Has the sickening, horrendous and seemingly unstoppable fountain of oil spewed forth from a mile beneath the Gulf of Mexico. Of course BP is at fault, and criminally so. It may not matter, because if BP is found criminally negligent, as they have been before, not one will go to prison. No one ever does from these corporations.
Up here in Alaska a few years back some guy got drunk and angry, took his high-powered rifle and shot a hole in the Alaska Pipeline. The amount of oil is like a millionth of the oil now gushing from Deep Horizon. Plus, nobody died, yet our drunken Alaskan angry man went to jail. Alaska's Prince William Sound is still smarting from the Exxon Valdez spill, but BP is going to make Exxon look like amateurs before it's over.
Which brings us to job of President Obama in regards to the Gulf spill: Has he done enough to bring BP to heel and to bring the might that is the U.S. Government into the action? I give him a qualified yes on both of these. BP lied to Obama as well as the American people about the seriousness of Deep Horizon's mile-down blowout, and even if he was utterly naive to trust them, he, like everyone else in America, had no good reason to think that the huge oil conglomerate did NOT have the expertise to handle such a contingency. As far using his power of the presidency, what do people like LA Governor Jindal, or Southern pundit James Carville (who really put on an embarrassing performance on TV) think he can do about this? Should he send up the "Bat Signal?" Call in The A team? And is Obama the Hand-holder-in-chief of the United States? Should he forget about Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea, the economy and the other 100 crises going on at the moment?
A SOLUTION:
Colin Powell made an appearance on ABC's This Week this morning, and he was asked if there was a "military" solution to the gulf oil spill. Colin responded by talking about military operations, chain-of-command, logistics, and he appeared to think that the military could help, but he wasn't quite sure how.
I have a suggestion for General Powell to take to the president, and it's a military solution. In fact it's one the military has practiced for since the 1950s. Why not lower a low yield (5 - 10 Kiloton range) nuclear device down to the spill's source and detonate it? Now don't tell me someone in an advisory capacity to Obama hasn't at least thought of it. The nuclear explosion would make a large glass bowl out of that immediate area, ignite and consume all the oil in the area, and probably wouldn't kill anything that's not dead already. Yes, radiation would be a problem for a couple of weeks, but we're not looking at anything as bad as Godzilla or giant glowing gulf shrimp devouring New Orleans. And it's not like we've never done undewater nuclear testing. This something President Obama can, and should consider. How many months or years of this ecological nightmare are we willing to abide?
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Monday, May 17, 2010
Riposting...
Former President Clinton’s fellow Arkansan and syndicated opinion writer Paul Greenberg either misunderstands or misrepresents Clinton’s words of warning about the current lack of civility in political discourse.
Greenberg misses the obvious point that Clinton has not warned us against peaceful protest (that’s “civil,” right?), but against the incitement to violence that we currently see among the various militia types, 2nd Amendment monomaniacs and secessionists. The same sort of wing nuts Clinton himself had to deal with in the 1990s.
Neither can Greenberg credibly equate the hate and vitriol that President Obama has experienced, from the day he took office, with the protests against President Bush. Anti-Bush protests really only began after Bush and Cheney lied us into a war on Iraq, a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, thereby wasting thousands of American lives, 100,000+ Iraqi lives, and perhaps $3 trillion before all is finally, and sadly, said and done.
Greenberg misses the obvious point that Clinton has not warned us against peaceful protest (that’s “civil,” right?), but against the incitement to violence that we currently see among the various militia types, 2nd Amendment monomaniacs and secessionists. The same sort of wing nuts Clinton himself had to deal with in the 1990s.
Neither can Greenberg credibly equate the hate and vitriol that President Obama has experienced, from the day he took office, with the protests against President Bush. Anti-Bush protests really only began after Bush and Cheney lied us into a war on Iraq, a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, thereby wasting thousands of American lives, 100,000+ Iraqi lives, and perhaps $3 trillion before all is finally, and sadly, said and done.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Cathing up with the local paper...
“Health insurance at the price of freedom? No.” - Governor Sean Parnell (April 21, Anchorage Daily News).
Such a champion of liberty is our governor, that he’s willing to pursue an expensive lawsuit of no judicial merit against the federal government, in order to deny 100,000 Alaskans access to decent, affordable health care. All this so he can offer those 100,000 Alaskans his peculiar and crass concept of “freedom.” And that would be the freedom to die an early death for lack of health care.
Dang, but it makes one proud to be an Alaskan – doesn’t it?
