Thursday Open Thread: Politics as Usual

I've got a lot of work to get done today, and BTD is busy in hearings.

I don't think the Romanoff news is any big deal but Politico says it means Obama's political team is faltering.

I can't see the argument that the contacts were unethical or illegal. It's more of a perception problem, that Obama promised to end "politics as usual" practices and provide greater transparency, and this was just a typical back-door effort to exercise some muscle.

If Rahm Emanuael's testimony at the Rod Blagojevich trial, which I assume will include him answering questions about taped conversations replayed in court, is embarrassing, I wonder if he'll then announce his departure and return to Chicago. I think it's time. But given the Blago trial is expected to last four months, and he'd be a defense witness, his testimony is still a few months away.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< AT&T to End Unlimited Use Pricing Plan | Local Jail Population Drops For First Time in 28 Years >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Rue McLanahan (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 12:10:24 PM EST

    Betty White is the only one left of "The Golden Girls".

    Glen Ford, editor of Black Agenda Report, (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 12:14:57 PM EST
    has a story posted today at CommonDreams.org, Yes, Obama Is 'Engaged' - in a Colossal Crime:
    The man in charge of the government that both permitted and abetted this heinous corporate crime should, by all rights, be in terminal disgrace. Instead, much of Obama's "base" behaves as if the First Black President is an innocent party -- a victim of circumstances -- rather than a facilitator of the corporate enterprise that has spawned the Mother of all Pollutions. But then, Teflon is a petrochemical product...

    The unbroken chain of "corruption" at the agency in both Bush and Obama administrations is one small expression of the continuity of actual rule of the country by sometimes feuding cousins in Big Oil and Wall Street and the Military Industrial Complex -- the permanent government. Obama is "engaged" as their servant, like his predecessors in the Oval Office.

    The corporate cousins have raised the stakes of the game. It's either them or Earth itself.

    For future reference, here is a direct link to the Black Agenda Report blog.

    If they're "ruling the country" (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 01:14:56 PM EST
    are there any political "leaders", who are allowed access to the system, who haven't acquiesced beforehand to a tacit agreement to knuckle under to the corporate-military-Wall St complex?

    Fishermen (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by CST on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:28:45 PM EST
    getting sick in LA.  Surprise surprise BP's response - nothing to see here, all these people on all these seperate boats who were eating completely different meals must have somehow come down with food poisoning all at the same time.  Food poisoning who's effects last longer than a month.  Nothing to do with all the oil and chemicals they've been inhaling.  Nothing at all.  And no, they will not be providing masks to the clean-up crew.  Although they do note that they won't prevent you from using your own mask.  Gee, how thoughtfull.

    I have gotten food poisoning.  Baaaad food poisoning.  It never lasted longer than a month.

    cripes (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by CST on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:42:44 PM EST
    it just keeps getting worse

    One man's account:

    ""At West Jefferson, there were tents set up outside the hospital, where I was stripped of my clothing, washed with water and several showers, before I was allowed into the hospital," Wunstell said. "When I asked for my clothing, I was told that BP had confiscated all of my clothing and it would not be returned.""

    nope, no cover-up here.

    As for the "food poisoning" theory:

    "An expert on foodborne illness cast doubt on Hayward's theory.

    "Headaches, shortness of breath, nosebleeds -- there's nothing there that suggests foodborne illness," said Dr. Michael Osterholm, a professor at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health. "I don't know what these people have, but it sounds more like a respiratory illness."


    Good lord... (none / 0) (#113)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 03:16:19 PM EST
    surprised the BP bastards didn't claim it was sea sickness....where the f*ck is OSHA?  Prove my anti-state arse wrong guys...please!

    Greeeaaaat..... (none / 0) (#116)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 03:21:10 PM EST
    So much for the 'let's get every boat and man we can muster out there' theory of oil spill cleanup.

    Is there a workable theory of oil spill cleanup of this magnitude? If so I have yet to see it.

    I think BP is going bankrupt, and I only hope they take down Halliburton too.


    oil spill cleanup (none / 0) (#121)
    by CST on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 03:25:13 PM EST
    in past spills has left areas permanently damaged.  Or at least full recovery has not yet occurred - in fairness - time has not stopped yet, so it could still occur...

    I hope BP goes bankrupt.  So far the only news bit I've seen says they might lose one WHOLE year's profit because of this.  ONE.


    Add... (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 03:55:50 PM EST
    I hope BP goes bankrupt and doesn't get a bailout...ya gotta specify these days.

    Can I get a ruling? (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:22:38 PM EST
    Isn't it beyond the bounds of familial and internet etiquette for aunt to be expected to check her sister's Facebook page to learn that her 19 yr old nephew had a near fatal accident and spinal cord surgery?

    Almost done being mad at my sister and moved on to worried sick about my nephew. He's doing amazingly well. No paralysis, but some weakness on his left side. Lots of rehab ahead for him.

    I'd tell you what kind of accident but it brings me back around to mad again. Oh, all right - a little bit of 2 am tree-climbing. Gravity sucks. Literally.

    Horrible--not FB etiquette--the (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:57:01 PM EST
    inuries and rehab ahead.

    A friend told me she learned via FB of a relative's pregnancy before the pregnant woman's mother learned of it.  


    Um, yes (none / 0) (#165)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:35:19 PM EST
    Seems like that should have been something relayed in a phone call or in person.

    Best wishes to him.


    I'm sorry about your nephew, ruffian (none / 0) (#194)
    by Zorba on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 05:09:12 PM EST
    And you definitely should have gotten a phone call.  What is it with people posting on Facebook first, before they contact loved ones, who should be called?  On the phone.  (And instant messages don't count, either.  Or emails. Or Twitter.)

    Barefoot Running etc (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 11:39:18 AM EST
    Yeah, Capt Howdy, what a great idea. As a long time tai chi player, I have always avoided those puffy running shoes and gone for the flattest sole, with the least amount of padding possible, iow as next to no shoe, as I could get.

    These little babies seem like an excellent invention, on the list for must get.

    I swear by Jika Tabi boots, and wrestling gear (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Ellie on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 01:24:58 PM EST
    Oh wow, they look awesome but they're goofing off martial arts gear.

    YMMV, but I like a little spring-back in the step to cut down on accumulated fatigue (which occurs stepping upwards from inertia) and shock during mid-long distance hiking. I learned this as a capricious Young Kid growing up in the goat-ridden, mountainous ancestral homeland. (My family is lamentably goaty.)

    I like a 1/2-1" padding for outdoor activity, esp. on unforgiving concrete, but as little as possible between me and Mother Earth out in the wild.

    Tabi or "Ninja boots" have the added plus of just looking deadly cool! The split toe design keeps the big and second toes from crumpling on impact -- the big toe misalignment from which most foot injuries radiate -- and keep ankles gently supported and aligned during assasinations and whatnot to avoid the shame of being caught, immobilized, at the scene of the act. (Ninjutsu is the Art of Stealth, after all.) Jika brand are popular, with a rubber sole for outdoors and a moleskin for indoor workouts.

    For everyday living, I love the Stinger-style punky wrestling boots, because a lady never knows when mere reason will cease to work on a conversation partner and she'll just have to kick that person in the face. (It hasn't happened to me yet but I like to be prepared.) Somewhat pricey but they look great forevah and who can argue with patent leather?


    I actually have some ninja boots (none / 0) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 01:27:40 PM EST
    I would say the difference is like the difference between gloves for you feel and mittens for your feet.

    also (none / 0) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 01:35:55 PM EST
    is anyone surprised I have ninja boots?
    I also have wrestling boots but I havent been vain enough to deal with the laces in a long time.

    But still too vain to click and note that Stingers (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ellie on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 01:52:55 PM EST
    ... are flap and velcro closing, NOT lace-ups. I like lace-ups for special occasions, though.

    (Yep, it must be the rest of us that are vain. However, if loving me is wrong, I don't want to be right.)


    also (none / 0) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:00:49 PM EST
    when I am wearing the lace up wrestling boots I always feel like I should be wearing a cape.

    Only if (none / 0) (#46)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:02:30 PM EST
    You wear the shiny tights and brief too.

    be glad you don't have foot issues (none / 0) (#3)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 11:45:59 AM EST
    because supports, braces and padding are NOT fun, in case you wondered.

    Me too. I can barely walk barefoot (none / 0) (#79)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:38:29 PM EST
    The last thing I need is shoes that mimic the experience!

    the soles (none / 0) (#171)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:41:53 PM EST
    are thicker than you would expect.
    for 80 bucks they better be.

    Understood -- I have some issues (none / 0) (#178)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:51:04 PM EST
    from mild polio (one leg slightly shorter so bad for the back, one foot slightly smaller so also reason for an insole insert, etc).  I recommend Rieker's sandals -- they offer more solid support but also offer the "stimulating" (a sort of bumpy texture inside) to the soles that is noted in these Five Fingers shoes.  That seems to help ease the foot/leg/back fatigue, especially hard on us teachers standing for hours in classrooms on hard concrete floors, huh?  

    amen on the concrete (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 05:22:46 PM EST

    linky (none / 0) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 11:47:57 AM EST

    they are not cheap.  the price put me off.
    until I put them on.


