analyst Matt Simmons told Fortune Magazine that a bankruptcy filing was likely within a month". According to Mr. Simmons, "They're going to run out of cash from lawsuits, cleanup and other expenses", because "there isn't enough money in the world to clean up the Gulf of Mexico".

By the way, Wikpedia, in discussing "bankruptcy" says that "The principal focus of modern insolvency legislation and business debt restructuring practices no longer rests on the elimination of insolvent entities but on the remodeling of the financial and organizational structure of debtors experiencing financial distress so as to permit the rehabilitation and continuation of their business". In other words bankruptcy would not put BP out of business, leaving it's creditors to divvy up it's assets.

Also according to Wikipedia, "a strategic bankruptcy may occur when an otherwise solvent company makes use of the bankruptcy laws for some specific business purpose" In this case the "specific business purpose" would be to discharge it's obligations to pay a majority of the Gulf oil spill bill.

During a 6/11/2010 interview, Louisiana State Treasurer John Kennedy conjectured, "I know BP said they won't go into bankruptcy. I hope they're telling the truth. They weren't truthful about the extent of the spill". He is urging Governor Bobby Jindal to "devise a plan to deal with the oil spill cleanup and response efforts in the event of a BP bankruptcy".

It is also possible that BP may be deemed "to big to fail" and rescued by an American and/or British bailout. Apparently a lot of British pensioners hold shares of BP, and recent suggestions that BP delay or cancel it's dividend payment have raised the ire of the British politicians who represent them. A Labour Party member by the name of Tom Watson cried foul, stating that, "you attack the dividend and you are attacking millions of British pensioners".

Finally, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce president Tom Donohue threw his support behind a taxpayer funded BP bailout, declaring, "...everybody is going to contribute to this clean up. We are going to have to get the money from the government and from the companies". Obviously money from "the government" is taxpayer money. He also stated his opposition to Senate efforts to raise the cap on economic damages, whining, "It is generally not the practice of this country to change the laws after the game".

And, as a 6/10/2010 Huffington Post article points out, House Minority Leader John Boehner agrees! This is no surprise since the Chamber is an anti-middle class pro-big business organization that solely represents the interests of the wealthy and, in furtherance of that goal, primarily funds Republicans.

Exxon Mobil Did Not Pay "Every Cent" For Valdez Alaska Spill, Nor Were All The Injured Parties "Made Whole"

I believe that what this all indicates, beyond any doubt, is that this was not an accident - and that BP isn't going to pay the full cost of the environmental and economic disaster their reckless greed caused. Even so, at this point, my conclusions are simply speculation. However, what we do know for sure is that Exxon did not pay the full cost of their 1989 spill, instead they fought the punitive damage award levied against them for 20 years.

Damages were eventually reduced from 5 Billion to paltry 500 million by the Right-leaning Supreme Court.

A 2/2/2009 CBS News story reminds, "Back in 1989, Exxon executives promised to take care of everyone affected by the spill". Exxon's manager of Alaska operations promised, "You have my word we will make you whole again". I seriously doubt that the any of the 32,000 original plaintiffs in the Exxon lawsuit feel they have been "made whole" - those that are still alive, that is. "At least 6,000 of the original plaintiffs died" during the 20 years Exxon battled the original judgment in court.

Tony Hayward has made similar statements claiming BP will "stand with Gulf Coast residents until they are made whole". If that is the case, then why, in the lawsuits which are already pending against BP, does it appear as though they intend to fight them in court the same way Exxon did - for decades, filing appeal after appeal until the judgment against them is reduced as much as possible? Or, preferably, get all the cases heard in front of a judge who is friendly to the industry.

Can The Conservative BP Bailout Be Stopped?

Randal Paul, Libertarian running for the Senate in Kentucky is attempting to paint BP's criminal negligence as an "accident" and thinks we should back off and allow BP to do what they think is right. Former Alaskan Republican half-Governor Sarah Palin agrees, proclaiming, "I want our country to be able to trust the oil industry".

Texas' Republican Governor Rick Perry claims the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon was "just an act of God". Mississippi Republican Haley Barbour thinks the oil washing up on shore is "non-toxic", and, after visiting Petit Bois Island off Mississippi's coast, alleged he did not think it "was hurt one iota".

The Conservative "Blue Dog" Democratic Representative from Mississippi Gene Taylor remarked, "I would remind people that the oil is twenty miles from any marsh. ...That chocolate milk looking spill starts breaking up in smaller pieces ...It is tending to break up naturally". And Conservative propagandist Rush Limbaugh insists "the ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and left out there [because] it's natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is".

