More than 3,200 Gulf wells unplugged, unprotected

Happy Anniversary!

Read the rest of this post...

Public support growing for Marijuana legalization

More from HuffPost.

Both the CNN and Pew surveys found those who have attended college much more likely to support legalization than those who have not. According to CNN's research, those who attended college opposed legalization by a five percentage point margin, while those who did not opposed it by 27 percentage points. The Pew poll, which broke responses down further, similarly found that college graduates and those with some college education were much more likely to support legalization than those with a high school education or less.

In the CNN poll, non-whites were less likely to support legalizing marijuana than whites, even though, as the Human Rights Watch has reported, blacks will more likely be arrested for drug possession than whites (the CNN poll did not break down the "non-white" category further because the sample sizes would be too small).

Higher-income individuals were amore likely to support legalization than those with lower incomes, CNN also found.

Read the rest of this post...

Howard Dean changes his mind — Afghanistan "is not a winnable war"

Quite the change, from peacenik to warrior to peacenik again. The Daily Beast has the goods (h/t David Dayen):

In a weekend interview with The Daily Beast, Dean said he’s had a change of heart when it comes to the war he has often defended. “I actually supported the president when he sent extra troops to Afghanistan,” Dean said. “But I’ve come to believe that’s not a winnable war.”

Dean attributes his newly-held opposition to a crisis of faith in Afghan President Hamid Karzai—and in the war’s humanitarian value.

“I supported (ramping up troop presence) because I was concerned with what would happen to the women in the country” if the Taliban took control, Dean said. “But I recently read about Karzai saying some very sexist, terrible things, and it’s become obvious that there’s not a whole lot of difference between the two sides.” ... Dean didn’t specify what Karzai had done to draw such sharp criticism, but the prime minister has taken heat recently from women’s rights advocates, who say he’s bending to Taliban pressure at the expense of the country’s women.

Yes, the issue with women and the Taliban is potent. Those views are seriously retrograde, and I don't credit this kind of paternalistic power-seeking as religion in any sense but camouflage.

But there are many reasons to rethink that so-called "good war." If you're looking for a primer, start with this, from our own Tom Wellington. It's an eye-opener. Looks like Dean's eyes have been opened up a bit as well.

GP Read the rest of this post...

84% oppose GOP Paul Ryan's Medicare plan

From Ezra Klein:

You know what’s not popular? Reforming Medicare such that beneficiaries “receive a check or voucher from the government each year for a fixed amount they can use to shop for their own private health insurance policy.” According to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, 65 percent of Americans oppose the idea -- about the same number who dismissed it in 1995. And if they’re told that the cost of private insurance for seniors is projected to outpace the cost of Medicare insurance for seniors -- which is exactly what CBO projects -- more than 80 percent of Americans oppose the plan.

But it’s not just sweepingly ideological reforms that are unpopular. Cutting Medicare polls poorly even if you leave out the details. Almost 80 percent of Americans oppose Medicare cuts in the abstract, while 70 percent oppose Medicaid cuts. Slightly over half of the country wants the Defense Department left alone. The only deficit-reduction option that is popular? Raising taxes on the rich. That gets the go-ahead from 72 percent of us -- though, as any budget wonk will tell you, it can’t solve anything beyond a small fraction of our fiscal problem.

I'm not entirely sure what Ezra means by that last sentence. Perhaps he means ONLY raising taxes on the rich rather than raising them on everyone. For example, we learned the other day that if the Bush tax cuts are permitted to lapse for everyone it would solve 75% of the deficit over the next five years, and 40% of the deficit over the next twenty years. This single Republican demand is causing between half to three-quarters of the entire deficit.

So just to clarify, the problem isn't that raising taxes won't help. It's that only raising taxes on the rich won't help nearly enough. It has to be everyone. Which kind of sucks. But might be acceptable IF the GOP makes just as large of concessions, which is unlikely. Read the rest of this post...

More conservative attacks on art, this time literally

This is becoming a theme week — crazy conservatives.