    Nice! (none / 0) (#10)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 12:13:52 PM EST
    Def want a pair. I've always been a barefooter and like Squeak look for the thinnest in running shoes.

    they have (none / 0) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 12:56:15 PM EST
    taken off here.  about every third person you pass in the hallway is wearing them.

    I wouldn't recommend them for outdoor novices (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ellie on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:02:39 PM EST
    They sound great for seasoned athletes and hikers who have developed mastery over their stepping style. (I like the "gripping" quotient for navigating over rocks.) You have to know how to land perfectly to avoid injury.

    The indoor version for maximum foot flex during low-impact workouts would benefit all levels.


    I wear (none / 0) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:08:08 PM EST
    them to work.

    Well that's just hot (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ellie on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:42:40 PM EST
    Is your salt mine one of those lavish arch-criminal hideouts that (oddly) stays off the grid despite the need/practice of mass-ordering gear?

    As an up-and-comer in the world-domination sweepstakes, I've found that tastefully outfitting the troops on the sly can be a huge headache.


    I would say (none / 0) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 12:57:11 PM EST
    be careful about ordering online.  they need to fit really well.

    find a local if you can.


    Obama Lifts Driling Ban in Offshore Shallow Water. (none / 0) (#2)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 11:45:06 AM EST
    (KeysDan commented on this development yesterday.) Via the AP, June 2/10: Feds Approve New Gulf Oil Well off LA:
    Today, federal regulators approved the first new Gulf of Mexico oil well since President Barack Obama lifted the ban on drilling in shallow water [surface to 500 feet], even while deepwater projects remain frozen after the massive BP spill.

    The Minerals Management Service [MMS] granted a new drilling permit to Bandon Oil and Gas, 50 miles off the coast of Louisiana and 115 feet below the ocean's surface. It's south of Rockefeller State Wildlife Refuge and Game Preserve...

    The 1979-80 Ixtoc Gulf Of Mexico blowout happened 160 feet below the ocean's surface -- it gushed 140 million gallons of oil during the 10 months it took to cap the well.

    As of this time, the BP Gulf blowout has spilled 108.5 million gallons (spill rate of 50,000 barrels a day). It is already the fourth largest spill in the world.

    BP said they (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 11:47:53 AM EST
    weren't prepared, this was a low-probability, high cost projection.

    Regulation-- for those who say no regulation, this could have been lessened or avoided.


    Elections Have Consequences (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Dan the Man on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 11:53:56 AM EST

    Well Politics As Usual (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 12:20:34 PM EST
    It is somewhat misleading to say Obama lifted the shallow water ban as it was a 30 day ban that has expired.

    More honest to say that Obama did not renew the ban. But if you are trying, like Karl Rove and his GOP minions, to do the most political damage to Obama your headline is right on.


    at the end of the day (5.00 / 9) (#13)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 12:27:05 PM EST
    aren't the results the same? lifting, not renewing, it's just a matter of semantics. I'd say unimportant semantics. just my opinion.

    Depends What Results You Are After (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 01:08:16 PM EST
    FoxholeAtheist and several other commenters here have about the same feeling about Obama as Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, ppj, and the rest of the folks from wingnuttia: they want him out of office ASAP.

    Politics as usual is taking this disaster and making it all about Obama. Anything good that happens, no mention, anything bad happens ALL CAPS.

    Did FoxholeAtheist mention that Obama put a 30 day shallow drilling moratorium that would be lifted after reviewing the safety rules, permiting etc. NO. Why not?

    So the 30 days are up, so instead of writing about what took place, FoxholeAtheist writes that Obama lifted the ban.

    On its face in the disaster mode panic, that comment is meant to make Obama look rash, unwise and recklessly in the pocket of big oil.

    Anyway I am surprised that this has to be spelled out. But either some are politically insensitive or those arguing that FoxholeAtheist's language is semantics, are playing politics as usual.


    Once again, a thanks to you, squeaky (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by christinep on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 01:25:50 PM EST
    When I read some of the comments here--as typified lately by FoxholeAtheist--an involuntary sigh or shrug from me is beginning to be normal. How many times, after all, can you take seriously an imitation of Limbaugh and other one-noters? You, squeaky, are to be credited with having the staying power and determination to respond. Without that, people who seek ways to improve the situation or to move forward will cede the "argument" as well as the space.

    Wouldn't it be uplifting to have a genuine discussion, a bit beyond the talking points of the right and the right's imitators. Something beyond "the world is going to hell in a handbasket" and "we're headed off a cliff" and looking at the abyss, etc. For these guys to whom you refer, squeaky, I keep tuning in for something different than the Republican "no" chorus. It would be significant, for instance, to see a statement from said commenters about what actual, named individuals they would like to see meet America's challenges. Some names, some specific steps by their preferred leaders....? (We can dream.)


    That's a spectacularly counterproductive (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 01:46:44 PM EST
    way to start the "uplifting...genuine discussion" you say you long for Christinep.

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by CST on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:10:30 PM EST
    that was hardly the "start" of the discussion for Christinep who has been commenting at length on the subject.  I think it's more of an exasperated "I give up" - of the venting nature.  Something we are all prone to at times.

    CST, to the best of my knowledge, (none / 0) (#130)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 03:45:03 PM EST
    Christinep has been "commenting at length on the subject" of the spill since around May 01/10, as have I.

    On some subjects, other than the spill, I have found myself in full agreement with his/her comments -- which, in my experience, have typically been framed in a generally diplomatic manner.

    A few weeks ago, Christinep characterized himself/herself as:

    a longtime EPAer

    I'm not sure what that means exactly, but I imagine it has some bearing on Christinep's attitude toward the subject of the spill.


    sure - that's my point (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by CST on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:03:26 PM EST
    I think?

    Personally, I think working for the EPA gives a unique perspective on what's going on and is another valuable voice on the subject.  Of course it comes from the frame of personal experience, as do all opinions.  But I'm not really sure what the point of pointing that out was...


    How would you summarize the point of (none / 0) (#169)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:39:00 PM EST
    comments #148 and #156, CST?

    I didn't realize (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by CST on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:46:19 PM EST
    I was the interpreter of all things regarding that commenter cuz I made a statement about it.

    I think those comments speak for themselves.


    You are correct (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by christinep on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:13:37 PM EST
    in your surmise, FoxholeAtheist, that my attitude toward environmental issues is influenced by my EPA years. On a number of levels...beginning with the fact that my first case for the Agency involved an oil spillin the 1970s. I do understand the frustration; and, as noted much earlier, I feel it myself. But, I would underscore that the Coast Guard procedures are long-established respecting environmental clean-up. The intensity of one's belief about all the wrongs that may well have occurred can and has focused enforcement and clean-up federal personnel; yet, it does take time to build a court case or cases.

    To me, the bottom line in these types of situations: When people shout with anger and frustration, try to hone in on the specifics of the questions...not the arguments to make a point (because everyone is making his/her own point in any event.) Turning from argument: What are the questions? What are the expectations? and What is the basis for both?


    And, may I add one other thing (none / 0) (#156)
    by christinep on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:21:05 PM EST
    If we focus in futuro about ways to improve: I believe Secretary Salazar is pursuing the appropriate reorganization of MMS (initiated and underway prior to the spill.) The significance of something as seemingly bureaucratic as reorganization cannot be overstated. Here: Separating permitting & royalties from inspection and enforcement is central. (It was the same issue EPA faced during the early years of the Clinton Administration...and resolved, for the most part, in the same fashion generally. The Reagan-initiated commingling of the functions had previously had a negative impact on inspections and enforcement.) As we now see in Interior, this commingling of functions institutionally presaged Deepwater Horizon.

    And, your response was as expected (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by christinep on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 03:49:50 PM EST
    Seriously, it is not unfair to ask for your preferred leader(s). Who are they? If we can talk different philosophies--with the specifics and actualities of attached names--then we could move away from mutual spinning. It has to be something other than the old Latin refrain from Cicero...lets come up with something other than "O tempora, o mores!

    Seriously. (4.00 / 4) (#54)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:08:19 PM EST
    As if it were even possible to have a discussion of any kind with the-one-who-squeaks, much less an "uplifting" or "genuine" one.



    The "I'll never get over it" (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:05:45 PM EST
    avenging angels people who set up camp here a while back, are half right when they talk about what Obama's doing or not doing, but they're dead wrong in their staunch refusal to go into any depth regarding the corrupt, systemic source of the problem -- due to their zeal to jump on Obama with both feet over and over again..

    As if there would've been no deep water drilling with minimal oversight, no oil dependence, no revolving doors, no Summers, Geithner & Co in DC, no unwinnable wars,if only someone else had been elected President. This is pure, stupid, dangerous delusion.



