home

Tuesday Night Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Tue May 25, 2010 at 07:54:06 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

For those of you not watching American Idol, there's also the finale for Dancing With the Stars (I lost interest weeks ago) and the Biggest Loser, and new episodes of The Good Wife and Justified.

There's also lots in the news to talk about today, so here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< American Idol: Crystal or Lee? | House Bill Contains Provision to Investigate Lawyers for Detainees >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Tuesday Night Open Thread | 134 comments (134 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Mutts OK For AKC Competitions (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by squeaky on Tue May 25, 2010 at 08:15:33 PM EST
    ...finally, after 125 years of its existence, the American Kennel Club is letting mutts, or "All Americans," compete in AKC shows in their own category. The "All American" dogs won't be judged on breed standards, but instead on agility, rally and obedience.

    As a result of the AKC ruling in April, the Mattaponi Kennel Club in Northern Virginia held an American Kennel Club sponsored dog show this past weekend that included mutts. For this event, only two of the 40 entries were for mixed breeds, but hey, give them a break; it was their first attempt at this open event.

    This will make the competitions more interesting, imo.

    Mutts will make dog shows totally RIVETING, imo. (none / 0) (#3)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue May 25, 2010 at 08:25:01 PM EST
    not merely:
    more interesting...


    Parent
    YES! (none / 0) (#6)
    by nycstray on Tue May 25, 2010 at 09:29:39 PM EST
    That makes it easier for rescue/shelter dogs (along with all the others) that are "mostly" a breed to compete without having to go through the ILP BS and more opportunities to compete with your pup. Not sure if my girl is PB or not, I call her my "mostly Dalmatian".

    And now the Pedigree Ads about shelter dogs running during Westminster and other shows will have a bit more umph  ;)

    Thanks for the info :)

    Parent

    Now we're talking...pets. (none / 0) (#9)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue May 25, 2010 at 09:43:23 PM EST
    I have a cat who can climb down trees backwards like a line man, 20+ feet. When he's doing it, he keeps looking down to see how far he has to go -- and when he's about 3 feet from the ground, he turns right way round and jumps the rest of the way.

    I've never seen, nor heard of, any other cat who can do that. Usually they just come barreling down, head-first, the whole way. Is my cat Little Man Fur-Tate?

    Parent

    Ha Ha.... I wouldn't brag... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by desertswine on Tue May 25, 2010 at 09:50:23 PM EST
    until your cat learns how to tree a bear.  I just love this picture.

    Parent
    Oh, I never brag. (none / 0) (#23)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue May 25, 2010 at 11:16:09 PM EST
    Unless it's about Little Man Fur-Tate. Hah!

    Thanks for the bear-treeing-cat link.

    In between comments, I've been teaching my one-eyed cat, Astrid Vanderbilt, to do jumping tricks. She loves to learn and it visibly builds her confidence. She flares her tail wide at the base and arches it way up -- so it almost touches  the back of her head. She's more along the lines of "A Beautiful Mind".

    Parent

    Amazing. (none / 0) (#28)
    by christinep on Tue May 25, 2010 at 11:23:29 PM EST
    I have a dog (or rather she has me.) People that love animals have to be good.

    Parent
    Not So Sure (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by squeaky on Tue May 25, 2010 at 11:26:23 PM EST
    People that love animals have to be good.

    There are quite a few PETA member who do not fit that category, imo.

    But point well taken.

    Parent

    Great pic! (none / 0) (#30)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 25, 2010 at 11:27:27 PM EST
    Why am I not surprised it's an orange tabby who refuses to be intimidated by a bear?

    BTW, if you get a kick out of amazing cats, do read the story of Homer, the blind cat, who chased a burglar out of his human companion's apartment.

    Parent

    MY cat, who climbs backwards down trees, (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:50:00 AM EST
    like a bear, is also an orange tabby -- who is formidably fearless about everything -- except loud and unexpected noises.

    I've had three orange tabbies over the years, and they're all industrious and independent to a fault.

    Parent

    Good cat story (none / 0) (#114)
    by sj on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:29:32 PM EST
    well recounted.

    Thanks.

    Parent

    Sorry, but (none / 0) (#26)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 25, 2010 at 11:23:00 PM EST
    mine do that, too.  I actually never knew it was unusual.  Are you sure it is?

    Parent
    Gyr, tonight, let's just imagine that our (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:56:47 AM EST
    cats have unusual, exceptional abilities. Let's not have to be "sure" about this. Let's get all puffed up with pride -- it's harmless -- everybody comes out happy and alive.

    Parent
    Long needed (none / 0) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 08:02:19 AM EST
    Heads are exploding though with thoughts that obedience titles will make the new designer labradoodles and chorkies legitimate breeds in the mind of the public.  Though for the AKC this is more of a money decision, it is a win/win and reaches out to all dog owners and gets them involved with the AKC.  This will strengthen us in our many many legal PETA battles.  Obedience trials are where the real money and prizes are too, that usually goes to highest scoring dog.

    Parent
    excellent! (none / 0) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 11:53:45 AM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    Best elementary school band ever (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Dadler on Tue May 25, 2010 at 09:09:30 PM EST
    Then again, I'm biased, since this is my son's jazz band. He's the last trombone on the right.

    Heat in Asia (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:17:09 AM EST
    SEOUL, South Korea -- U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has arrived in Seoul for crisis talks with South Korean leaders as tensions between North and South Korea have soared to their highest point in a decade.

    Amid fears of conflict, Clinton touched down in the South Korean capital on Wednesday local time after intense discussions on the deteriorating situation with Chinese officials in Beijing.

    Clinton will spend just a few hours in Seoul discussing possible international responses to the crisis that started last week when investigators blamed North Korea for the sinking of a South Korean warship. The North denies it was responsible and has threatened to retaliate if action is taken against it.
    North Korea cuts ties with South (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by oculus on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:32:32 AM EST
    Korea.  Didn't realize they actually had any ties.  WSJ

    Parent
    What? You aren't totally shaking in your boots? (none / 0) (#47)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:00:08 AM EST
    Get on board with the MOTD (meme-of-the-day) Oculus!

    The most immediate threat to the well-being of the planet is North Korea's non-breaking of its non-ties to South Korea. This means, oh, I dunno, nuuuuukes! And they're not ours!