Here's a light, short piece on God vs. Art, at least the God that crazy conservatives seem to worship. As you watch, pay attention to the locations — France, D.C., and elsewhere. France?



The "I serve God" crowd is scary, since the God they serve seems always to serve their own conflicted Id. Sometimes I dream about putting them all in a room, giving them God-like powers, and letting them have a Night of the Krell all by themselves. That would empty the room in a hurry.

GP

Update: Video now fixed. Read the rest of this post...

Obama's town hall at Facebook

This event has been getting a lot of buzz. Could be some interesting questions. Via the White House livestream:

JOIN THE LIVE CHAT

VISIT WHITEHOUSE.GOV

Read the rest of this post...

More on "financial martial law" from Big Government Conservatives

Big Government Conservatives are conservatives who don't want anyone in government to have power until they control government; then they want to rule like kings.

The latest example is what's happening in Michigan, where the new Teabag-enabled GOP governor has been given "financial martial law" powers. Our discussion of that subject is here. Rachel Maddow has been on it as well.

First, on Monday, she did one segment on state-by-state GOP overreach, and another on Michigan's ability to use "financial martial law".

Tuesday she followed up stunningly, with more on what's happening in Benton Harbor, Michigan, a poor, black community next to wealthier, whiter St. Joseph. The Benton Harbor story starts at 1:10, after her generalizing intro. (About that intro, see below.)



Amazing, isn't it? Benton Harbor, 85% black, with an average income of $10,000/year, is home to Whirlpool. A Whirlpool heir, Fred Upton, represents Benton Harbor in the U.S. House, and his former staffer, Al Pscholka, represents Benton Harbor in the state house. Pscholka's the guy who introduced the "financial martial law" bill. And thanks to that law, Benton Harbor is first to get it in the neck. Full circle.

What do the big boys have their eye on? Fiscal health for Benton Harbor? Not quite. They want to turn Benton Harbor's beautiful lakefront park into part of a beautiful rich-man's golf course and housing development, and with sweeping dictatorial powers, they can do it in a blink. (Much more at this Daily Kos link and in this earlier Maddow segment on Benton Harbor.)

Privatizing a public resource so that only the rich can use it — isn't that always the way? And don't let that "non-profit" tag on the development agency fool you; I'm sure where there's money, there are ways to get at it.

Don't forget to check out the list of similarly intrusive laws before the states (8:15). Stunning in its reach.

These aren't Teabaggers, folks; they are corporate Republicans, representing your basic Billioinaire's Coup. The only Teabaggy thing about them is the crowd that puts them in office. This is the authoritarian big-money right, a pack of crazies it seems, and the political retainers and henchmen who serve them. (The rewards for those retainers and operative, like Scott Walker for example, will be huge; count on it. Walker is set for life.)

Things are bad, and I'm afraid they won't get better till they get a whole lot worse.

About that opening, she gets it almost right. She says this is "single most telling thing" about the choice between the two parties and how we shall be governed.

Almost, I think. What she says about the Republicans gets it exactly. The hard-right is loaded with authoritarian power-worshippers, and the "freedom-loving" masses who enable them. But the Dems? She doesn't really tell that side of the story, and I wouldn't assume that the organized left is the mirror inverse of the organized right. Progressive Democrats may be the opposite side of the GOP coin. Can we say the same about corporate Democrats? I don't think so.

In fact, the fact that we can't say the same about corporate Democrats is the very reason things won't get better until they get worse.

Nevertheless, an excellent segment. This is what's coming, folks, from the Teabag-enabled corporate Right. Social control with boots on.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Memo to Palin and Hannity: This is not "Easter Week." This is Holy Week (and it is not happy)

Listen, I don't purport to be an expert on Christianity. And, I certainly don't flaunt religion like so many of our elected officials do.

But, if you're going to wear your Christianity on your sleeve, here's an idea: Get the basic facts right.

Last night, on FOX, Sarah Palin said to Sean Hannity, "Happy Easter Week, Sean." He responded, "And, Happy Easter Week to you."