    I think there are plenty of people (5.00 / 6) (#66)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:19:43 PM EST
    here who have been consistent in their condemnation of the corporate cronyism and control of government, regardless of which party was/is in charge, and regardless of who was/is president.

    And that consistency stems from knowing that, regardless of who is in charge, we have been and will continue to be the ones who suffer.

    I find it all horrifying, and am not inclined to shrug it off as "well, they all do it - that's just the way it is;" that feels to me like giving up, like giving them permission to keep doing it.

    I don't care who's doing it, I care about making it stop.  I think the only way that's going to happen is to cut the financial cord and go to 100% publicly funded elections.  I'd like to see the entire Congress have to run on that basis, at the same time, and see if we can't get a crop of legislators who might - might - start actually attending to the people's business, instead of attending to the business of making sure their pockets are full and all is well in corporate America.


    I also agree (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by christinep on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 03:56:29 PM EST
    with the general longing, Anne. (Except that I tend to reserve the word "horrifying" for tragic events such as the one in my husband's family earlier today where we received word that his step-brother abused his body with drink until he died yesterday at 55. That is not said for sympathy...only to illustrate that "horrifying" may well apply in that death.)

    My question is and will remain for the coming days: What specifics by what specific leaders should be envisioned? The reason a request for specific names (as a suggestion) is in order is to put the whole intellectual dialectic in context. Is that fair?


    Death of 11 BP workers is "horrifying" (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:23:56 PM EST
    Why did you not think Anne had that in mind when she said:
    I find it all horrifying...

    I am saddened that you didn't think of the deaths of the BP workers Christinep.

    That being said, RIP to your husband's step-brother who just died of alcoholism at the age of 55. That is, as you say, "a horrifying tragic event".


    Of course, I think of the deaths at BP Deepwater (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by christinep on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:52:47 PM EST
    I don't pretend to be purer than Caesar's wife; and, I am sure that you do not either, FoxholeAtheist. My comment was made in the general context of certain adjectives used for political situations. (At least, that is the way in which I read it.) Again: The deaths of the eleven individuals in the Gulf deserves the word "tragic" and all the special sanctified words that should be reserved for wrongful deaths.

    I also hope that we don't read each other to point out unintended errors in context and grammar.


    Thank you, I'm glad we agree :-) (none / 0) (#199)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 05:14:56 PM EST
    BTW, your "context and grammar" don't tend to need correcting, so no worries there.

    I'm all for publicly funded elections (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:08:39 PM EST
    The corporate influence and corruption is not going to end without getting the money out of that part of the equation.

    I couldnt agree more, Madame (none / 0) (#69)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:25:01 PM EST
    me either (none / 0) (#71)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:28:33 PM EST
    but I am hardly convinced

    jondee you & i are both (none / 0) (#164)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:34:38 PM EST
    called out as obots here, which is where you actually will find a strong contingent of "never get over it" posters & commenters

    don't know about you but i voted for HRC & have yet to cast a vote for Obama (don't rule it out for 2012)

    but because i can acknowledge O's tactical brilliance in moving from state senator to president in 11 years, that makes me an obot & puts me in the same camp as you

    larger point imo is that many here & elsewhere may not like it but a "never get over it" crowd does exist & is symptomatic of a split in the Dem party - many of these people feel about the 2008 primaries the way most Dems felt about Florida 2000

    does no good imo to kill the messengers or tell them HRC has moved on and so should they - if they have not, that tends to show that their gripe is w/Dem party & is not "all about HRC" or being "cultists" as some claim

    peace my obot brother ;)


    If you really want to see (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Zorba on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 05:02:30 PM EST
    a "never get over it" crowd, check out hillaryis44.org.  They have seriously not gotten over it, and probably never will.

    The funny thing is (4.00 / 3) (#197)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 05:12:52 PM EST
    The only people who bring up "can't get over it", "Hillary", "cultists", etc. are only a couple posters here. No one else brings them into the discussion, since, you know, it's not germane.  Then those couple individuals will answer any legitimate complaint about the administration with "Well, you think Hillary would do it better" nonsense and they try to divine thoughts and put words in people's mouth.

    It's amazing - THEY haven't gotten over the primaries yet where O did everything right and there was peace and love in the world.  They don't like that the perfect image has cracks in it and those cracks are growing larger every day.  Oh, they cover it up by saying, "I voted for Hillary".  Uh huh.

    So, let's agree to have a moratorium on her name, or reference to her, unless we are specifically speaking about her role as SoS, or Chelsea's wedding.  

    But I doubt the couple around here could do that - they would have nothing to comment on if they agreed to do it.


    Oh, I see. You aren't talking about here, (none / 0) (#186)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 05:00:51 PM EST
    Addams Family, you're talking about there; where you were quoted within the context of a piece that critiqued Obama's political finesse.

    I don't know why anybody uses the term Obot, and I certainly don't find it applicable to you :-).


    yeah there (none / 0) (#190)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 05:02:44 PM EST

    wish the links showed up red or something


    The "I'll never get over it" (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:06:22 PM EST
    avenging angels people who set up camp here a while back, are half right when they talk about what Obama's doing or not doing, but they're dead wrong in their staunch refusal to go into any depth regarding the corrupt, systemic source of the problem -- due to their zeal to jump on Obama with both feet over and over again..

    As if there would've been no deep water drilling with minimal oversight, no oil dependence, no revolving doors, no Summers, Geithner & Co in DC, no unwinnable wars,if only someone else had been elected President. This is pure, stupid, dangerous delusion.



    The slithery slope in 'Leave Obama alllonnnne' (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by Ellie on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 03:58:05 PM EST
    ... that he actually IS the prez of all, therefore his statements and actions are fair game for criticism. That's regardless of whether the commentary draws in Palin, K-street, Village Idiocy re: CDS or the Clenis, etc.

    Pulling out the Obama vs. the Hypothetical Non-Existent Fairytale President is argumentative fallacy (not even up to the level of whacking at the convenient straw (wo)man).

    Same goes for Obama vs. "The White House" or "Dem Leadership" or other such BS -- as if Teh One is blissfully unaware of what's going on. What actually IS tiresome is the practice of Teh One saying the opposite of what Team Teh One puts out there via his AnonyMice.

    Same goes for Obama vs. Waaaah, they were Nicer to Bush mode.

    At some point, Obama has to take meaningful responsibility for his own actions and statements AND those of his administration.

    Maher New Rules said it best: He's not your boyfriend, he's the President.


    Ellie (none / 0) (#152)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:15:25 PM EST
    Do you really believe ANYONE here actually believed that "The One" crap?

    And Im talking about the people who post here now; not the loony, half-wits who popped in and out of here during the primaries.


    I second that jondee (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by christinep on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:40:19 PM EST
    There are those of us who were very committed to another during the primary season in 2008. I, for one, contributed the max and worked in the organization for Hillary Clinton; the loss hurt, a lot; and, then, it was the general election. I have always been loyal to Democratic party principles...all my life. And, with that in mind, it is my conclusion (and has been for some time) that President Obama is doing a very good job at moving forward on a number of fronts even with the recognized mess that he inherited.

    Yes, I fully realize that the President could have chosen this or that way on each issue we have before us. I think that the evidence shows that he has moved the markers forward--for the most part--on the majority of those issues. (And, btw, Secretary Clinton is doing a fantastic job and more. Everyone--everyone--knows and acknowledges that evolution.)

    Now...we have the coming mid-terms. They are real. I pray that we don't do what my dad always warned me about...i.e., "Don't cut off your nose to spite your face." As I learned as a federal employee, while seeing the changes up close and personal beginning with Reagan, purgatory can be a long, long time. As a more doctrinaire liberal in 1980, I was willing to throw out the Carter regime (oh yes, I voted for him...but didn't care) because he wasn't "pure" enough. Yep, thats on my shoulders, not yours. I was wrong.


    Well I wouldn't have believed it before ... (3.50 / 2) (#208)
    by Ellie on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 05:30:14 PM EST
    ... but some of the brain-twisting logic at work now defending Obama always, evah, compels me to drop that prior skepticism.

    (My longer response, which was a doozy BTW, got eaten up in the ether, but trust me, it packed a lot more behind it than what Teh One trots out during his latest Trust Me Just Because explanations.)

    Shorter: he ran and won on getting the benefit of the doubt even from his naysayers owing to gossamer like his "talent", "integrity", "transparency", "brilliance", and of course, eleventy-dimension chess.

    He didn't deserve then and HUGELY doesn't now.


    I just want to know (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 01:43:12 PM EST
    who the political leaders are who aren't corporate-Wall St stooges.

    Lets have some names.


    Ahh, yes ... the old ... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:06:41 PM EST
    "Stop criticizing Obama because they're all corporate/Wall St. stooges who would be just as bad!" argument.

    The True Prog's mantra ...