    Parent

    They used to have regular (none / 0) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 08:41:02 AM EST
    communications and scheduled sit downs.  And that used to stir up the college kids' "Unite the Koreas" movement (I used to have a T-shirt, their efforts intrigued me and it was a cool looking shirt).  When we were there during the North Korean famine, clear channels were open hoping to exploit North Korea's vulnerable moment, but they became guarded knowing they were vulnerable.  I'm sure that the current situation and South Korea severing ties has raised a large debate on the streets of South Korea again between the old people who had to survive and build a life after North Korean devastation and the young people who have no such memories but a lot of ideals.

    Parent
    Was the TL site down for a while Weds a.m.? (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Spamlet on Wed May 26, 2010 at 11:28:37 AM EST


    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 26, 2010 at 11:36:05 AM EST
    Just got on.  Balloon juice seemed to have issues also.

    Parent
    Was for me... (none / 0) (#75)
    by kdog on Wed May 26, 2010 at 11:57:02 AM EST
    and it was the longest cube-dwelling morning in recent memory...I noticed the rest of the internets are pretty damn boring.

    Parent
    Things were so bad (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by mmc9431 on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:18:28 PM EST
    I had to look for work to do! Sad day.

    Parent
    new family member (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 11:32:18 AM EST
    I just adopted a homeless one and half year old black lab.

    pics soon.

    Nice (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 11:36:37 AM EST
    Good luck with him or her...

    Parent
    its a her (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 11:37:30 AM EST
    it was that or a shelter.  I am such a soft touch when it comes to dogs.

    Parent
    The economy is tough right now (none / 0) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 11:42:45 AM EST
    Because we have a few dogs, people drop strays off in front of our house frequently.  I used to always be able to rely on the post to provide homes too, easily.  Put up an ad at the post vet or at the PX and it was usually answered quickly.  And placing big dogs was no problem, seemed like the bigger the better.  Someone dropped off a German Shepherd cross here and I have no idea what he was crossed with but it looked like Great Dane or something.  He was huge, and a fight over him literally broke out.  It is hard to find homes now for strays on post.  I guess the second jobs held by spouses have dried up and the cup no longer runneth over.

    Parent
    yep (none / 0) (#67)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 11:46:05 AM EST
    this is because of a lost job and forced relocation.

    Parent
    Lucky You (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 11:52:14 AM EST
    And lucky dog. You both have something in common... lol

    Parent
    Awe how cute (none / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 11:35:22 AM EST
    You have three furkids now?

    Parent
    4 (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 11:36:59 AM EST
    counting the cat.  good thing I have a really big sofa.

    Parent
    Fish On The Sofa? (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 11:42:32 AM EST
    hmmm...  I can imagine ( a cartoon of) you all watching cartoons...

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 11:47:01 AM EST
    the fish are near enough to the sofa to feel part of the family.

    and the arowana has actually ended up there a couple of times when she jumped out of the tank.


    Parent

    get over it (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:34:24 PM EST
    As openly gay officers with decades of combined service experience in the British, Dutch and Swedish armed forces, we are closely watching U.S. developments around the repeal of "Don't ask, don't tell."

    We were just in Washington at a Brookings Institution/Palm Center conference, where representatives from the world's militaries discussed this matter.

    Though we maintain a respect for the American people, their military and their political process, we share a sense of puzzlement -- and a sort of shock -- at the rhetoric we heard surrounding "Don't ask, don't tell."

    As Congress prepares to vote on this, we hope our international perspective can be of some value.
    I'm so glad you posted this (none / 0) (#118)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:41:10 PM EST
    Not only for the content,of course, but it explains why, when I went to lunch a little while ago, I saw all kinds of foreign military officers eating lunch in the restaurant downstairs and in the coffee shop in the building!  I was confused as there isn't anything around here that would indicate an office that would house lots of military.

    Parent
    RIP Art Linkletter (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:43:57 PM EST
    No offense to Kid `n Play, but Art Linkletter's House Party was always better

    I remember him blaming (none / 0) (#131)
    by jondee on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:13:43 PM EST
    Timothy Leary for his daughter's problems, and Leary charging Linkletter with "ghoulishness" for launching a second career based on retelling the story of the death of his daughter..

    Parent
    so jaded (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:36:06 PM EST
    the only thing I really remember is Devine in the Diane Linkletter Story.

    Parent
    Talking about upping (none / 0) (#133)
    by jondee on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:41:18 PM EST
    the ante on Art and Tim in the bad taste department..

    But I guess if you're going to go, you might as well go all the way.

    Parent

    Salazar is Obama's man (4.00 / 3) (#1)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue May 25, 2010 at 08:12:54 PM EST
    and Salazar was a pig on the environment before Obama appointed him as United States Secretary of the Interior Department, on December 17/08.  

    *Did Obama have foreknowledge that Salazar was a pig on the environment?

    Yes he did. Although some misguided environmentalists didn't object at the time, 30-40 environmental groups urged Obama not to appoint Salazar and correctly foretold that he would be disastrous: Environmentalists Wary of Obama's Interior Pick. Those groups have now written to Obama demanding Salazar's resignation (LINK).

    *So, did Obama's man Salazar and his Interior Department do anything to enable the BP disaster?

    Yes they did. As reported by the Washington Post, Obama's Interior department gave BP a "categorical exclusion" which voided the usual requirement for an environmental impact study. That exemption was given to BP on April 06/09: "U.S. Exempted BP's Gulf of Mexico Drilling from Environmental Impact Study".

    *Did Obama and Salazar have any inkling that BP was predisposed to fu@k up in the worst possible way?

    Yes they did. Because, as reported by NPR and others, BP has a long history of fu@king up in the worst possible way: BP Oil [has a] Poor Safety Record, the Worst of Any Oil Company in America.

    To be clear, we're not "pointing fingers" here, or playing the "blame game", as Obama calls it. We're not in 4th grade -- this isn't about who peed on the floor. We're trying to establish responsibility, and accountability, for the worst environmental disaster in our history. Let's start by establishing that the Obama Administration was supposed to have been in 'charge' of BP for the past 18 months -- both before and after their most recent, and most grotesque, befouling of the planet. FWIW, I don't think the buck stops with Salazar any more than it stopped with George Tenet.

    I tend to pay attention to the environment (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by christinep on Tue May 25, 2010 at 09:43:16 PM EST
    since most of my career involved enforcement and strategic actions in R.8. Frankly, calling the Secretary a "pig" on the environment tells me a lot more than you might realize. Rabble rouse or whatever...but, it does not align with the facts in Colorado. Start with Roan, continure with sustainable development provisions, take a look at water conservation...you will find Salazar in the environmentalist position.