Also, don't forget about the Conservatives in Congress who are blocking Democratic efforts to remove the 75 million dollar economic liability cap. The first attempt was blocked by Republican Senator from Alaska Lisa Murkowski, and the second attempt was blocked by the Global Climate Change denier from Oklahoma, Republican Senator James Mountain "Jim" Inhofe. A disappointed President Obama responded with a statement that read, "This maneuver threatens to leave taxpayers, rather than the oil companies, on the hook for future disasters like the BP oil spill".

Why do all these conservatives want us to believe that this disaster is an accident, not that big a deal, or (if it does turn out to be serious) the fault of the Federal Government and that we should leave the liability cap in place? Because they think the taxpayers should pay. Who the hell else is going to pay if not BP? And, as I pointed out earlier, U.S. Chamber of Commerce president Tom Donohue and House Minority Leader John Boehner have come right out and suggested the US taxpayer should be on the hook.

Boehner later "clarified" his statement, insisting he's always said BP should pay, even though the person asking the question specifically inquired as to whether or not Boehner thought "taxpayers should pitch in to clean up the oil spill". Boehner clearly indicated that he thought they should. Silly Boehner, you are supposed to keep pro-bailout thoughts on the down low by using language which does not directly support a bailout, but can lead to nowhere but a bailout... like your fellow Conservatives are doing.

So, can this bailout be stopped? I doubt it. Despite the fact that oil companies are among the most profitable corporations in the world the US government still grants them subsidies of 2.7 billion a year.

In my opinion, the only way we could guarantee that BP pay the maximum amount it is able would be to follow Robert Reich's advice and place BP under temporary receivership. In a 5/31/2010 blog post Mr. Reich wrote, "it's time for the federal government to put BP under temporary receivership, which gives the government authority to take over BP's operations in the Gulf of Mexico until the gusher is stopped".

Taking Mr. Reich's idea one step further, the ANSWER Coalition's "Sieze BP" website advocates the Federal Government seize BP's assets (or as many of their assets that it can, seeing as BP is a British Corporation). I urge you to consider signing the petition, even though it is most likely pointless. The influence of corporate money on our political system is such that what we have, in essence, is two conservative parties.

The Republican Party which is 100 percent Conservative, and the Democratic Party which, in addition to the so-called "blue dogs", consists of quite a few DLC "New Democrats" (whose sellout "Third Way" means they aggressively pursue corporate money to win elections). Liberals are a minority, with only 82 out of 312 Congressional Democrats belonging to the Progressive Caucus.

On the 6/10/2010 episode of the "Daily Show", Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, in response to a question by Jon Stewart, explained, "I'm a Republican, so of course I'm conservative". You'll never hear a Democrat assert, "I'm a Democrat, so of course I'm liberal". Much to my disappointment, Barack Obama has shown himself to be a Bill Clinton Third Way Democrat. One of his first appointments was Third Way DLC Clintonite Rham Emmanuel to White House Chief of Staff. This is the guy who thinks that Liberals are "retarded".

Not to mention the other Clinton era advisers President Obama has surrounded himself with. Which is why Republican Politicians and Commentators calling him a "Socialist" are such liars. Their brainwashed minions may be buying this nonsense, but they know better. Crying "Communism" or "Socialism" is simply a diversionary tactic they use to push us further towards corporatism. The BP bailout is a done deal. Unfortunately, just like the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem and Gulf State economies, the American taxpayer never stood a chance.

SWTD #41

An Arguing Idiot's Perverted Common Sense

Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives ~ John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) English philosopher, political economist and influential liberal thinker of the 19th century.

Program: Countdown with Keith Olbermann 9/24/2009.

Subject: World's worst person.

Winner: Lonesome Rhodes Beck. Referring to The Constitution, Article One, Section 9...

"The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person".

Glenn Beck Says: That's right. The founders actually put a price on coming to this country: $10 a person. Apparently they felt like there was a value to being able to live here. Not anymore. These days we can't ask anything of immigrants - including that they abide by our laws.

Keith Olbermann Responds: A clause requiring the continuation of slavery, he thinks is about immigration. He may be the dumbest man on the planet.

My Commentary: Shouldn't Glenn Beck's new book be titled "Arguing with Myself", instead of "with Idiots"? Or "My Arguments Prove I'm an Idiot"? Is Glenn really this dumb, or does he just think his fans are? How was he even able to write a book, let alone four (since November of 2007). Clearly the guy has problems simply READING. I Googled "Ghostwriter" and "Glenn Beck", but all I found was a headline concerning Sarah Palin hiring a ghostwriter for her memoirs.