    Is "True Prog" (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:14:05 PM EST
    your mantra? Has a rather harsh ring..Try Ommm next time.

    If you've got some names of some Presidential contenders have haven't imbibed deeply from the Wall St trough, lets hear them.


    Make it JUST about Obama (none / 0) (#63)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:16:03 PM EST
    Im starting to think you must work for a lobbying firm.

    Change the players, just leave K Street alone..


    That's the problem ... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:23:15 PM EST
    ... with an overactive imagination.

    OTOH - It helps you guys come up with the silliest (but funny) "theories".


    Well (none / 0) (#75)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:30:55 PM EST
    it's not THAT far-fetched: it's not like there aren't a lot of people who work for those firms, who would prefer all criticism be directed ONLY at individual pols and not at the incestuous revolving door system.

    also (none / 0) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:35:34 PM EST
    it fine when they are accusing others of this but its silly when its directed at them

    A Two-fer! (none / 0) (#88)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:44:54 PM EST
    A conspiracy theory built on top of a fantasy!


    BTW - "not THAT far-fetched"?

    Don't set that bar too high ....


    Okay (none / 0) (#98)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:52:15 PM EST
    so you're just perfectly willing to help 'em out for free..No conspiracy needed!

    Help them out??? (none / 0) (#110)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 03:09:56 PM EST
    Nice!  Sort of a variation on Squeaky's "Anyone who criticizes Obama is helping Rove/Rush Limbaugh/Right-wingers...!"

    Anyone who criticizes an individual politician is deflecting criticism of the corrupt system"?  Heeeeeeeeyyyyy, .... wait a second!

    This, ... from a guy who tries to deflect any criticism of Obama by attacking anyone named Clinton?

    Seriously good stuff.


    To be fair (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 03:18:47 PM EST
    I think I've acknowledged more than a few times that I think Obama is a deeply compromised, Wall St beholden center-right pol.

    You on the other hand, seem to be STILL so in terminal primary mode, that anyone who isn't still soiling themselves about Donnie McClurkin is "deflecting" and being mean, mean, mean to the saintly Clintons..


    No kidding (none / 0) (#128)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 03:34:09 PM EST
    Yes, you've mildly criticized Obama for being to centrist, while trying to deflect any criticism of him with much stronger attacks on other Democrats who have been out of office for a decade or so.  Kinda like the way Hannity would establish his objective bona fides by mildly criticizing Bush (for not being conservative enough, of all things), while defending him from legitimate criticism.  

    BTW - Anytime one of you guys bothers to explicitly qualify a response with what you think "seems to be" saying, ...

    ... I know it's gonna be a doozy.


    The primaries are over (none / 0) (#131)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 03:46:04 PM EST
    And this time Hillary wont be floating down in her pink bubble, calling all the munchkins out of their hiding places, making everything alright and then tucking you into bed. I know it hurts and Im sorry for that..



    cant fool me (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 03:50:45 PM EST
    you're not sorry at all

    Ouch (none / 0) (#133)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 03:47:56 PM EST
    Guess I hit a nerve ...

    You-know-who wannabe (1.00 / 1) (#166)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:36:26 PM EST
    You can still (none / 0) (#176)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:48:24 PM EST
    pray "Hail Hillary, full of grace", no one's stopping you from doing that..

    I got rid of a carbuncle that way.


    listen (none / 0) (#112)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 03:13:07 PM EST
    that sound is the other shoe dropping

    Strange (none / 0) (#114)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 03:17:12 PM EST
    I thought your shoes didn't make any sound.

    Ommmmm .... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:29:48 PM EST



    The whole thing (none / 0) (#106)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 03:04:10 PM EST
    actually goes: "Ommm..I dream of Jeannie with the light brown hair.."

    What did take place, squeaky? (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:03:40 PM EST
    What were the results of that 30-day review?  Do you know?

    It's interesting, isn't it, that this is the same agency that gave as its "reason" for essentially rubber-stamping permits and exempting exploration plans from review, that it was impossible to do in the 30 days the law allowed (which, we are now finding out, isn't quite what the law says) - and rather than ask the obvious question of "where's the report?" you want to concentrate on the difference between lifting and expiring?

    Yes, that's the thing that matters, squeaky - was it lifted or did it expire - and not what kind of review was able to be done on the entire shallow water drilling universe in the same 30-days that isn't enough time for them to review one exploration plan.

    Jesus Christ on a crutch.

    And please, tell us what good has happened.  What should we all be giving Obama credit for?  I notice you didn't provide any details, so please, share.

    As for your reference to wingnuttia, I would say that your latest strategy of comparing people to Limbaugh and Rove, et. al., is a move that is right out of the right wing playbook, and is exponentially more politically incendiary than any criticism that has been offered on how Obama and his administration are handling this mess.


    Strongly agree w/your first 3 paragraphs. (none / 0) (#167)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:38:43 PM EST
    I would disagree (none / 0) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:24:47 PM EST
    no different than saying not renewing Bushs tax cuts for the rich is raising taxes.

    Of course that is raising taxes... (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by dk on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 03:29:20 PM EST
    on the rich.  If one year a rich person is paying X on Y amount of income, and the next year the rich person is paying greater than X on Y amount of income, then that rich person's taxes were raised.

    I never understood that comeback from the Democrats when Republicans accused them of raising taxes.  Instead of saying, "no we aren't, we're just not renewing cuts," they really should say, "you're darn right we are, but only on people making obscene amounts of money!"  

    IMO, that really has been one of the prime examples of how the Democrats have gone off the rails over the past 10 years (starting with the Gore campaign and continuing ever since).  Democrats are now embarrassed to increase taxes on the rich.  Populists vote - you'd think Democrats might want to try to win some of those votes.


    wrong (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:47:02 PM EST
    strictly speaking not extending the tax cuts is not raising taxes.

    it just isnt.  you can argue it is "allowing them to rise" with a tiny bit of logic but it is not raising them.


    Oh come on. The difference between (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by tigercourse on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 12:37:19 PM EST
    the two is no real difference at all.

    yes Rove & GOP (none / 0) (#17)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 12:43:17 PM EST
    are trying to damage Obama

    take it up w/them?


    personally Im getting a little (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:27:42 PM EST
    tired of the piling on.  like blasting him for going to the McCartney concert.

    to all who have a problem with that, get over it.  


    somehow my eyes (none / 0) (#77)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:37:46 PM EST
    saw "I'm blasting him for going to the McCartney Concert."

    I went throughly confused for a moment.


    he has been roundly (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:38:46 PM EST
    blasted for that.  which is completely lame and stupid afaiac.

    What's with the "going to the (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by brodie on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:13:41 PM EST
    McCartney concert"?   Did Mac have a concert on the Mall or at the Kennedy Center?

    No.  Actually the Obama WH hosted him as recipient of the Gershwin Prize for Popular Music.  Normally the president is there as host, as Obama was last night, and apparently the honoree is invited to offer a few ditties and a few words, as Mac did.  Not exactly a "McCartney concert" however.  

    BFD.  Took all of about two hours out of O's evening time, which would have gone towards teevee or an in-house movie screening anyway.

    Some folks need to take a deep breath.  Nothing is going to be accomplished by insisting that O put on a serious tone 24/7 until the oil spill is solved.  Jimmy Carter tried the constant grim approach over the hostage crisis and the Soviets invasion of Afghanistan, and it just looked weak and stupid.


    well exactly (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:59:10 PM EST
    but you should have heard them on morning hoe this morning talking about how awful just awful it was to see him bobbing to the music.

    the entire idiotic thing is summed up nicely by the unfailingly vacuous Donnie Deutch


    I have no problem with him ... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:39:07 PM EST
    ... going to the McCartney concert, apart from the fact that it was (politically) a dumb move.

    OTOH - Would you give the same advice to people who were outraged by his McClurkin concert/campaign tour?  Should they "just get over it?"


    Im sure you (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:50:16 PM EST
    would've been all over people like McClurkin if the AA vote had gone to Hillary. I mean, just all over it..

    How does "just get over it, a little" work for you?


    I would have, ... (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 03:00:30 PM EST
    ... been all over any candidate who took a homophobic bigot on a campaign tour and then tried to justify it because, after all, "a great many African Americans share Pastor McClurkin's beliefs".

    Of course, ...

    ... some people are okay with that, or they just try to deflect any criticism of Obama by claiming all politicians are just as bad.

    Transparent, ...

    ... but funny.


    I have no doubt of that.. (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 03:29:44 PM EST
    Btw, What's the latest on the Jeremiah Wright Watch front: come up with anything good lately?

    Of course ... (none / 0) (#132)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 03:46:12 PM EST
    ... you "have no doubt".  That's how you True Progs roll.

    Plus, the supernatural ability to read the thoughts, minds, hearts and motives of others must be awfully handy at times.

    BTW - "Jeremiah Wright Watch"???  I've never even mentioned him.  Wait a second, ....... are you working your way up to some kind of opaque racism accusation?  Bound to happen eventually, ...