Huffington Post has the video. You can see this exchange at around the 1:30 mark.

Here's one important thing: it's not Easter Week. Any practicing Christian knows (or should know) this is Holy Week. And, it's not a "Happy" Week -- it's the most solemn week in the liturgical calender. This is, after all, the week Jesus died. Seriously, this is as basic as it gets in Christianity.

H/T Mike Signorile. He knows it's Holy Week, not Easter Week. Next week is Easter Week. Read the rest of this post...

FLASHBACK: BP photoshops fake photo of oil spill crisis command center to make it look busy

(It's the one year anniversary of the Gulf spill disaster. It seems appropriate to remind folks just who caused it.)

(H/t to AK for spotting this.)

UPDATE 12:08PM Eastern 7/20/10: BP has faked yet another oil crisis response photo on its Web site.

UPDATE: 11:14PM Eastern: BP has now posted the "original" photo, they claim. Except - surprise - they are refusing to post the high-resolution version of the new "original" photo (update: they've now posted the original photo). They posted the high-res version of the altered photo earlier, and in fact, that version is still live via a link below the new photo. Why not post the high-res version of the new "original" photo? Afraid someone is going to enlarge it and find out it's fake too?

UPDATE 10:37PM Eastern: The Washington Post has the story now. Oddly, BP is now claiming that the photo is real - but it showed blank screens, and rather than show blank screens at AP's crisis center, they instead put fake content-filled screens in the photo. Uh, a few questions.

1) Why were the screens in the crisis center blank in the middle of the crisis? Coffee break?
2) The BP spokesman claims that the photographer photoshopped the changes. Really? A professional photographer hired by BP Photoshops so poorly that a 12 year old kid could do a better job. Really? Let me show you what BP said exactly, and then the photo that supposedly this "professional" edited:

Scott Dean, a spokesman for BP, said that there was nothing sinister in the photo alteration and provided the original unaltered version. He said that a photographer working for the company had inserted the three images in spots where the video screens were blank.

Now here is the Photoshop job that the "professional" photographer did - this is just one part of the photo that he screwed up:



Anyone who has ever used Photoshop knows that this is an incredibly amateur job. I can do far better than this, and I tend to play with Photoshop for fun. We're to believe that a professional photographer did this poor a job, for pay, for a huge corporate client? Really? No one would hire this photographer again if this is true. Oh, and the photographer added the fake screens to the photo, what, without BP's permission? That's what they're implying, "the photographer did it."

3) Why does the meta data show that the photo was actually taken on March 6, 2001? Or is BP next going to tell us that their professional photographer has never set the time and date stamp on his multi-thousand dollar camera? Because then all of his photos for all of his clients will be screwed up. Really?
______________________________________

UPDATE: The photo contains data suggesting it was taken in 2001, not July of 2010 as claimed on BP's Web site. That would suggest, at least one possibility is, that BP took an old photo and Photoshopped new pictures of the oil spill over it, to make it look "new." More on this at the end of the post.

I guess if you're doing fake crisis response, you might as well fake a photo of the crisis response center. Why do they need a fake photo at all? Don't they have a real crisis response center they could have used?

Original BP Photo that is linked off of this page, with a snippet of the photo:



Note the bad Photoshop job on the parts I cropped and blew up - click on each photo to see the larger version, which makes it painfully clear that they faked the photo (poorly, at that):















UPDATE: BP has apologized for the Photoshopped version of its command center, and it has just released this new, unedited version.



In all seriousness, an astute reader noticed that the meta info for the photo says it was created in 2001, not July 16, 2010 as claimed on BP's site. It looks like BP took a photo from 2001, and in order to make it look like the command center in July of 2010, they pasted pictures of the oil well leaking over the old photo.

Read the rest of this post...