Former lite-gov. and legislator Loren Leman (“Thanks but no thanks,” Anchorage Daily News, 4/19/10) has a “Cadillac” health insurance plan, by virtue of his years of service as a government official. So why does he chide President Obama, for helping to give thousands of other Alaskans the opportunity to have the same sort of health care that Mr. Leman takes for granted?
Why does Leman insist that Obama has loaded debt on our children, when Bush’s war-of-choice in Iraq will end up costing us $3 Trillion. Why does he complain about the president’s international policies, when those policies, and Obama’s thoughtful, internationalist style has put America in higher regard by other countries than any president in recent memory. Why does Leman think allowing openly gay Americans to serve in the military is so awful, when the nation’s top generals think that it’s about time they did? Why does he say that Obama is anti-resource development after the president endorsed off-shore drilling? Why accuse Obama of a “radical agenda?”
Honestly. Why do people like Lori Bond (Anchorage Daily News) insist on calling the all-too timid attempt at health reform moving through Congress “Obamacare? ” Bring in Sen. Begich if you want to, but this half-a-loaf legislation is clearly a creature of Congress, and only Congress. Progressives like me just wish President Obama had taken more ownership of health care reform – perhaps then we’d get at least a public option, if not a single payer system.
Decriers of “Obamacare” such as Bond and others sound so much like the Birthers and Tea-baggers who scream, “Keep your government hands off my Medicare,” and insist on the debunked notion that ACORN stole 7 ½ million votes for Obama in 2008. They will say anything in the attempt to harm this presidency. It is further proof that far too many conservatives are more interested in seeing the president fail, than seeing the country succeed in offering what every other advanced nation already has: health care for all.
Such a champion of liberty is our governor, that he’s willing to pursue an expensive lawsuit of no judicial merit against the federal government, in order to deny 100,000 Alaskans access to decent, affordable health care. All this so he can offer those 100,000 Alaskans his peculiar and crass concept of “freedom.” And that would be the freedom to die an early death for lack of health care.
Dang, but it makes one proud to be an Alaskan – doesn’t it?
Former lite-gov. and legislator Loren Leman (“Thanks but no thanks,” Anchorage Daily News, 4/19/10) has a “Cadillac” health insurance plan, by virtue of his years of service as a government official. So why does he chide President Obama, for helping to give thousands of other Alaskans the opportunity to have the same sort of health care that Mr. Leman takes for granted?
Why does Leman insist that Obama has loaded debt on our children, when Bush’s war-of-choice in Iraq will end up costing us $3 Trillion. Why does he complain about the president’s international policies, when those policies, and Obama’s thoughtful, internationalist style has put America in higher regard by other countries than any president in recent memory. Why does Leman think allowing openly gay Americans to serve in the military is so awful, when the nation’s top generals think that it’s about time they did? Why does he say that Obama is anti-resource development after the president endorsed off-shore drilling? Why accuse Obama of a “radical agenda?”
Honestly. Why do people like Lori Bond (Anchorage Daily News) insist on calling the all-too timid attempt at health reform moving through Congress “Obamacare? ” Bring in Sen. Begich if you want to, but this half-a-loaf legislation is clearly a creature of Congress, and only Congress. Progressives like me just wish President Obama had taken more ownership of health care reform – perhaps then we’d get at least a public option, if not a single payer system.
Decriers of “Obamacare” such as Bond and others sound so much like the Birthers and Tea-baggers who scream, “Keep your government hands off my Medicare,” and insist on the debunked notion that ACORN stole 7 ½ million votes for Obama in 2008. They will say anything in the attempt to harm this presidency. It is further proof that far too many conservatives are more interested in seeing the president fail, than seeing the country succeed in offering what every other advanced nation already has: health care for all.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Over Two Months Now And...
I'm finally getting around to blogging. I chalk it up to Obama disappointment depression followed by the Obama satisfaction elation that came after the HCR bill(s) passed.
If you haven't ever read the conservative writings of Jonah Goldberg, you can easily Google his missive that matches up to this letter from me to the Anchorage Daily News:
How does someone get to be a “fellow” at the American Enterprise Institute (Opinion: Jonah Goldberg, March 22) and not know that it was Republican President Warren G. Harding that first and most famously uttered the words: “Return to Normalcy,” not Franklin Roosevelt.
How does Goldberg get away with saying that, “The 1920s was a decade of roaring economic growth,” while failing to add that the false economic growth he cites rested on the backs of the working class. Laborers, farmers and the emergent middle class saw little or no improvement in their condition. Predatory lenders only made them think they were “getting ahead.” Indeed, the disparity of wealth in America in 1928 is only rivaled by the disparity of wealth in 2008, just before the current recession.