    ... when you've got nothing else ...


    "True Progs" (none / 0) (#144)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:06:45 PM EST
    didn't you get that from an old Star Trek episode?

    Episode 47: the one in which Kirk almost gets killed by that super strong, hot, alien babe in the slinky, fleece-lined space suit number?


    AP said Obama LIFTED shallow water drilling ban (none / 0) (#107)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 03:09:14 PM EST
    First sentence from the AP story:
    President Barack Obama lifted the ban on drilling in shallow water.

    However, in the third paragraph, AP says:

    the president quietly allowed a three-week-old ban on drilling in shallow water to expire.

    Question: did the 30 day ban only last three weeks? If so, the ban was lifted; if not it expired. Take your pick.

    Either way the ban is gone and drilling has resumed in shallow water up to 500 feet.


    has the AP (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 03:11:18 PM EST
    not proven again and again they are an arm of the republican party second only to FOX?

    The AP, obviously, likes to have it both ways. (none / 0) (#207)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 05:25:35 PM EST
    As evidenced by this earlier AP story; about the "lifting" and/or "expiring" of the ban on shallow water drilling.

    As also evidenced by this more recent AP story; which makes a hash of explaining whether the ban on shallow water drilling has been reimposed.

    KeysDan did a great job of untangling the more recent AP story in comment #91.


    Ban back on (none / 0) (#126)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 03:32:58 PM EST
    ha!  The ban is back on (for the Gulf anyways)

    Have you read Glenn Greenwald today? (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 01:38:40 PM EST
    He has quite a good post up about Ken Salazar, corporatism and the BP oil spill.

    From the post:

    The excuse which the court condemned [in Alaska Wilderness League, et al. v. Kempthorne], as "misleading" is exactly the one Obama and his aides have been repeatedly making for why they issued exemptions to BP:  namely that, as the President put it, "under current law, the Interior Department has only 30 days to review an exploration plan submitted by an oil company. That leaves no time for the appropriate environmental review."  As a result, the court found that MMS's approval of Shell's drilling plan (including the exemptions it issued) violated NEPA, and thus invalidated the approval and ordered MMS to re-review the proposal in compliance with the law.  That decision was issued in November, 2008 -- before the Obama administration even began -- so the notion that Obama Interior officials believed they only had 30 days to conduct a review, and that it therefore was forced to issue exemptions to BP, lacks credibility, to put that mildly.

    Had MMS complied with the law and conducted an EIS of the BP project, would that have prevented the spill?  It's impossible to say, but quite possibly not.  But the broader point illustrated by this is the important one:   the extent to which the Executive Branch continues to be beholden to, controlled by, the industries it ostensibly regulates.


    Salazar turned out to be exactly what it was obvious he would be when Obama chose him.  As Mother Jones' Kate Sheppard reported this week, Salazar hired Sylvia B. Vaca for the position of  deputy administrator for land and minerals management.  Who is Vaca?  She's a former BP Executive who is the classic case of the revolving-door sleaze that runs the Federal Government on behalf of the industries it purportedly regulates.  She was an Interior Department official during the Clinton administration, and then -- when the GOP took over -- she went to BP where she "held several senior management positions with the company," then went back to the Interior Department under Salazar.  Though she did not work on BP matters, she is, as Sheppard put it, "an excellent example of the revolving door between government and industry that MMS has been accused of facilitating" (h/t Susie Madrak).

    At his Press Conference, Obama blamed the Bush administration for what he called the "cozy relationship" between MMS and the oil industry, but was then asked by CBS' Chip Reid:  "you knew as soon as you came in, and Secretary Salazar did, about this cozy relationship. But you continued to give permits -- some of them under questionable circumstances.  Is it fair to blame the Bush administration? Don't you deserve some of that?"  In reply, Obama acknowledged:  

    Well -- well, let -- let me just make the point that I made earlier, which is, Salazar came in and started cleaning house, but the culture had not fully changed in MMS. And absolutely, I take responsibility for that. There -- there wasn't sufficient urgency in terms of the pace of how those changes needed to take place.

    Was hiring a BP executive one of the ways that Salazar was trying to end the "cozy relationship" between Interior and the oil industry?  Was automatically issuing exemptions from NEPA's Environmental Impact Study requirement a way of doing so?  Of course "there wasn't sufficient urgency" in cleaning up MMS.  What happened here was obvious:  Obama chose one of the most industry-pleasing, industry-subservient Democrats to head the Interior Department despite what everyone knew was the pervasive corruption at that Department and its serving as an industry rubber stamp for years.  And Obama got exactly what was obvious he would get by making that choice.

    And this, also from update to the post, should make people's blood boil:

    UPDATE:  In a New York Times article detailing internal BP documents regarding safety concerns for the Deepwater Horizon project, this passage appears:

    One of the final indications of such problems was an April 15 request for a permit to revise [BP's] plan to deal with a blockage, according to federal documents obtained from Congress by the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental advocacy group.

    In the documents, company officials apologized to federal regulators for not having mentioned the type of casing they were using earlier, adding that they had "inadvertently" failed to include it.  In the permit request, they did not disclose BP's own internal concerns about the design of the casing.

    Less than 10 minutes after the request was submitted, federal regulators approved the permit.

    Now that's some fast rubber-stamping.

    As for the shallow water drilling, David Dayen at the FDL News Desk say this:

    It's the same Minerals Management Service doing the same lax regulatory oversight job, whether the wells get drilled in deep water or shallow water. The same environmental impact studies are likely to be waived. The same laissez-faire attitude on safety equipment is likely to predominate. Indeed, the MMS may get broken into parts shortly, which would at least alter if not stall the regulatory oversight of particularly new wells. The simplest recommendation that I've seen made - force oil companies to drill a relief well at the same time as the main well, in case of a blowout - would not get incorporated into this shallow-water project, in all likelihood. Yet their blowout preventer could just as easily malfunction, and the operations to cap it could face the same fate as the Ixtoc I disaster in the Gulf in 1979, which was only 150 feet deep.

    So let's be as precise as the President: we're currently under a moratorium for offshore drilling, unless the well would dip less than 500 feet into the water, in which case, go for it.

    Same old, same old, eh?  


    Brother Greenwald finally came through, nice. (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:13:18 PM EST
    He's a good friend of Jane Hamsher, at FDL. I wonder what took him so long to get on the same page. (Hope you duck the "Limbaugh! Rove!" missives flying around here today.)

    AP (none / 0) (#61)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:15:12 PM EST
    and the major news papers around the country are also calling it both a "lift" of the ban and a moratorium.  I guess they are all like Rove and Limbaugh too....

    Too late - I started getting that (none / 0) (#74)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:29:52 PM EST
    yesterday...I think "Palin" was even lobbed at me; I'm sure there is more to come.

    Am still waiting for a genuine and uplifting - and substantive - comment detailing all the "good" Obama and his administration are doing, or have done, in response to this disaster.

    I expect to be waiting for a long time.


    what would you like him to do (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:37:58 PM EST
    I think he loaned the mini sub to Biden for his commute.

    I'd like to see (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:44:56 PM EST
    a Manhattan Project approach to this disaster, and to energy itself.

    I don't know that it would make it in the news, though. the Manhattan Project itself was extremely classified.


    I am pretty sure they are (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:47:30 PM EST
    doing everything about this that is possible and getting anyone involved who has an idea with any possibility of working.

    does anyone think they dont know how urgent, or speaking strictly politically, what the fallout could be?  no.  I dont think so.

    the  fact is no one has a clue how to fix this.



    it would be nice (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by CST on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:52:01 PM EST
    to see a manhatten project approach to clean energy.

    We need something new, and we need something fast.


    actually (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:53:28 PM EST
    I think we may see just that.  if there is any upside to this horrible tragedy I think it will be that.

    Yup - let's use shock doctrine to our advantage (none / 0) (#120)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 03:24:08 PM EST
    for once.

    Well we might need (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by brodie on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:06:27 PM EST
    to put our 100 top engineers and scientists on the payroll on an emergency basis in a closed room, with coffee and pizza deliveries around the clock, to solve this oil spill, that's sorta Manhattan-like.

    But otherwise I prefer the Apollo Project analogy for finding a breakthrough on clean energy solutions.  It was for a peaceful purpose and compared to Manhattan, it was not supersecret, so in theory anyway all sorts of smart folks who had a good idea out there in the hinterlands were always free to offer their advice.  Apollo was largely civilian-geek driven, and not military-brass decided, as Manhattan was with dictator Gen Lesley Groves.  

    Apollo had a firm deadline, but not quite the Right Now! deadline that Manhattan in wartime had.  Ten years might be a tad too long for my tastes however, since I suspect we don't have another decade to massively pollute the atmosphere with CO2.  Five yrs perhaps is more realistic given the gravity of the problem.


    Doesn't matter (none / 0) (#85)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:42:31 PM EST
    The Feds have now halted new shallow water drilling.