Before the self-proclaimed book czar's latest anti-Obama screed he had the gall to write a book "inspired" by Thomas Paine's Common Sense. Apparently Beck was inspired by the title and obvious (to Beck) anti-government polemic contained within. When Mr. Paine writes, "society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness" and concludes that government is a "necessary evil" (because it restrains our vices), this translates for Beck as a warning against the dangers of "big government".

But the government Thomas Paine was railing against was the monarchy of Great Britain, not one of, for, and by the people. When Mr. Paine wrote Common Sense the notion that the people of a nation could govern themselves was unheard of. Which is why fellow founding fathers George Washington and Thomas Jefferson referred to our new representative democracy as a "liberal experiment".

Thomas Paine may have said, "government is best which governs least" (a quote conservatives appreciate), although he certainly wasn't a conservative or a libertarian (as Beck claims to be) by today's standards. Some of Mr. Paine's revolutionary ideas included a progressive income tax targeting the wealthy "to give the poor bootstraps by which they could pull themselves up", a fund to provide housing and food for the poor, a pension for all workers in their old age, public employment and a 90 percent reduction of armaments by all nations to ensure world peace.

Do these sound like ideas that would be championed by the Republican Party of today? Or, would their response to such suggestions be that redistribution of wealth by governmental theft is socialism - and that if we're weak on national defense we may as well surrender to the Socialist Marxist Commies and/or Muslim terrorists (and become atheists and/or Muslim converts, presumably)?

Glenn puts himself forward as a populist, but being a Libertarian makes this claim quite dubious in my opinion. Wikipedia defines (classical) populism as being "derived from the Latin word populus, which means people in English (in the sense of nation, as in: The Roman People (populus Romanus), not in the sense of multiple individual persons".

That we are a nation of individuals and not at all a "we society" - as Michael Moore suggests we should strive to be in his documentary film "Sicko" - is the essence of Libertarianism. (BTW I don't give a damn what the Populist Party of America thinks, Libertarianism and Populism are at odds with one another. Libertarians, the same as Republicans, would be against all of Paine's "revolutionary ideas" detailed above).

According to Beck "The populist sentiment is Common Sense" (a direct quote from Beck's own website), which is correct, but not at all what he is doing (promoting a populist sentiment). What Beck is doing with his "common sense" book is fraudulently recasting Thomas Paine as someone SHARING his anti-"big government socialism" point of view. Which is an out-and-out perversion of Mr. Paine's legacy. The "idiot" book is clearly more of the same nonsense. With Beck what it is really all about is protecting his millions.

In fact, it is fairly easy to discern that Beck is a fraud. Look at who he's attacking - labor unions and ACORN, two populist organizations! American Rights at Work, a union advocacy group truly states that "Unions, by fighting for higher standards for workers, businesses, families, the environment, and public health and safety, have helped to build the middle class and make sure the economy works for everyone". That's populism.

ACORN advocates "for low and moderate-income families by working on neighborhood safety, voter registration, health care, affordable housing, and other social issues". That's populism.

By Beck's own admission populism is common sense. But by Beck's own actions it is obvious he doesn't support populism. Although, it is common sense for him to promote the interests of America's super wealthy, the modern-day equivalent of Great Britain's aristocracy. He has done so successfully (people are buying his books and watching his show) and he has been rewarded handsomely.

A positive review of the "idiot" book declares it to be "chock-a-block with all the facts and data one needs to successfully and authoritatively rebut the Left's preposterous proletarian propaganda". "Proletarian propaganda", is, of course, code for "rhetoric in support of working people", or POPULISM.

Populism is preposterous, and needs to be attacked. That's according to a positive review of the "idiot" book. And Glenn Beck is a fraud and a moron. That's according to ME. Although, as Beck's earnings illustrate, there are quite a few gullible fools eager to buy into his faux populism. In regards to such people, Thomas Paine said, "When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon", and "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it".

I'll leave you with a deft observation regarding Glenn Beck...

Glenn Beck likes arguing, but has a deep-seated hatred for logic ~ Stephen Colbert, 7/29/2009 on the "Colbert Report"

Further Reading
[1] Thomas Paine (1737-1809) A Sort History by Eric Foner.
[2] Thomas Paine and the Promise of America by Harvey J. Kaye, Thom Hartmann's "Independent Thinker" Book of the Month Review, BuzzFlash 2/2/2006.
[3] Senate Votes to Deny Funds To ACORN by Andrew Taylor, Associated Press 9/14/2009 (Reason to Read: ACORN alleges "prostitute & pimp" videos were doctored).

SWTD #23