    The categorical exclusion practice is a practice used by MMS consistent with the Bush administration. In the first few months of any new and different party administration, you need to consider the hold-over effect. It is beyond simplistic that any Secretary of Interior would be aware of the ins-&-outs of permitting technicalities in the first few months in office.

    The vehemence of your accusations is somewhat astounding. In fact, Salazar drew that same response from Republicans and other proponents of rapid development on the western slope because of his environmental positions there. Perhaps, you need to delve deeper into the details of Colorado allignments and take who is wary about whom reports with the grain of salt that they deserve. In environmental politics, individuals such as Ken Salazar can be particularly "threatening" to those on both sides who won't compromise because (similar to former Governor Romer) the public finds him credible. It does tend to play out that way.

    Bottom line: The "pig" comment strikes me as rather juvenile.


    Parent

    Agree, the word pig is uncalled for (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 25, 2010 at 10:10:48 PM EST
    and name-calling. There are better ways to express your disagreement with someone's policies.

    Foxhole, it would be appreciated if you would re-post your comment without the name calling. Otherwise, I will delete it.

    Parent

    Jeralyn, would it be OK to call Salazar (none / 0) (#20)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue May 25, 2010 at 11:06:12 PM EST
    "a swine on the environment (IMO)"? I'm a die-hard admirer of Hunter S. Thompson's Generation of Swine. If Salazar can't be called "a swine on the environment (IMO)" -- perhaps we should leave the whole BP Spill discourse (such as it is) to more administration-friendly "name-callers" at TL.

    Sincere question: when cops are called "pigs" at TL, are those comments deleted? FWIW, depending on the context, I don't have a problem with calling cops "pigs". For example, if their lack of oversight resulted in the deaths of 11 people, "pigs" it is -- though I'd settle for "swine".

    Oh gawd, I don't mean all this to sound as snarky as it appears to be at first blush.

    Parent

    I'm not aware of anyone calling (none / 0) (#35)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 25, 2010 at 11:53:28 PM EST
    cops "pigs" on this site, and certainly, not any specific cop.

    Parent
    By the time of the oil spill on (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 25, 2010 at 10:30:03 PM EST
    April 22, 2010, Ken Salazar was in charge for 15 months. During that time, did he eliminate the MMS practice of giving categorical exclusions or did this practice continue unimpeded?

    Parent
    I agree, and further, (none / 0) (#90)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:27:14 PM EST
    the apologists are going to politically kill the president with kindness--what the administration needs is tough love. Secretary Salazar has been found wanting at a time of diaster; I believe Secretary Chu to be excellent, but my concern (and the president's) for too much coziness with BP was heightened by the NYT article noting that Chu's undersecretary of energy is the former chief scientist for BP  Moreover, Dr. Chu's laboratory was substantially funded (with some controversy) by BP.  While not necessarily a problem (the Undersecretary is recusing himself from BP matters) this relationship may bring misguided hopes that a working partnership with equal interests could be entered into with BP.

    Parent
    We're not in Colorado anymore, Christinep. (none / 0) (#16)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue May 25, 2010 at 10:28:28 PM EST
    And, to be fair, I only called Salazar "a pig on the environment", so don't you be calling me names like juvenile rabble rouser ;-).

    Hmm, you would give Salazar a free pass for exempting BP from the standard requirement to do an Environmental Impact Study for the Deepwater Horizon project, because, as you say:

    The categorical exclusion practice is a practice used by MMS consistent with the Bush administration. In the first few months of any new and different party administration, you need to consider the hold-over effect. It is beyond simplistic that any Secretary of Interior would be aware of the ins-&-outs of permitting technicalities in the first few months in office.

    To that I would say, we are talking here about BP whose egregious history of environmental disregard is a matter of public record and world-wide public knowledge. For the moment,  permit me to be, as you say, a little more "vehement": even if it were his fourth month in office, my cat (Little Man Fur-Tate) would not have exempted BP from a requisite Environmental Impact Study -- especially not in deep water, in the Gulf of Mexico.

    So letting bygones be bygones, now that Obama and Salazar are 18 months in office, would you still give them a free pass on their oversight and management of the BP Spill during this past month? If you waffle, or answer in the affirmative, that, as you say "tells me a lot more than you might realize". Other than that, no offense.

    Parent

    Please review the facts (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by christinep on Tue May 25, 2010 at 11:12:20 PM EST
    I am not giving anyone a pass.  Especially, take a look at the pre-existing EIS practice in the Gulf (prior to the new Administration.)

    While I cannot work myself into high dudgeon to equal yours, you are clearly correct that "from this spill forward," this is the Obama Administration's watch. No need for me to waffle. At this point, there has been no evidence of discrediting action(s) by the President or his representatives in response to the spill. The actions--to this observer--appear to be following normal response protocol.

    It has been the message that is getting lost. For example, it would behoove the Administration's spokesperson to explain is a more direct and thorough fashion why the process unfolds as it does--the clean up and the law. There is no presto magico wand here. And, as ruffian noted earlier, our reliance that technology can fix everything is being sorely tested.

    As to the matter of federal procedure in oil spill situations: Is the suggestion that the Coast Guard, as the On Scene Coordinator, should have immediately recognized that BP would lie, would not cooperate, etc. etc. (based upon a feeling or a belief or having read about the company) and moved in itself? If so, how and with what resources? Based upon what legal provision? At what point would that determination have been appropriate?

    Everyone is frustrated. We want answers.

    Here is what I expect: The Administration needs to keep continual pressure--technical, legal, political, private and public--on BP. We need to ensure clean-up as quickly as possible; then, we need to recover all costs plus maximum penalties for all environmental and economically sustained damage. Additionally, later criminal proceedings should be explored (obviously, that will be a complex evidentiary matter.) And, a complete analysis leading to implementable lessons-learned must be made. Of those lessons, I would expect that revised standards for permitting will result. Those standards must address the whole categorical and individual permitting approach as well as when individual EIS development cannot be waived or truncated. More later.


    Parent

    FWIW, I largely agree with you (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 25, 2010 at 11:19:27 PM EST
    BUT I really would like to know why zeroing in on the already demonstrably corrupt Bush-infested MMS wasn't a priority for Salazar from literally day one, whether it would have had any impact on this BP spill situation or not.

    As far as anything I've read, it wasn't even on his radar, and I'd like to hear an explanation for that.