    WASHINGTON - The Obama administration is blocking all new offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, a day after regulators approved a new permit for drilling in shallow water.

    An e-mail Thursday from the Gulf Coast office of the Minerals Management Service says that "until further notice" no new drilling is being allowed in the Gulf, no matter the water depth. A copy of the e-mail was obtained by The Associated Press.

    The announcement comes a day after the minerals agency, which oversees offshore drilling, granted a new drilling permit for a site about 50 miles off the Louisiana coast, 115 feet below the ocean surface. Environmental groups accused the administration of misleading the public by allowing work to resume in waters up to 500 feet deep while maintaining a moratorium on deepwater drilling.

    Kendra Barkoff, a spokeswoman for Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, denied that the administration was placing a hold on shallow-water drilling.

    "There is a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling," Barkoff said in an e-mail Thursday. "Shallow-water drilling may continue as long as oil and gas operations satisfy the environmental and safety requirements Secretary Salazar outlined in his report to the president and have exploration plans that meet those requirements. There is no moratorium on shallow water drilling."

    or here


    I wonder (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:45:07 PM EST
    would that qualify as
    "the "good" Obama and his administration are doing, or have done, in response to this disaster."

    probably not.

    Personally (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:48:05 PM EST
    It's good, but more along the lines of "what the hell took so long?"

    The inclusion or exclusion (5.00 / 7) (#122)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 03:26:54 PM EST
    of shallow water drilling in the moratorium extension is confusing, what with one MMS branch seemingly at odds with another.  Since April 22, when I began commenting on this developing catastrophe, I have been somewhat surprised and disappointed, in some cases, by almost unquestioned trust of BP, and then, hostility to suggestions that the Obama administration needed to do more. As veteran circus performers are said to coach beginners on the flying trapeze, throw your heart over the bars, and your body with follow.  So too, putting lots of heart and good governance into this disaster will find successful politics to follow. Indeed, it seems to me that some Democrats are killing the president with kindness in this matter. The probability that Republicans were not likely to criticize BP or the oil industry may have given the president some false comfort along with thinking that Democrats either would back him up or their criticism did not need to be heeded. The problem with this thinking, is that it is not a political issue, it is a national disaster that requires demonstrable leadership that cannot be left to a foreign-based, multi-national corporation to resolve.

    thanks, keysdan (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 03:34:02 PM EST
    it is a national disaster. It's consequenses  aaren't political, they are real.

    in an ideal world (none / 0) (#145)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:07:35 PM EST
    you might be right but the fact is a "foreign-based, multi-national corporation" has to resolve the problem. has to.

    who else could or should?  they caused the problem.  they are the only ones who have the tools and skill to do it.  they should be made to correct the problem and pay restitutions for any financial fallout.  and they will.

    the government has no knowledge or tools to fix this.
    perhaps they should.  but they dont.


    honestly (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by CST on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:17:25 PM EST
    this is why my first response to this is "we're f*cked"

    BP has to - but they have NO incentive to do it the correct, thorough, and expensive way.  None.  I mean one could make a case for better PR, but the PR damage was already done, and they are gonna watch out for hide #1 - which means spend less money and cover-up damages.

    On the flip side, the government can't.  They don't have the knowledge or expertise to deal with this.  They have no freaking clue what the "right" response is, nevermind how to pull it off.


    exactly (none / 0) (#155)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:20:26 PM EST
    and talking about putting BP in receivership has gotten the attention of some I would bet.

    The government (none / 0) (#150)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:14:33 PM EST
    Absolutely DOES have the tools and the resources to get whatever experts to help fix this problem.  They also have the resources and the responsibility to properly enforce the regulations in place and add more if necessary.

    And then we see today that Halliburton campaign donations spike for the first time since September 2009. Who did those donations go to, you ask?

    The Texas-based oil giant's political action committee made 14 contributions during the month of May, according to a federal campaign report filed Wednesday -- 13 to Republicans and one to a Democrat. It was the busiest donation month for Halliburton's PAC since September 2008.

    Of the 10 current members of Congress who got money from Halliburton in May, seven are on committees with oversight of the oil spill and its aftermath.

    So pardon me for my skepticism that anything is going to change.  And that's the topic of the post - Politics as Usual.



    so (none / 0) (#154)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:19:05 PM EST
    what experts and resources would that be other than BP?  who do you imagine would be better suited?

    and finally do you honestly think they are not doing everything possible to fix this?  really?


    get (none / 0) (#157)
    by CST on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:21:20 PM EST
    "whatever experts"

    what you don't realize is that the "experts" are the ones working for oil companies.  How else do you become an "expert" at something like this?

    Not to mention, for a disaster like this, that's relatively unprecedented in terms of depth level and scope, you can probably ask 20 different "experts" and get at least 10 different responses.

    My first impression of the response to the spill was they were throwing random cr@p at a wall and hoping something stuck.  Which is pretty much what you get when in the above scenario.


    I realize it perfectly (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:38:48 PM EST
    That's the point - the government can get people from all kinds of oil companies and universities together to figure this out.  They have that kind of power. They can organize and facilitate this instead of just saying, "It's BP's fault - they need to figure it out."

    How come you don't realize that?


    actually (none / 0) (#183)
    by CST on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:57:31 PM EST
    they are doing just that.  They had a meeting on Tuesday.  Which I grant you is seriously late to the game.  Although you can't just round these people up.

    And yes, one of those people is James Cameron, apparently...


    Cameron (none / 0) (#187)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 05:02:20 PM EST
    Is one of the foremost experts on deep sea submersible equipment.

    BP turned down his offer of help.

    Over the last few weeks I've watched, as we all have, with growing horror and heartache, watching what's happening in the Gulf and thinking those morons don't know what they're doing," Cameron said at the All Things Digital technology conference.

    Cameron, the director of "Avatar" and "Titanic," has worked extensively with robot submarines and is considered an expert in undersea filming. He did not say explicitly who he meant when he referred to "those morons."

    His comments came a day after he participated in a meeting at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency headquarters in Washington to "brainstorm" solutions to the oil spill.

    Cameron said he has offered to help the government and BP in dealing with the spill. He said he was "graciously" turned away by the British energy giant.

    He said he has not spoken with the White House about his offer, and said that the outside experts who took part in the EPA meeting were now "writing it all up and putting in reports to the various agencies."

    look (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 05:07:22 PM EST
    Cameron is a bloated narcissistic tyrant.  anyone who know anything about him knows this.  sure he has made some movies with deep sea equipment.  that doesnt mean he has the slightest clue what to do about this.

    personally, if I was in charge having worked with him, he is the last person on earth I would want bigfooting the operation.


    Okay, so the Gulf Coast Office (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 03:57:11 PM EST
    of MMS says "no new drilling of any kind" but the Interior Department contradicts this announcement - so which is it?

    Who's in charge?

    And therein lies the problem - or at least part of the problem: failure of leadership.  

    Is it being overly critical, or asking too much, to expect some kind of coordination of both effort and message?  

    Is it not possible, in the face of a devastating ecological, environmental and economic disaster, to focus effort on the disaster and let the chips fall where they may in terms of BP's image, or Obama's image, or the politics of it all?  

    All I want is for them to get their act together and do what's right.


    Well then, lets give them (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by christinep on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 05:02:36 PM EST
    to the end of the day "to get their act together."  Hmmm?

    It IS the end of the day (none / 0) (#193)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 05:07:35 PM EST
    Do they have it together yet?

    Perhaps, the "end of the day" (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by christinep on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 05:22:15 PM EST
    for some was before it all started. Talking and commenting eventually has a way of revealing all of our agendas...yours and mine included.

    its a just a clever plan (none / 0) (#140)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:01:30 PM EST
    to irritate you.



    Hey, they got one thing right! (none / 0) (#146)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:08:03 PM EST
    at least no one is talking about (none / 0) (#160)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:24:01 PM EST
    nuking it.  wait . . . . .

    A good move until (none / 0) (#95)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:48:59 PM EST
    the MMS itself functions as it should, imo.

    the fact is (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:52:30 PM EST
    many people want him to wander the halls of the white house at night weeping tearing his hair.

    nothing else with satisfy them.  

    I am starting to agree with the "unofficial" response to the McCartney criticism, "what the hell do you want from us?"


    It's the big leagues. (5.00 / 5) (#103)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 03:00:39 PM EST
    The buck stops there, y'know, and somebody's always gonna complain. I want to see more done now, this second. After all, it's my home. I lived through the Katrina debacle within the affected area, and I want something done, whether it's buying a giant vacuum cleaner or finding a miracle.

    Let's see some people put in jail. It won't help the cleanup, but by golly let's see some BP perp walks.


    We want the administration (4.57 / 7) (#104)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 03:02:12 PM EST
    to be competent.  Is that really too much to ask? The left hand doesn't seem to know what the right hand is doing, contradictory messages are coming out, and it looks like the Clampetts have come to town.