Only 26% of Iowa Republicans believe Obama born in US

Chart courtesy of the Daily Mail

More from the Daily Mail  I will say one thing.  This is a testament to the power of a good message, and message unity.  If the Republicans can sell this, then Democrats truly need to rethink why it is their messages don't filter out as well as the GOP's.  I'd argue that those on the left who know how to spread a message, e.g., the Netroots, are pretty much ignored by the party establishment.  Oh, they send us the occasional talking point, do the occasional conference call, and even buy a few ads on the site (which is appreciated), but we're the ones who have a proven ability to spin a message effectively (and the party knows it).  Why are we not part of the discussion? Read the rest of this post...

“Any plan to reduce the deficit that does not include ending the Bush tax cuts...is not a serious plan”

What SEIU's Michelle Nawar says:

Gang of Six criticism is more intense off the Hill, with several of the nation’s most powerful union groups laying down crisp lines in the sand over elements they consider non-negotiable, such as ending tax cuts for the richest Americans.

“Any plan to reduce the deficit that does not include ending the Bush tax cuts -- a clear contributor to the deficit -- is not a serious plan,” said Michelle Nawar, Director for Legislation at the Service Employees. “Every middle class family should be offended if Congress calls on them to bear the burden for reducing a deficit they did not cause while continuing to handout more tax giveaways to millionaires and corporations. We'll see what the Gang of Six proposes, but how could any Democrat support a plan that cuts needed services for seniors and children while continuing these expensive tax giveaways?”

Nawar's question presumably extends to Obama, who has punted once on letting the Bush tax rates for the wealthy expire (they will now lapse at the end of 2012).

Keep in mind that Senator Durbin, one of the gang of six, said that their proposal will be to the right of Obama's:

"You have the House Republican budget from Congressman Paul Ryan, who I know and like, which is going to be placed somewhere on the right side of the spectrum. You have the president's suggestion, which will be on the other side of the spectrum. And if and when we reach an agreement, it will be in the middle, a bipartisan effort, which I think has a chance to succeed," Durbin said in an interview for ABC News' "Subway Series."

That means whatever evolves will be closer to the plan proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan. Then, wait til the negotiations begin. We've seen repeatedly that our President and his team really don't know how to negotiate.

Another dangerous idea gaining traction on the Hill is a mandatory spending cap, which has been proposed by Senators Corker (R-TN) and McCaskill (D-MO). My Hill sources tell me that Republicans plan to push this as part of the negotiations over the debt limit (yes, they're still paying politics with the debt limit.) Any proposal that focuses solely on spending caps is really a back door way of agreeing to the Ryan/House GOP plan. A spending cap would ultimately lead to massive cuts to Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. And, it would mean reducing deficit by spending cuts alone, not increasing revenue. Too many of the very smart people in DC seem to ignore the concept of raising revenue (that would mean a tax increase for most of them.)

NOTE FROM JOHN: As we posted previously, ending the Bush tax cuts would solve 75% of the deficit over the next five years, and 40% of the deficit over the next twenty years.  This single Republican demand is causing between half to three-quarters of the entire deficit. Read the rest of this post...

Iraq oil supply was "vital" to UK interests

The next thing you know, some might suggest oil is playing a role in supporting the anti-Gaddafi forces in Libya. How shocking.

Despite Tony Blair and his ministers' public insistence that Iraq's vast oil reserves – then estimated at 112 billion barrels – were a matter for the Iraqis alone, officials warned a meeting of the "inter-departmental Oil Sector Liaison Group (OSLG)" that appearing "gratuitously exploitative" in its policy goals – which included the aim to "maximise benefit to British industry and thus British employment/economy" – could "backfire politically".

Minutes of a meeting held on 12 May 2003 starkly spell out the importance of the issue, stating: "The future shape of the Iraqi industry will affect oil markets, and the functioning of Opec, in both of which we have a vital interest."

The latest disclosures follow the publication yesterday of minutes of meetings held between senior oil-industry executives and government ministers in the run-up to the war – despite official claims that no such talks occurred. The first of three documents assessing the situation in the immediate aftermath of the invasion sets out what is described as "required action" resulting from a meeting attended by representatives from key government departments including the Foreign Office, the then Department of Trade and Industry, the Department for International Development and the Treasury.