    Parent

    Thanks for the question (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by christinep on Tue May 25, 2010 at 11:55:57 PM EST
    I am not privy to what exactly transpired at Interior in the first months of transition...but, some speculation is in order since transitions are fraught with missteps, posturing by "political deputies" or previously favored top managers and middle managers who are now trying to reinvent themselves, and various non-forthright behaviors. This is not "conspiracy" talk. The machinations of transition behavior (including the dreaded "burrowing in" where a person brought in by the outgoing admin. is transferred to a friendlier location to save said person's job) are easily recognized by longtime federal employees.

    The Interior Dept. is particularly complex given its vast range of responsibilities. And, to put it bluntly, triple the machinations described above. What does this tell me? The incoming Secretary enters with his briefing books and his meetings with the transition team--spending the weeks after his nomination primarily preparing for testimony for confirmation. In the first months, he travels to the offices, meets the top managers, hears more briefings, visits the communities at the top of the priority list, etc. During this getting-to-know you process, he first learns that Minerals Management Services (MMS) has some problems identified by the IG earlier. He may have read about that before being confirmed; but, those problems only dealt with alleged corruption in the Lakewood, Colorado office...not how a permit may be issued in the Gulf.

    This is anecdotal.  But, it comes down to: Many a new administrator has walked into a government office to be surrounded by people with all kinds of agenda and--unless he/she has close trusting ties with connections to the the dept.--the new administrator cannot physically assimilate all the info thrust out from unknown sources. This happens all the time...and, Interior's sheer size makes it all the more difficult. Most incoming administrations don't do that prep work and pay the price of loss of time in implementing their programs because of it. Please understand that most career government employees are eager to work for and with a new administration such as the Obama administration. It is just that there usually exist longtime patterns of behavior, other agendas and whatnot. That takes time and trusted associates to sort through in order to best carry out the President's agends. (A tip: The Salazar reorganization plan for MMS is an indicator that he will assertively manage that group. No small feat when longtime employees may have practiced managing up.)

    Parent

    Been there, done that (none / 0) (#78)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:04:10 PM EST
    I am intimately familiar with this process, having gone through it personally on the state level way back when.

    Every secretary and department head came into office with a good appreciation of what wasn't working in their department and at least a preliminary action plan to deal with it.

    The incoming governor insisted on it, and that hardly seems like a revolutionary or unusual idea.

    Did this incoming federal administration not do the same?  Given the madness of the previous eight years and the Bush-Cheney regime's well-known practice of packing federal agencies at every level they could with their co-religionists/co-ideologues, it's beyond my comprehension that the incoming administration would not have done what my governor did.

    And really, of all things, why wouldn't the federal agency that oversees the "oil bidness" those two crooks were so intimately involved with be extremely high up on the priority list?

    Parent

    Few things (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by CST on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:14:09 PM EST
    governer's house much smaller than white house.

    The federal government is huge, that's like comparing grapes to pumpkins.

    Also, it took Bush a long time to stack those agencies.  He didn't do it all in one go.  My uncle worked for the Clinton administration and it took George until his second term to figure out who he was and fire him.

    As for your final point, it's a solid one.  Obviously the environment has not been a top priority for this administration to date.  One can only hope this serves as a necessary wake up call.  But the focus early on was clearly on the financial crisis, healthcare, and the military.  I'm not saying that was the right focus, just that Obama was not that guy.  Best possible outcome is that he becomes that guy now out of political necessity.  Worst possible outcome is one I really don't want to think about.

    Parent

    Goodling Et Al. (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:24:32 PM EST
    The other thing that BushCo did was to place right wing ideologues in civil service jobs where they could never be fired. Also, during the last year of BushCo agenda, many ideological appointees switched to civil service jobs, so that they could continue their right wing agenda even if a Democratic administration took over.

    Parent
    Thanks squeaky for the directness (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by christinep on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:39:38 PM EST
    about the "burrowing in" practice at the end of eight years. In my earlier comments, I circled around these impediments. Let me stress that the importance of trusted career employees (with the aid of former political appointees who have lived it) can allow the new Secretary or Administrator to cut to the chase. And, believe me--short of appealable adverse actions--there are time honored and effective ways to assist the "hidden" ideologues out the door or, at minimum, to a do-no-harm-position. (BTW, both parties know this. My opinion: Democrats play a little too nice on that particular field. But, maybe that is changing.)

    Parent
    Hindsight (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by mmc9431 on Wed May 26, 2010 at 08:12:49 AM EST
    I agree that every department head should have gone into their position with a shovel to clean up. After eight years of the Bush administration attempts to prove government can't work every department was in shambles.

    They didn't. Obama set the tempo by his decision to "look foreward, not backwards". He didn't want to rattle any cages. It's come back to bite him at every turn.

    I'm always amazed at how, Republican take credit for every achievement and deny responsibility for any failure, whether their in power or not.(The boom under Clinton was their success and 9-11 was Clinton's failure). The tanked economy we've lived with over the last 2 years is Obama's failure not Bush. And so on and so on.

    Parent

    I wonder if we'll soon be hearing (none / 0) (#74)
    by Spamlet on Wed May 26, 2010 at 11:55:43 AM EST
    that Salazar has the president's complete support.

    Parent
    Whose watch was it for the last 15 months (5.00 / 7) (#33)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 25, 2010 at 11:31:54 PM EST
    before the spill?

    "from this spill forward," this is the Obama Administration's watch.

    What actions did the current administration take to correct the MMS practice from January, 2009 through April 20, 2010?

    Parent

    Please state some facts yourself, Christinep. (3.50 / 2) (#37)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:35:10 AM EST
    Everything you have written, thus far, is your own personal opinion whipped into a frappe of legalistic, bureaucratic jargon.

    I don't need to:

    "take a look at the pre-existing EIS practice in the Gulf (prior to the new Administration)."
    Surely to gawd, any pre-existing Executive Information System couldn't obfuscate the common knowledge historical fact of BP's colossal failures on safety and the environment. The President either knew the public record, or was inexplicably ignorant of the public record, when he exempted BP from the Environmental Impact Study on April 06/09.

    You go on to say:

    "from this spill forward," this is the Obama Administration's watch. No need for me to waffle. At this point, there has been no evidence of discrediting action(s) by the President or his representatives in response to the spill. The actions--to this observer--appear to be following normal response protocol...It has been the message that is getting lost...why the process unfolds as it does--the clean up and the law...Everyone is frustrated.