    Excellent post (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 03:04:04 PM EST

    personally (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 03:09:17 PM EST
    I think the problem is we were used to getting homogenized and highly processed news bites from Bush and his cronies that minimized every failure and exaggerated every success.  

    whether its this or killing terrorists I think Obama and his team have tried to be honest when possible and tried not to make every tiny success a mission accomplished.  which may be a mistake from a PR point of view with a public many of whom have gotten used to being lied to and even begun to like it.

    this is an insanely complicated problem.  no one on earth knows how to fix it.  why should Obama?

    he can only take advise from the experts.  and they are mostly the clueless "experts" who got us into this.


    Because (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 03:23:21 PM EST
    This isn't day 3 or 4 of the spill - we are 6 weeks + into this thing. If they don't have all the information, then they should just say so.  Don't say one thing, then another, then backtrack, then say what you originally said.  

    Also, quit blaming Bush - it's Obama's gig now - he wanted the fun stuff of being pres (partying with McCartney), so he gets the crappy part too.  

    Gibbs looks like an idiot every time he opens his mouth.  I don't know if he's that clueless, out of the loop, or as bad at his job as Scott McClellan was. He does arrogant and sleazy without the panache of Ari Fleischer.

    Additionally, the fact that the WH has had several other PR bombs going on during this same period hasn't helped matters. All the more reason like they don't look like they know what they're doing.

    And while Obama may not know what to do, this whole thing with drilling bans, then lifting them, then reinstating them - all amateur hour moves.  All that stuff should have been cut off immediately and not put back in place at least until this spill is stopped.

    Sheesh - we're supposed to have faith in these people that they can handle any other crisis we may face?  

    I think Obama and his team have tried to be honest when possible and tried not to make every tiny success a mission accomplished.

    I completely disagree - had they been trying to be honest, we wouldn't have had multiple, contradictory stories. I think they are covering many butts here, which is why they've been having so many problems.


    think this (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:03:34 PM EST
    had they been trying to be honest, we wouldn't have had multiple, contradictory stories.

    is wrong.  I think that is exactly what you would expect when you tell people to tell the truth and you have a dozen different GOs involved.


    To the contrary (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by christinep on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 05:20:02 PM EST
    in the defining days and months, the raw information is not melded into a "perfect" story (or perfect talking point.) I would think that any judge of human nature would recognize that it is the "too perfect" "too seamless" story that should raise questions.

    Maybe (2.00 / 1) (#206)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 05:23:56 PM EST
    a greater sense of urgency would go a long way?  Instead of just this week pretending to look concerned?

    Capt, I think it's (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 03:30:26 PM EST
    more of a slow Katrina, except that there are no relief supplies to be brought to bear.

    A disaster of this magnitude, yet neither the federal government nor the private sector are in any way prepared. It' chernobyl without the radiation, except more toxic to flora and fauna.

    Yet people hope for something to happen to make it better.


    Not true (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 03:22:58 PM EST
    In the Clampett's case, oil gushing out of the ground was a good thing.

    The way I understand it, President Obama, (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:47:11 PM EST
    on May 27, extended the 30-day moratorium on offshore drilling for six more  months and cancelled plans for lease sales off Alaska, Virginia and the Gulf of Mexico. This extension took into consideration an interim report from Salazar that recommended "aggressive new operating standards and requirements", which the moratorium period is apparently designed to enable. In addition, operations are to be suspended for a total of 33 deep water wells for the next six months. According to the  Air and Waste Management Association (a non-profit, nonpartisan professional organization) the six-month moratorium extension does not apply (as it did in the 30-day moratorium) to shallow water drilling--at the request of several (unnamed) Gulf Coast lawmakers. Shallow water is defined as less than 500 feet. Shallow water drilling will be subject to enhanced safety requirements and inspection. but these requirements and their application have not been further delineated.  The six-month moratorium is welcome, as will stout  regulations and enforcement be.  However,  bifurcation of  offshore drilling into shallow and deep, in my view, has the potential for minimizing the hazards and, hence, the safety regulations for drilling in waters of 500 feet or less.

    Don't know if you saw this (none / 0) (#8)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 12:04:31 PM EST
    I posted this in the last open thread, but it was in a long back and forth conversation.

    Here's a link where you can plug your home town into this map and it shows the map as if the oil spill originated there and how far it would spread.


    Try moving it to our northern border (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 05:14:43 PM EST
    as I did, putting it on Cleveland, say, or others of the Great Lakes cities -- and we can see that the spill is larger than at least three of the five Great Lakes.  

    Imagine the impact on local, regional, even the national economy if we lost an entire Great Lake -- and its fauna and surrounding flora -- to oil . . . and imagine the impact if the oil then spread to other Great Lakes, all interconnected, and then into the hundreds of interconnected rivers, too.

    I gather that is what could happen if a hurricane hits the Gulf, and it now is hurrican season.  The oil could be driven up the Mississippi and then into many of its hundreds of tributaries.  

    If so, we may be looking back at these last six weeks as the good old days, when the oil spill was "contained" where it is.  


    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 05:19:42 PM EST
    I put it over my hometown - a suburb of Detroit - it stretches from Lake Michigan to halfway to Toronto!

    Gasp, glug -- my corner of the world is drowning. (none / 0) (#64)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:16:06 PM EST
    Incredible, isn't it? (none / 0) (#65)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:17:59 PM EST
    50,000 barrels (none / 0) (#16)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 12:37:26 PM EST
    Just curious... where did you get that number?  I recall only one professor stating that number with the initial short clip that was released.  The panel commissioned said the leak is 12-15,000 barrels (500-800,000 gallons) and an extreme maximum of 1,050,000 barrels.  WKRG in LA estimates the million a day.

    Four scientists who've been measuring the flow rate of the BP Spill wrote an Op-ed column for the NYTimes, The Measure of a Disaster, (5/22/10):

    It is our view that accurate, continuously updated measurements are not only possible, but absolutely essential if we are to respond effectively to this and future disasters...[We have used] two ways to measure the rate of the spill...

    The first method uses computer image analysis of satellite photos and data to measure the spread and thickness of oil on the ocean surface...images examined by two of us have consistently indicated that at least 26,500 barrels of oil have been reaching the surface each day...The second method is to measure flow rates at the main site of discharge [using optical image analysis of BP video]. Working independently, two of us...made estimates with median values of 60,000 to 75,000 barrels per day. [However], there is a second leak point on the top of the failed blow-out preventer. Video of this leak, along with a live feed of the original leak, is under analysis, but will only increase the estimate of the total flow escaping...

    Taking all this into account...the discharge could be as much as 100,000 barrels per day. Certainly, our assessments suggest that BP's stated worst-case estimate of 60,000 barrels has been occurring all along.

    The BP Gulf Spill Meter, at PBS, gives a running total of the various estimates. Using BP's own worst case scenario, of 60,000 barrels a day (2,520,000 gals a day), the spill is now beyond 110 million gallons. My use of 50k BOPD, in comment #11, is an 'understatement' of the case -- wouldn't want to be accused of 'overstatement', etc.


    We'll know soon (none / 0) (#57)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:12:30 PM EST
    We'll know within the next couple of days once they get the LRMP in place.  Many scientists are around the 20-25k level.  Some analysts detected a change in visible flow when BP claimed to be catching 5000 barrels with the 'straw' procedure so I don't know if that backs up the 50k.  Reading some at the oil drum.... you got a couple who are still stuck at 5000.  That's hard to believe with the large plumes in the water.

    The NYTimes Op-ed indicates that (none / 0) (#82)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:40:28 PM EST
    the estimate of 20-25k BOPD (barrels oil per day) is derived from scientists who are only looking at surface oil.

    Scientist who are measuring the bottom outflow from the broken pipe, put it at 60-75k BOPD. And, when other known secondary leaks are included, their estimate goes to 100k BOPD.

    BOTTOM LINE: if BP is willing to admit to a worst case scenario of 60k BOPD, I seriously doubt the outflow is any smaller than that. Part of their liability will be based on a certain dollar amount per BOPD.
    BTW, Walden, you said;

    Reading the oil drum....you got a couple who are still stuck at 5000.

    I suspect that figure is being used by newbies, rather than Oil Drum editors, or their contributors.


    Romanoff (none / 0) (#7)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 11:54:58 AM EST
    Not a story for the act, but again, it's how it's being bumgled.  It's become a process story.  Coming on the heels of the completely messed up Sestak story (which still has Gibbs confused as how to answer questions), and on top of the PR nightmare that is the oil spill, Politico's description of "part Dick Daley, part Barney Fife" is right on the money.

    Wonder why they can't seem to get their act together on things that "aren't important"?

    EPA chief on CNN (none / 0) (#14)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 12:35:05 PM EST
    calls for more safety redundancies in the future.