And how funny is it that the Daily News continues to publish right-wing pundits like Jonah Goldberg? Pretty funny, given the apparently purposeful ineptitude of conservative research and fact check departments.
Also worth a Google search:
Bill Maher: "New Rule: You Can't Use "There Will Be No Cooperation for the Rest of the Year" as a Threat If There Was No Cooperation in the First Half of the Year" Courtesy of HuffPo, and
Charles M. Blow's "Who's Country is this?" from the NYT.
And if anyone's interested...
My next book to get: "The History of White People," by Nell Painter (I always wondered about us white folk).
My current read: "Bomb Power: The Modern Presidency and the National Security State" by Garry Wills
If you haven't ever read the conservative writings of Jonah Goldberg, you can easily Google his missive that matches up to this letter from me to the Anchorage Daily News:
How does someone get to be a “fellow” at the American Enterprise Institute (Opinion: Jonah Goldberg, March 22) and not know that it was Republican President Warren G. Harding that first and most famously uttered the words: “Return to Normalcy,” not Franklin Roosevelt.
How does Goldberg get away with saying that, “The 1920s was a decade of roaring economic growth,” while failing to add that the false economic growth he cites rested on the backs of the working class. Laborers, farmers and the emergent middle class saw little or no improvement in their condition. Predatory lenders only made them think they were “getting ahead.” Indeed, the disparity of wealth in America in 1928 is only rivaled by the disparity of wealth in 2008, just before the current recession.
And how funny is it that the Daily News continues to publish right-wing pundits like Jonah Goldberg? Pretty funny, given the apparently purposeful ineptitude of conservative research and fact check departments.
Also worth a Google search:
Bill Maher: "New Rule: You Can't Use "There Will Be No Cooperation for the Rest of the Year" as a Threat If There Was No Cooperation in the First Half of the Year" Courtesy of HuffPo, and
Charles M. Blow's "Who's Country is this?" from the NYT.
And if anyone's interested...
My next book to get: "The History of White People," by Nell Painter (I always wondered about us white folk).
My current read: "Bomb Power: The Modern Presidency and the National Security State" by Garry Wills
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Some reasons for the Mass. Dem Debacle...
Are:
1. A lousy candidate. I'm sure Martha Coakley is a good A.G. but...
2. Democratic party laxity. Were the Dems thinking this was Animal House? "They have to take me - I'm a legacy!"
3. No youth vote. The kids won't come out for bland middle-aged white ladies.
4. No Kennedys. The Dynasty looks to have run its course, leaving a political vacuum.
5. Mass. already has a great health care system. Why should they pay for others?
6. Mass. voters not as progressive as thought. Remember the "Southies" stoning buses of black students during the forced integration of Boston schools?
7. Mass. is a "donor" state, giving more tax revenue to the federal government than they get back. Why add health care?
8. Shay's Rebellion in a tea bag.
9. Photogenic former Cosmo male nude fold-out w/photogenic wife, "available" daughters.
10. [Enter your reason here_______________________________________].
______________________________________
Some have been commenting on the way the U.S. Senate does its business with the automatic "filibuster" of 41 against any legislation. A rule that takes 67/100 votes to change, painting the Senate into its own corner. The only other option is to go "constitutional" (read: "nuclear")if Joe Biden were bidden to do so. As it is now, 41 beats 59. The Constitution allows the Senate to make its own rules, but called for super-majorities only for certain high-level appointments and treaties. I would like to believe that if some senator, or the Democratic Party brought suit, it would not survive a SCOTUS ruling. But after the Taney Court-like decision that opens the corporate $$ floodgates, Plutocracy now trumps democracy. American expatriates have good reason to feel vindicated and guiltless for giving up on the republic.
1. A lousy candidate. I'm sure Martha Coakley is a good A.G. but...
2. Democratic party laxity. Were the Dems thinking this was Animal House? "They have to take me - I'm a legacy!"
3. No youth vote. The kids won't come out for bland middle-aged white ladies.
4. No Kennedys. The Dynasty looks to have run its course, leaving a political vacuum.
5. Mass. already has a great health care system. Why should they pay for others?
6. Mass. voters not as progressive as thought. Remember the "Southies" stoning buses of black students during the forced integration of Boston schools?