    The entirety of that particular comment sounds like it came straight from Gibbs. I don't mean that as an insult -- it's impressive verbiage really. In comment #36, you spin a labyrinth yarn about the "complexity" of the transition process. But at least you concede: "This is anecdotal" -- as opposed to the unspecified "facts" you originally advised me to "review".

    *All of that being said, I am moved (I'm a sap) by your subsequent comment: "People that love animals have to be good". Crap, now I have to call the whole argument off ;-). Good night all.


    Parent

    The unspecified facts about EIS (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by christinep on Wed May 26, 2010 at 11:42:06 AM EST
    and categorical permits: The Bush Administration via MMS used a practice of issuing categorical permits. That is, the first in a region was given the full review that applicants would normally undergo; then, the others sort of followed in the slip stream. Unfortunately, MMS did not differentiate between the opener smaller operation and the mega-operation at deeper waters that the BP rig entailed. All in all a wrong-headed practice. (Salazar had initiated review of MMS and proposed reorganization--but, the timing came too late.)

    OK. It is not bureacratic to state facts. The facts of governmental organizational transition--after a previous Presidency of eight years--involve the reality that the time is usually a minimum year. If you want to pursue that further, you can look at historical records, check with Agencies, whatever. I would suggest an earlier book by Jonathan Lash called "Season of Spoils." (It is a 1980s book about EPA and Interior. Upon reading it, one can see the continuing political strain within the system. Very different philosophies about permitting have existed since that time--the difference between the presumption of issuance and who has what burden.)

    Another fact: The acronym EIS stands for Environmental Impact Statement. The process involves multiple agencies, and typically requires a few years for major projects. EPA is charged with EIS ultimate review after the preparing agency/entity has done its evaluation. It appears that Interior's MMS--under Bush II--short-cutted the process here as well after the initial Gulf impact study. (Yes, there are procedures for this type of "group" review. You can see for future reference why it is not advisable.)

    I really am sorry that this cannot be explained by reference to a quick axiom or mathematical addition. I am not Sarah Palin, and cannot think of a way of collapsing many documents, protocols, structural descriptions, and the legal requirements respecting oil spills into a sound-byte or slogan.

    The disaster occurred. It must be cleaned as soon as humanly possible. The company is the responsible party; the government pushes; and--if it still goes nowhere--the government will increase its role. There are no magic words from either side.

    Parent

    Magic (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 11:49:58 AM EST
    It does seem that many are expecting magic by Obama here, but it does seem normal that many who are frustrated would blame the President. It is a little like young kids who do not understand why their parents are making it rain, and won't do anything to stop it.  

    Hopefully they will cap this thing within the next six months.

    Tragic. Hard to even think about.

    Parent

    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#82)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:16:53 PM EST
    The Editorial Board of the New Orleans Times-Picayune doesn't seem to be happy with Obama either, although he seems to finally be doing something - a month late.  And remember, the people in New Orleans been through a crisis being ignore before.

    Americans are growing impatient with the Obama administration's inability to elicit a more urgent response to the BP oil spill and to better protect and cleanup the coast.

    That has federal officials on the defensive, and the nation is demanding that President Obama assume a more forceful role in commanding BP to stop the gushing oil and clean up this mess.

    The administration argues that federal law limits its ability to take over cleanup efforts from the company. Officials also note that the industry, not the government, has the expertise and equipment needed to stop the leak.

    But the federal government, which is supposed to ensure that BP assumes responsibility for this disaster, has often acted timidly during the crisis. President Obama has the bully pulpit to come down hard on BP and its executives, and he should use it. Most Americans are ready for the president to light a fire under the company and under the bureaucracy overseeing the disaster response.

    The White House appears to be getting the message. On Tuesday it announced that President Obama will travel to Louisiana Friday, the first time he will assess the cleanup on the ground since his May 2 visit.

    In addition, ProPublica reported Tuesday that the Environmental Protection Agency is considering banning BP from getting government contracts, an action that would cost the company billions in revenue.

    The last few paragraphs talk about how reprehesnible BP has acted.

    But I guess the Times-Picayune are cultists now, too.

    Parent

    Non Sequitur (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:25:43 PM EST
    But knock your self out on you campaign.

    Parent
    Considering (none / 0) (#92)
    by coast on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:30:45 PM EST
    NEPA passed in 1969 and included the provision to use categorical exclusions when it was originally passed; and the 30 day limit for review has been around since at least 1978; and this administration has continued to use the exclusion to approve submissions, even after this spill.  I can certainly see how this is a Bush Adminstration issue.

    Parent
    Clearly this issue is (none / 0) (#100)
    by Rojas on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:50:32 PM EST
    not an administration issue but an institutional issue. BP has a track record that can not be ignored. But it has been. This record goes back to the Exxon spill and the fraud comitted by BP in relation to that issue.


    Parent
    BP Track Record Mixed (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:03:45 PM EST
    It is easy for many to say that BP is the worst oil company in history and criminal, during the worst oil spill in history.

    But many have bought BP gasoline, supported the company because they brought jobs to communities and in general satisfied our insatiable thirst and dependence on oil.

    Sierra Club rated BP as top of barrel, other comparisons here

    We cry out at the oil companies for polluting, yet scream when gasoline prices go up. The fish, birds, plants and general wildlife, see no difference between BP, Exxon, or those using their products.

    Seems to me it is more practical to take a hard look at our personal dependence on oil, and see what we can do about reducing our dependence on the stuff, rather than to waste energy trying to pin the blame on Obama, BushCo or BP.

     

    Parent

    Either you or I have been drinking (none / 0) (#117)
    by coast on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:40:36 PM EST
    because I would have to say that I agree with your statement 100%.

    Parent
    Well, y'know, Amurrika (4.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Cream City on Tue May 25, 2010 at 09:58:03 PM EST
    didn't think it mattered to be ready on Day One.

    Sow, reap.

    Parent

    Cute. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by christinep on Tue May 25, 2010 at 10:09:25 PM EST
    You're right; we all do reap.

    Parent
    Let me just ask, (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Spamlet on Tue May 25, 2010 at 10:13:35 PM EST
    before You Know Who does, if you're actually saying that the BP "spill" would not have happened if You Know Who Else were president.

    Parent
    It might have happened...but, as my daughter said (none / 0) (#18)
    by mogal on Tue May 25, 2010 at 10:57:54 PM EST
    today,...there would have been immediate action taken and BP, would be answering to the President of the United States.