    Hmmmm.... (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 12:55:59 PM EST
    A Cook County prosecutor was choked in the hallway of a courthouse, allegedly by an assistant public defender.  The 50-year old prosecutor is currently in the hospital.

    Too much deep dish pizza, (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 12:59:59 PM EST
    or too many chicago-style hot dogs?

    Cubs vs. White Sox? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 01:03:37 PM EST
    Over-under on Blago's future?

    Sun Times vs. Tribune?


    Flatlander vs. FIP (none / 0) (#201)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 05:19:27 PM EST
    is the debate for those of us who have to deal with Illinois drivers on our freeways -- especially the truckdrivers still on the road who never passed tests but just paid bribes to get to drive, a few Illinois governors in jail ago.

    I vote for callin' 'em FIPs, every time I have to coexist on the freeways with them.  Awful drivers.


    could the politics (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 01:09:18 PM EST
    of this state get more embarrassing?

    Oh (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 01:30:29 PM EST
    I'm sure they could come up with something.

    yeah (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 01:33:06 PM EST
    as soon as I hit enter I regretted it.

    I can envision that happening anywhere. (none / 0) (#175)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:48:13 PM EST
    Kind of incestuous, in that pool of prosecutors and pool of public defenders working a particular assignment isn't all that large.  

    More (none / 0) (#181)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:53:37 PM EST
    From the Sun-Times

    A Cook County prosecutor was hospitalized this morning after being choked in a hallway of the 26th and California criminal courthouse, allegedly by an assistant public defender, authorities said said.

    The 50-year-old assistant state's attorney was treated at Mount Sinai Hospital and released. Colleagues said he did not want to comment.

    An attorney for the public defender could not immediately be reached. State records show the public defender obtained a one-year professional boxing license in 2006. It's unclear whether he was involved in any bouts, according to a spokeswoman for the Illinois Department of Professional Regulation, which issues the licenses.

    The incident today happened after an argument spilled out from Judge Clayton Crane's courtroom on the sixth floor, authorities said.

    The two disagreed over when to set the next court date on a post conviction hearing for convicted murderer Derrick Neal.

    "We could just set a date on Aug. 5. I don't see a problem. . .," the public defender said, according to a transcript of the hearing.

    The prosecutor responded, "I didn't say there was a problem. I'm trying to be convenient to everybody, including myself and the court."

    The prosecutor "left the courtroom and was in the hallway when the public defender came up to him and resumed the argument. That led to a physical fight where the public defender had to be pulled off of the state's attorney,'' Cook County Sheriff's spokesman Steve Patterson said in a statement. It took two deputies to separate the men, he said.

    The public defender put the prosecutor in a "choking headlock,'' police said. The public defender allegedly  told a bystander he did it because he was "sick of him mocking him," the bystander said.

    Sounds like someone needs a nice long vacation and some medication.


    The memoir blog returns (none / 0) (#22)
    by Dadler on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 01:03:26 PM EST
    How come I haven't heard anything (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 01:22:59 PM EST
    from the Left about the bill to let the feds take over the Internet if they think there's gonna be an attack?

    Heck, even Bush's FISA meanderings required a telephone call from a suspected terrorist.....

    Guess it all depends on who is President.

    Introduced by that notorious (none / 0) (#55)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:10:01 PM EST
    left wing fellow traveler Joe Lieberman..

    of course (none / 0) (#101)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:58:44 PM EST
    a lot of things depend on who is president.

    why is that surprising?


    Sounds like another handout... (none / 0) (#109)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 03:09:24 PM EST
    to big business to me..."we'll protect your cyber records for you...no problem Boss! Want fries with that?".

    Not for nothing...if some hacker were to erase all Goldman Sachs records, we should buy them a beer.


    crazy tea bagger (none / 0) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 01:34:17 PM EST
    extremest takes the lead against Harry:

    Poll: Angle leaps into lead

    well.... (none / 0) (#44)
    by CST on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 01:58:25 PM EST
    this may... be a good thing???

    Reid trails the other two candidates in a head to head but pulls out if it's the cookiest of the three. poll

    apparently he is closing the gap regardless.  He hasn't been on tv lately.  That can't hurt.


    Teabaggers (none / 0) (#84)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:42:00 PM EST
    are probably misreading her name and thinking she's the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy.

    somewhere (none / 0) (#161)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:26:37 PM EST
    Harry is smiling

    A good sign (none / 0) (#36)
    by CST on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 01:35:59 PM EST
    and another indication (to me) that we may be taking the end of DADT seriously.

    Executive branch agencies must now extend "same-sex partners the same benefits provided to their opposite-sex partners, to the extent allowed by law".

    Not sure what "to the extent allowed by law" means.


    ps - loving the easy link method - thanks squeaky

    weak tea, imo (none / 0) (#38)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 01:42:49 PM EST
    & all if it w/b unnecessary if there were marriage equality @ federal level

    also troubled by "to the extent allowed by law" - recursive feedback loop?


    agree (none / 0) (#42)
    by CST on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 01:52:07 PM EST
    If you know how to convince congress to pass that bill I'm all ears.  At this point I think it would require aboloshing the senate and I'm not really sure how that's done either.

    unfortunately DOMA is the law of the land.  I personally hope it gets taken down in federal court.  I think that's our best bet at this point other than waiting...

    Not sure what "the extent allowed by law" means either.  It's probably clarified somewhere in DOMA.  Maybe tax benefits?


    I don't think (none / 0) (#40)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 01:43:48 PM EST
    it includes things like health benefits.

    Obama said this when he signed the order:

    "That process has now concluded, and I am proud to announce that earlier today, I signed a memorandum that requires executive agencies to take immediate action to extend to the same-sex domestic partners of federal employees a number of meaningful benefits, from family assistance services to hardship transfers to relocation expenses," Obama said in a statement.

    And then there's this:

    The president also has urged Congress to pass the Domestic Partners Benefit and Obligations Act, which would extend family benefits now available to heterosexual federal workers to gay and lesbian federal workers as well.

    answer (none / 0) (#52)
    by CST on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:06:52 PM EST
    it doesn't

    "Legislative action would be required for a full range of health care and other benefits"

    although apparently they can apply for long-term health-care insurance.  Not sure what that means.


    Nate Silver (none / 0) (#59)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:13:50 PM EST
    This guy is funny (none / 0) (#62)
    by Dadler on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:15:28 PM EST
    Figures, ... (none / 0) (#94)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:48:45 PM EST
    ... but thanks for proving my point.

    wait (none / 0) (#117)
    by CST on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 03:21:41 PM EST
    now I'm really confused.

    The ban on shallow drilling expired, or was lifted, or whatever.

    But now 24 hours later it's back in place?  Is this correct?  And what happens to the one permit that was granted in that 24 hour period?

    what could go wrong? (none / 0) (#129)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 03:37:27 PM EST
    Well, clearly, Texas needs (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Zorba on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 05:12:27 PM EST
    to arm the school kids, too.  What if a lobbyist goes nuts and starts shooting?  Don't we want the kids to be able to protect themselves?  Won't somebody please think of the children????

    Good lord, is it that hard (none / 0) (#151)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:15:12 PM EST
    to just give business people higher priority in line, or have a separate line for school kids and tourists?

    Good for Texas though for coming up with a way to collect more fees. Have at it folks.


    no, you stupid pud (none / 0) (#162)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:31:22 PM EST
    gays, like most non mormons americans, do not pay "tithing"

    Orrin Hatch On Gays: 'Their Religion Is Politics'    

    "Gays and lesbians don't pay tithing, their religion is politics," Hatch told 300 or so constituents at Dixie State University Tuesday night, the Salt Lake Tribune reports.

    More than Mormons (none / 0) (#163)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:34:06 PM EST
    tithe.  I bet some gays actually do tithe.

    really? (none / 0) (#172)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:42:49 PM EST
    is that a common thing in other churches.  I know it is not in any my family are involved in.

    Most Protestant and Evangelical churches do it (none / 0) (#177)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:49:37 PM EST
    In the Catholic church, there's a collection every week.  We don't really call it "tithing", and they don't preach that they expect 10% or whatever, but, like other charities, they ask what you can give. There ARE operational costs to running a church - utilities, landscaping, heat, but they also have collections for missions and for shelters and other functions that the church does - like outreach and helping the poor.

    exactly (none / 0) (#179)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:51:47 PM EST
    We don't really call it "tithing", and they don't preach that they expect 10% or whatever

    that, I thought, is what tithing is.


    Actually (none / 0) (#184)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:58:06 PM EST
    And I just learned this, so thank you for starting the conversation, it's much, much more involved than that.

    yes (none / 0) (#191)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 05:02:58 PM EST
    the only reason I know this is that I have Mormons in my family.

    "Dixie State University" (none / 0) (#195)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 05:11:19 PM EST
    as they say, you cant make this stuff up.

    Their official team mascot is probably a little black guy in a jockey uniform, carrying a lantern.


    Nah (none / 0) (#200)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 05:15:21 PM EST