7. Mass. is a "donor" state, giving more tax revenue to the federal government than they get back. Why add health care?
8. Shay's Rebellion in a tea bag.
9. Photogenic former Cosmo male nude fold-out w/photogenic wife, "available" daughters.
10. [Enter your reason here_______________________________________].
______________________________________
Some have been commenting on the way the U.S. Senate does its business with the automatic "filibuster" of 41 against any legislation. A rule that takes 67/100 votes to change, painting the Senate into its own corner. The only other option is to go "constitutional" (read: "nuclear")if Joe Biden were bidden to do so. As it is now, 41 beats 59. The Constitution allows the Senate to make its own rules, but called for super-majorities only for certain high-level appointments and treaties. I would like to believe that if some senator, or the Democratic Party brought suit, it would not survive a SCOTUS ruling. But after the Taney Court-like decision that opens the corporate $$ floodgates, Plutocracy now trumps democracy. American expatriates have good reason to feel vindicated and guiltless for giving up on the republic.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
And another response...
To an Anchorage Daily News letter went like this:
Honestly. Why do people like Lori Bond (Letters, Jan. 2) insist on calling the all-too timid attempt at health reform moving through Congress “Obamacare? ” Bring in Sen. Begich if you want to, but this half-a-loaf legislation is clearly a creature of Congress, and only Congress. Progressives like me just wish President Obama had taken more ownership of health care reform – perhaps then we’d get at least a public option, if not a single payer system.
Decriers of “Obamacare” such as Bond and others sound so much like the Birthers and Tea-baggers who scream, “Keep your government hands off my Medicare,” and insist on the debunked notion that ACORN stole 7 ½ million votes for Obama in 2008. They will say anything in the attempt to harm this presidency. It is further proof that far too many conservatives are more interested in seeing the president fail, than seeing the country succeed in offering what every other advanced nation already has: health care for all.
True...?
Honestly. Why do people like Lori Bond (Letters, Jan. 2) insist on calling the all-too timid attempt at health reform moving through Congress “Obamacare? ” Bring in Sen. Begich if you want to, but this half-a-loaf legislation is clearly a creature of Congress, and only Congress. Progressives like me just wish President Obama had taken more ownership of health care reform – perhaps then we’d get at least a public option, if not a single payer system.
Decriers of “Obamacare” such as Bond and others sound so much like the Birthers and Tea-baggers who scream, “Keep your government hands off my Medicare,” and insist on the debunked notion that ACORN stole 7 ½ million votes for Obama in 2008. They will say anything in the attempt to harm this presidency. It is further proof that far too many conservatives are more interested in seeing the president fail, than seeing the country succeed in offering what every other advanced nation already has: health care for all.
True...?
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Recently I responded to an Anchorage Daily News letter-to-the-editor...
Paul Rasmussen’s letter (Dec. 4) indicates that his grasp of the
U. S. Constitution is insufficient.
While the power to declare war is expressed in the Constitution, it is given solely to Congress. Hence, no “wars” fought since WWII – not Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Afghanistan nor Iraq – can properly be called “wars” in the strictest constitutional sense. Since December 8th 1941 there have been “police actions,” “conflicts” and “operations,” but no wars. If a constitutionalist, Mr. Rasmussen should decry all recent American blood and treasure sacrificed in such unconstitutional “wars.”
Mr. Rasmussen correctly states that there is no reference to “health care” in the Constitution, yet he must also know that there are no references to Social Security, Medicare, or the federal highway system either. Still, most Americans enjoy having these things in their lives. The “Necessary and Proper” Clause of the Constitution gives Congress implicit powers to execute laws and delegate powers covering the aforementioned services, and if Congress so wishes, health care as well.
I hope that Congress does just that.
U. S. Constitution is insufficient.
While the power to declare war is expressed in the Constitution, it is given solely to Congress. Hence, no “wars” fought since WWII – not Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Afghanistan nor Iraq – can properly be called “wars” in the strictest constitutional sense. Since December 8th 1941 there have been “police actions,” “conflicts” and “operations,” but no wars. If a constitutionalist, Mr. Rasmussen should decry all recent American blood and treasure sacrificed in such unconstitutional “wars.”
Mr. Rasmussen correctly states that there is no reference to “health care” in the Constitution, yet he must also know that there are no references to Social Security, Medicare, or the federal highway system either. Still, most Americans enjoy having these things in their lives. The “Necessary and Proper” Clause of the Constitution gives Congress implicit powers to execute laws and delegate powers covering the aforementioned services, and if Congress so wishes, health care as well.
I hope that Congress does just that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