    Parent
    Plenty of blame for all (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by mmc9431 on Wed May 26, 2010 at 11:32:19 AM EST
    If we're going to lay blame anywhere is needs to be placed on the complete lack of vision  that's corroded our political system. Politicians are more concerned with maintaining the status quo than showing any vision to the future.

    We've been dealing with an energy crisis in this country for over thirty years. We have the technology to be  end this cycle but there's too much money to be made by continuing  our dependence on oil.  Does anyone really believe that BP (or all the other industries that are supported by it), want to see innovation? They're a soulless corporation that is profit driven. They're not going to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. They have no place in setting policies regarding energy or environment.

    Crisis after crisis I keep waiting for someone to finally stand up and say "that's it". We have to change direction.  Instead we get a month of  the blame game and hang wringing and everything goes back to the status quo.


    Parent

    To mmc9341: I applaud your comment. (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by christinep on Wed May 26, 2010 at 11:50:15 AM EST


    Parent
    Your daughter may well be right (none / 0) (#21)
    by Spamlet on Tue May 25, 2010 at 11:10:13 PM EST
    But we'll never know.

    I was just seeking clarification from CC, for two reasons: (1) to forestall, if possible, the tiresome jacking of yet another thread, and (2) to read CC's links and arguments in support of that position, if that is the position her comment represents.

    Parent

    What on earth makes you think (none / 0) (#25)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 25, 2010 at 11:21:23 PM EST
    BP isn't "answering to the president" now?

    Parent
    Gyrfalcon, what on earth makes you think (4.00 / 3) (#42)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:44:27 AM EST
    BP is "answering to the president now", or at any other time?

    Didn't BP just say FU BO, when the President's EPA told them to stop using the vile dispersant, Corexit? Neat name, eh -- Corexit -- sounds like the human de-louser Ridix -- where's that when we need it.

    Parent

    It's Obvious (3.66 / 3) (#27)
    by squeaky on Tue May 25, 2010 at 11:23:26 PM EST
    Hillary is not the president.

    Parent
    Finally, breaking news! (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:10:04 AM EST
    I knew that dog show gambit was a chum dump ;-).

    Parent
    Think everyone's already aware of that (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Yman on Wed May 26, 2010 at 07:12:10 AM EST
    ... 'cept you.

    Parent
    C'mon you guys... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by kdog on Wed May 26, 2010 at 08:38:16 AM EST
    any president with a D or R after their name works for BP...it's been that way since at least WWII...and it will be at least 100 more years if we keep foolin' ourselves into thinking "if only we elected the other D/R".

    I mean lets get real.

    Parent

    Unfortunately, we all reap what (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:25:43 AM EST
    some people sow.

    Parent
    might as well (none / 0) (#76)
    by CST on Wed May 26, 2010 at 11:59:07 AM EST
    just argue to get rid of term limits or only allow dynasties.


    Parent
    Well aware of their protocals (none / 0) (#96)
    by Rojas on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:41:46 PM EST
    for disaster management with political implications. They've got a track record you know. Reference Waco and it's aftermath. Their record is one of complete dysfunction and allowing the responsible actors to investigate themselves.
    Ready from day one... right.

    Parent
    Nurse Jackie was new last night, Jeralyn. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Joan in VA on Tue May 25, 2010 at 09:21:25 PM EST
    But Glee was new tonight. You should try it if you haven't. It is very entertaining-a mix of comedy, drama and musical numbers.

    thanks, I deleted it (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 25, 2010 at 09:33:06 PM EST
    I saw Glee once and didn't like it. I know, I'm the only one, but enjoy!

    Parent
    I was so sure you would like (none / 0) (#19)
    by Joan in VA on Tue May 25, 2010 at 10:58:48 PM EST
    the singing and dancing since you seem to watch singing and dancing reality shows. :( Oh, well, I suppose everyone isn't meant to be a Gleek!

    Parent
    Does anyone else watch (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 11:25:30 AM EST
    the United States of Tara?  I got hooked on it when my husband was in Afghanistan and even Josh watches it with me.  My husband has been moaning about Josh watching but I don't find anything wildly inappropriate for him in the series.  Somehow with all the moaning my husband has seemingly started to watch it.  He said that Buck was going to beat the tar out of Tara's husband for sleeping with Pammy.  I was trying to ignore him because what would a United States of Tara critic know?  Then Wham!

    Parent
    Just started watching it sometimes this season (none / 0) (#110)
    by ruffian on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:08:30 PM EST
    after Nurse Jackie, but I haven't seen every episode. I find it a little uneven. That episode the other night was great though. Good for your hubby for calling the ending. I didn't see that coming at all, though in retrospect I should have!

    The scenes with her mother were so good and really rang true, I thought.

    Parent

    I can't get bored with it (none / 0) (#116)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:38:08 PM EST
    and because it comes right along with Nurse Jackie I record and watch both.

    Parent
    Facebook is just BEGGING ME to cancel (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Tue May 25, 2010 at 10:23:00 PM EST
    I mean, every time I log in (which isn't often) there's some unclear mandatory change that I'm expected to agree to.

    When I first signed up in 2004, it was a cliquey site for people who went to expensive colleges. And that was bad enough. Now. . .

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by squeaky on Tue May 25, 2010 at 11:28:33 PM EST
    Well facebook has been begging me to join...  I do not see why anyone would put themselves in such a venue...

    Glad I never took the bait....

    Parent

    I think it's time has come and (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 25, 2010 at 11:28:45 PM EST
    is now going.

    Parent
    Except that it has social significance (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by andgarden on Tue May 25, 2010 at 11:49:57 PM EST
    "Everybody" uses it.

    Parent
    Happy to report Pads beat the (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:56:10 AM EST
    Cardinals 1 to 0.

    Is Boxer really fighting for her (none / 0) (#39)
    by nycstray on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:02:10 AM EST
    career? So says the local news re Obama visit/fundraiser . . . .

    I remember voting for her when I last lived here. And my mom (Rep) voting for her also saying she may be voting for a Rep male for pres, but she was willing to stack the deck with Dem women.

    Do you have linkage, nycstray? (none / 0) (#45)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:00:32 AM EST
    Is somebody suggesting that Obama's presence at Boxer's fundraiser was counter-productive?

    Parent
    No, not that the visit was (none / 0) (#71)
    by nycstray on Wed May 26, 2010 at 11:52:12 AM EST
    counter-productive. It was more the lead into why he was here from some local babbling heads. Saying she's in the fight of her career (especially because she's an incumbent yada yada) and mentioning the 3 Repubs that want her seat. Can't remember what network it was. Here's a local link about the fundraiser.