Read the rest of this post...

Financial crisis hooks another small fish

At least this prosecution is related to a few billion dollars as opposed to the tens of millions with previous cases. As mentioned before, it's not to dismiss the amount of money involved, but in the big picture this is still a rounding error. The big fish have been ignored and instead, the public is supposed to be happy about these side shows.

Outside of political insider circles, most people are more in line with the "prosecute Goldman Sachs or quit" thinking as opposed to this. Notice how like Madoff, this guy made the fatal error of losing money for businesses larger than his. The old boy network hates to be burned by the small time players.

When we spend trillions to rescue the rich and are then stuck with years of a soft economy, people expect more.

Prosecutors said Lee Farkas led a fraud scheme of staggering proportions for roughly eight years as chairman of Florida-based Taylor Bean & Whitaker. The fraud not only caused the company's 2009 collapse and put its 2,000 employees out of work, but also contributed to the collapse of Alabama-based Colonial Bank, the sixth-largest bank failure in U.S. history.

The jury returned its verdict late Tuesday after more than a full day of deliberations.

Colonial and two other major banks — Deutsche Bank and BNP Paribas — were collectively cheated out of nearly $3 billion, prosecutors estimated. Farkas and his cohorts — six of whom entered guilty pleas to related charges and testified against him at the two-week trial in U.S. District Court — also tried to fraudulently obtain more than $500 million in taxpayer-funded relief from the government's bank bailout program, the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).

Read the rest of this post...

GOP Governor Brewer signs bill giving Tea Party flag same status as US flag

Maybe they should just secede and form their own little gun-filled white supremacist nation. Read the rest of this post...

Big Oil fighting against new EU deep water drilling laws

The new laws are full of common sense changes such as requiring the company to have the money to fund an oil spill, but that's not stopping Big Oil from pushing back. The updated laws come a year after the Deepwater Horizon disaster and as the oil industry prepares for deep water drilling in Europe. The lack of accountability has always been an issue in this industry but with the increasingly dangerous drilling, it accountability has to be required. The Guardian:

Under the commission plans, tough rules would apply to all drilling sites within 200 miles of the coast. Previous piecemeal EU attempts to regulate oil drilling extended only to wells within 12 miles of shore, a limit that would have exempted BP's Deepwater Horizon operation. The rules would cover the boundary with international waters where the legal standing of wells is unclear, and mean virtually all offshore oil drilling operations within the EU being covered.

Oil companies would have to prove they could pay for any damage caused, either through an obligation to buy sufficient insurance, or by paying into a fund. They would also have to submit detailed plans on dealing deal with any accident.

Mobile oil rigs, like BP's Deepwater Horizon floating platform, would also be covered, with new tough rules on the kind of equipment to be used, such as blowout preventers, the failure of which was a key factor in the BP catastrophe. At present, laws requiring a high standard of safety equipment are limited to fixed rigs.

Read the rest of this post...

British military commander sent to Libya to organize troops. Mission creep, anyone?

Of course this is mission creep. How can anyone argue that it's not? The Independent:

One of the most battle-hardened commanders in the British Army, with extensive experience of combat in Afghanistan, is being sent to Libya to organise the rebels in their flagging campaign against Muammar Gaddafi's forces, The Independent has learnt.

The senior officer will be part of a team of 20 civil and military advisers based in the opposition capital Benghazi to try to bolster the opposition, which is beset by severe humanitarian problems and is failing to make any military headway.

Armed British troops are being sent to Libya for the first time to help rebels to break the increasingly bloody deadlock in the battle for control of the country. The colonel, a "high-flyer" whose identity cannot be disclosed for security reasons, has been decorated for bravery and leadership in Helmand where troops under his command took part in one of the most fierce and sustained periods of action by any UK unit in recent times. Dispatching the officer, along with a team hand-picked for their track records in their specialist fields, is seen as a sign of Britain's commitment to the provisional government. It will, however, bring accusations of "mission creep" with the possibility of ground troops being deployed in the bloody civil war.

Read the rest of this post...