    Parent
    After the fundraiser (none / 0) (#79)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:10:26 PM EST
    From your link (my bold)

    After the Fairmont event, which was expected to raise at least $1.7 million from supporters who paid $250 to $2,000 for tickets, Obama was whisked to an exclusive VIP dinner at the Broadway mansion of wealthy oil heir Gordon Getty and his wife, Ann.

    Inside the lavish home of the philanthropist son of oil tycoon J. Paul Getty, some 80 donors wrote checks for $35,200 per couple to meet the president and have their photo taken with him. Boxer's campaign raised $600,000 from the two events, while the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee took in $1.1 million, organizers said.

    With less than two weeks until the June 8 primary election, the president's fundraising trip to California for the upscale events on Boxer's behalf created some uncomfortable timing for the White House.

    As the BP oil spill blights miles of delicate marshland, well-known Democrats including analyst Donna Brazile and strategist James Carville have publicly criticized the federal government's failure to take a stronger role in stemming the disaster.



    Parent
    From wiki (none / 0) (#83)
    by nycstray on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:18:11 PM EST
    He joined the oil business to please his father; however, he eventually sold the family's Getty Oil to Texaco in 1986 for US$10 billion. His current net worth is cited as US$2.2 billion, making him the 116th richest person in the United States. Getty helped finance Gavin Newsom's PlumpJack Group businesses, including five restaurants, a Napa Valley winery, a Squaw Valley hotel and resort, and two retail clothing stores. Of Newsom's 11 enterprises, Gordon Getty was the lead investor in 10.

    Getty is one of the nation's leading venture capitalists and philanthropists. In 2002, he donated US$3 million to the Ann and Gordon Getty Foundation, a charitable trust. Though a Republican, he is a major fundraiser for local and national Democratic Party candidates, and has contributed to the campaigns of Nancy Pelosi, Willie Brown, Gavin Newsom, and John Kerry.

    Among a number of professions, Getty is a classical music composer, whose compositions include the opera Plump Jack, Joan and the Bells, and a collection of choral works. Aspiring to become an opera singer, Getty studied in the mid-1970s with Louise Caselotti, a mezzo soprano who had been Maria Callas' voice teacher (1946-47). He and his wife have supported the fine arts, especially underwriting productions of the San Francisco Opera.[3]

    In 2002, Getty founded ReFlow, a company which temporarily purchases shares in mutual funds to save funds taxes and commissions.[4][5]



    Gordon Getty

    Parent
    I would argue (none / 0) (#86)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:23:53 PM EST
    That regardless of whether he currently is in the oil business, his money still came from big oil - and for the president to be at a fundraiser NOW at the Gettys, was bad planning on someone's part.

    Wanna bet if any ways to clamp down on oil companies was discussed there?

    I also find it offensive that there are $32,500 fundraisers, even though I know that's the way of the world.  

    Parent

    Only For You And Your Agenda (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:51:04 PM EST
    No one shunned Obama, for raising money for Boxer because he had a $$$ dinner hosted by Getty son of an oil magnate. You would have to be a die hard member of an opposition party to spin this as a bad thing for Obama, Boxer or the Democrats.

    But that is your job here at TL as one of the die hard anti-Obama spinmeisters.

    BTW-You are not good at it.

    Parent

    You make jb's point (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Spamlet on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:01:35 PM EST
    You would have to be a die hard member of an opposition party to spin this as a bad thing for Obama, Boxer or the Democrats.

    Have you noticed any diehard members of an opposition party--people like, oh, I don't know, Sarah Palin--coming down hard on Obama over this BP oil spill? Do you think they just might spin the tone-deafness of this fundraiser's venue as a bad thing for Obama?

    It was bad optics. That is what jb is saying.

    To my knowledge, jb is a political independent. Does being an indepenent voter qualify as diehard membership in an opposition party? Yes, to Obama cultists. To the reality-based community, not so much.

    Parent

    Bad Optics? (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:08:52 PM EST
    Only for those hungry to paint Obama as bad.

    I have to say, calling Obama tone deaf, for doing a fundraiser at the Getty's makes you and jbindc look much worse than Obama.

    But then again, kool aid is known for causing blindness.

    Parent

    Some people tolerate disagreement (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Spamlet on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:19:52 PM EST
    with relative equanimity, and others use any occasion of disagreement as a pretext for contrarian a$$holery.

    Just a broad-brush generalization--a companion piece to your own.

    Parent

    Mirror? (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:53:01 PM EST


    Parent
    Guess I struck a nerve (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Spamlet on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:56:02 PM EST
    lol

    Parent
    What? (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:03:10 PM EST
    No nerve struck, just cool rational observation as to the log lodged in your eye...  But your anticipation, glee or whatever it is you hold regarding striking a "nerve", further points to your hypocrisy.

    Parent
    lol lol lol (none / 0) (#125)
    by Spamlet on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:06:20 PM EST


    Parent
    Spamlet (none / 0) (#127)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:24:02 PM EST
    Didn't you know?  Squeaks is always right.  If you disagree you are wrong, a cultist bedwetter.  After all, she's been around this site forever, so of course, she knows better.

    Anne made a great point - squeaks is just like Jan Brewer - she does hate the "immigrants" to TL because it made the site not as "pure" as it was before.

    Sad.  Too bad we don't have an "ignore" button.

    Parent

    Ignore Me? (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:14:03 PM EST
    Be my guest. But you cannot help yourself, and thus require an "ignore" button. Not surprised.

    And for all the complaints about personal attacks coming from you, you seem to be on a roll.

    hypocrisy is thy name..

    Parent

    Boring (none / 0) (#103)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:54:27 PM EST


    Parent
    But once again (none / 0) (#104)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:56:09 PM EST
    Great strawman argument - no one mentioned Obama being "shunned."

    You should change your handle to "Strawman"

    Parent

    My Point Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    You alone are shunning Obama for meeting with Getty. That is your job as an opposition party member.

    Parent
    Whatever (none / 0) (#113)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:20:03 PM EST
    Delusional, indeed.

    Parent
    Delusional (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:59:23 PM EST
    You are the one who is delusional, as you are the one who is calling Obama tone-deaf for holding a fundraiser for Boxer at the  Getty mansion because Getty's money comes from oil. What will the children think? Your criticism is silly, and grasping for straws, imo.

    But had Obama chose not to have a fundraiser for Boxer at the Getty mansion because it would not look good, you would, no doubt, be finding fault with Obama an egoist who cares only about his image, at the expense of helping Boxer in a rough political fight..

    or something like that...

    Parent

    I wouldn't argue that (none / 0) (#94)
    by nycstray on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:33:45 PM EST
    and this fundraiser was already planned pre-Gulf.

    I was trying to figure out how they could write checks for that amount. Are they bundling donations?

    Parent

    The fundraiser was already planned (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Spamlet on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:46:54 PM EST
    So was GWB's Crawford vacation--and, IIRC, a fundraiser in California--when Katrina hit.

    Not saying that the fundraiser for Boxer should have been cancelled, but even though Gordon Getty does happen to be a great guy, his oil money makes it tone-deaf to have gone ahead with plans to hold the fundraiser at Getty's house with Obama in attendance.

    Parent

    Yep. (none / 0) (#99)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:50:08 PM EST
    Exactly.  Just makes the situation worse and makes him look callous and out of touch to the situation.

    Although Chris Dodd tried to blame this on Bush on the Imus show this morning, and apparently Imus shut him down.  So, that's the new talking point - "Not our fault - it's Bush's!"  (Which it partially is, but the people of the Gulf Coast don't care whose fault it is - they just want answers).

    Parent

    Bush... (none / 0) (#108)
    by jondee on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:05:17 PM EST
    Which faction is it that's been clinging fanatically to and propagandizing constantly for, the notion that industries like BP's should be primarily self-regulating?

    Though obviously, Obama, and some others who will remain nameless, had war chests to fill as well.

    Parent

    Fundraisers (none / 0) (#95)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:39:44 PM EST
    Get canceled or postponed all the time for political reasons.  My sister works in scheduling - this fundraiser could have easily been put off to next month or so.  To say this was planned pre-gulf spill doesn't matter.

    Parent
    Primary is June 8th (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by nycstray on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:50:00 PM EST
    need to hit the ground running after that, not in the middle of the summer. And I'm sure the DSCC needs their funds now also for other races. Perhaps O should have been more visible about the Gulf from the get go and then this would not be such an issue for some?

    Parent
    Doesn't matter (none / 0) (#102)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:53:29 PM EST
    It could have been moved away from the Gettys and their home.  (And before someone says there wasn't time - yes there was.  There is always time if you have enough money.)

    Parent
    I may be remembering wrong (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by nycstray on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:02:44 PM EST
    but around these parts, the Getty's are not really considered Big Oil. And I have a funny feeling, no matter which rich person's house or fancy location, it would still be an issue for some that he was at a fundraiser.

    Parent
    Checks for that amount..... (none / 0) (#119)
    by Zorba on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:48:23 PM EST
    There must be some kind of bundling going on, or other ways to get around the limits on campaign contributions- isn't the limit still $2,400 per individual, or $4,800 per couple?  Either that, or it was a a $4,800 per couple donation, and a $30,400 per couple payment for dinner.  Must have been some dinner.  ;-)

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#122)
    by CST on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:58:21 PM EST
    $2,400 is just the limit for donations to a particular candidate.  But you can donate much more to the comittees.  Which I think is somewhere in the $20,000 - $30,000 range if my memory serves me correctly.

    Parent
    I looked it up (none / 0) (#126)
    by Zorba on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:08:19 PM EST
    You're right:

     

      #  $10,000 per calendar year to a State or local party committee. A State party committee shares its limits with local party committees in that state unless a local committee's independence can be demonstrated.
        # $30,400 per calendar year to a national party committee. This limit applies separately to a party's national committee, House campaign committee and Senate campaign committee.

    Link

    Parent

    Was chatting with my husband the (none / 0) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 11:19:35 AM EST
    other night about deep sea drilling.  I was talking about the risk because of the high pressure and he said that they must have something figured out in the North Sea....even though neither one of us knows anything much about the North Sea or drilling activities there.  When I was researching Blow Out Preventer failures I did stumble onto some writings describing redundant BOPs being used in the North Sea, where they have one BOP stacked on another BOP. I was remembering our conversation though and then I hit the google today and Ta Da....they don't have anything profound figured out in the North Sea either.  Jesus, someone save us from our stupid selves!

    I read somewhere yesterday (none / 0) (#77)
    by CST on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:03:01 PM EST
    that the relief drilling similar to what they usually do in these situations (like Australia) will probably take months to do in the gulf.

    Basically, either this top-kill thing works, or we're looking at oil spewing till about August.

    Parent

    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by nycstray on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:12:42 PM EST
    Also any protection for the shores will take months. I don't know why they didn't start building right away, we could be a month into it . . .

    if the top kill fails, it could also make it worse. what happens to all the pressure if they manage to block up this thing?

    Parent

    that seems to have been (none / 0) (#85)
    by CST on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:18:43 PM EST
    the problem with a lot of these "solutions".  If they don't work things can get worse - and so far, not much has worked.

    When people were talking about bombing it - there was a 60-70 % chance that might have sealed the leak.

    Or it could have blown an even bigger hole.

    Parent

    Yes, if this doesn't work (none / 0) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:26:25 PM EST
    It could degrade the stability of the wellhead on the ocean floor and we could end up with a larger gusher.  They claim they have tested the stability of the wellhead and based on info available it can sustain a top kill attempt.  The relief well drilling is tricky too.  The Australian success had to hit a 10.5 inch well casing dead on. They say this well casing is even thinner, the under sea depth is much greater too.  It's like brain surgery being preformed by a drilling rig.

    Parent
    for some reason (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by CST on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:33:27 PM EST
    this all reminds me of the movie Armageddon.

    Only I don't see a happy ending.

    What's crystal clear from all of this is NO ONE thought this out ahead of time.  Maybe we should just cut to the chase and get NASA and Bruce Willis on it.  I can't see how they could possibly do worse.

    I mean, what happens if we just can't stop the leak?

    Parent

    Chernobyl (none / 0) (#134)
    by Emma on Wed May 26, 2010 at 05:01:22 PM EST
    I mean, what happens if we just can't stop the leak?

    Chernobyl in the gulf and spreading into the oceans.

    Parent

    John Yoo opinion piece on (none / 0) (#91)
    by oculus on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:28:01 PM EST
    Elena Kagan and executive power:  NYT

    Here is the bio at end of article:

    John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of "Crisis and Command: A History of Executive Power From George Washington to George W. Bush."

    In the article, Yoo states he "worked on" policies during Bush II administration.

    Tuesday Night Open Thread | 134 comments (134 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment