Here on Friday afternoon, I was struck by the whimsy of an online cartoon-ad from SmartCar.
It shows two cars "facing" each other in profile, as if two people. One is a big, black SUV, the other a small silver SmartCar.
Cartoon captions above their heads:
Big Black SUV: No one takes me out anymore.
Small silver SmartCar: You drink too much.
Nothing profound, but a clever message in a bit of whimsy.
Just passing it on to lighten up a heavy week.
Ralph
Friday, June 25, 2010
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Oil money is the root of evil
Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) has received more campaign money from the oil industry than any other member of Congress. He is also the ranking minority member of the committee that regulates the industry. If the Republicans retake control of the House, he will chair the committee. That's not to say that Democrats don't also take money from the oil industry; it's just that Republicans are worse at giving back in return (or better, from BP's point of view).
Last week, Barton apologized to BP CEO Tony Hayward for Obama's "shakedown" tactics. Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) had used similar words in commenting to the press as the chair of the House Republican Study Committee.
Within hours, the GOP leaders saw the PR damage and forced Barton to apologize for his apology. Yesterday, Barton's official web site posted a conservative publication saying that Barton had been right but that he had been forced to back down because of fear that the Democrats "would use it to tie Republicans to an unpopular company."
Damn right, we did and will. Why not? It's obvious: Barton spoke what they really believe. It just wasn't politically expedient to say it out loud. Isn't the tie pretty obvious? Didn't oil money buy its favoritism? Shouldn't those who then vote against the public's interest and in favor of the oil industry be held accountable for those votes? Why not?
Now more evidence of what money can buy.
In today's New York Times is the story of a new BP drill site that's ready to start operation. Despite being 3 miles off the mainland in Alaska's Beaufort Sea, it doesn't come under the moratorium on offshore drilling. Why?
BP got around having to meet the extra safety requirements for off shore drilling by constructing a 31 acre artificial island made of gravel in the midst of 32 feet of water all around it. Hence, it qualifies as an "on shore" site. Technically they won't be drilling through water. But suppose these is a leak. It won't take much oil to spill over the boundaries of 31 acres of gravel -- right into the sea.
Ah, what money will buy.
Ralph
Last week, Barton apologized to BP CEO Tony Hayward for Obama's "shakedown" tactics. Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) had used similar words in commenting to the press as the chair of the House Republican Study Committee.
Within hours, the GOP leaders saw the PR damage and forced Barton to apologize for his apology. Yesterday, Barton's official web site posted a conservative publication saying that Barton had been right but that he had been forced to back down because of fear that the Democrats "would use it to tie Republicans to an unpopular company."
Damn right, we did and will. Why not? It's obvious: Barton spoke what they really believe. It just wasn't politically expedient to say it out loud. Isn't the tie pretty obvious? Didn't oil money buy its favoritism? Shouldn't those who then vote against the public's interest and in favor of the oil industry be held accountable for those votes? Why not?
Now more evidence of what money can buy.
In today's New York Times is the story of a new BP drill site that's ready to start operation. Despite being 3 miles off the mainland in Alaska's Beaufort Sea, it doesn't come under the moratorium on offshore drilling. Why?
BP got around having to meet the extra safety requirements for off shore drilling by constructing a 31 acre artificial island made of gravel in the midst of 32 feet of water all around it. Hence, it qualifies as an "on shore" site. Technically they won't be drilling through water. But suppose these is a leak. It won't take much oil to spill over the boundaries of 31 acres of gravel -- right into the sea.
Ah, what money will buy.
Ralph
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Obama and/vs McChrystal
Gen. Stanley McChrystal has been insubordinate, being dismissively critical of his civilian superiors in a published interview, which the writer says was clearly "on record" and which the general had a prepublication opportunity to read and comment on. He chose to let it stand.
The loud public outcry is practically demanding that Obama fire him. First, because it is intolerable to have someone in his position not be loyal and supporting the Commander in Chief. Secondly, if Obama doesn't fire him, then he will look weak and kowtowing to the military brass.
It's not a matter of squelching dissent. McChrystal has the president's ear in private; he participates in weekly strategy meetings. Public disloyalty is another matter. A military command has to have one Commander in Chief and a clear line of authority that is accepted all the way down the ranks. Military discipline is necessary; otherwise you have chaos.
Kieth Olbermann has a different take. He says: Take the letter of resignation, fold it neatly and put it in a drawer, and then tell the general to go back to Afghanistan and get to work cleaning up the mess he helped create. I assume he refers to the consequences of the counter-insurgency strategy that he instituted -- and in fact was given the command because he was the best one for that.
Olbermann's reasoning. He's no worse than any likely successor, and not accepting his resignation would be a politically powerful move for Obama.
In the end, I believe President Obama will make his decision without my advice. And I am glad of that. I don't really know enough about it all to make the decision, not do I want the responsibility.
Ralph
The loud public outcry is practically demanding that Obama fire him. First, because it is intolerable to have someone in his position not be loyal and supporting the Commander in Chief. Secondly, if Obama doesn't fire him, then he will look weak and kowtowing to the military brass.
It's not a matter of squelching dissent. McChrystal has the president's ear in private; he participates in weekly strategy meetings. Public disloyalty is another matter. A military command has to have one Commander in Chief and a clear line of authority that is accepted all the way down the ranks. Military discipline is necessary; otherwise you have chaos.
Kieth Olbermann has a different take. He says: Take the letter of resignation, fold it neatly and put it in a drawer, and then tell the general to go back to Afghanistan and get to work cleaning up the mess he helped create. I assume he refers to the consequences of the counter-insurgency strategy that he instituted -- and in fact was given the command because he was the best one for that.
Olbermann's reasoning. He's no worse than any likely successor, and not accepting his resignation would be a politically powerful move for Obama.
What exactly will the ouster of General McChrystal provoke, in our stupid, under-informed, constantly propagandized America of 2010? Who will be the first to identify McChrystal as a martyr to the evil Obama Administration? How many Americans, still looking for a rationalization to justify their rage at a Democratic president, or a black one, or an intelligent one, will have new fuel to feed their blind hatred?Interesting take on it. I was originally on the side of firing him -- a la Harry Truman and Gen. MacArthur. But remember his "old soldiers never die" speech to Congress? Truman survived it politically and has been lauded in history for his courage in reining in a popular, but clearly insubordinate, general.
Keep him, Mr. President. You will not merely neuter the political blowback, you will present a front of force, and calm, and intelligence, and a willingness to, dare I use the phrase Sir -- a willingness to listen to the Commanders on the ground, even when they shoot off their big brass-covered bazoos.
You can own him, Mr. President, and own the political aftermath, now pregnant with opportunities for your critics. The General can be your voice to speed up the de-escalation. My goodness, he could be your mouthpiece if you suddenly saw the morass for what it is and decided to declare victory and get the hell out now. Who would fight you on that, Sir?
"Which is more useful to this President and this nation right now?" he asked. "A martyred ex-General, around which an irresponsible and potentially dangerous opposition can coalesce? Or a spared and humbled General, surely no worse than any potential replacement, whose retention can recalculate the political formula... without a drop of blood, or a drop of teers, being shed?"
In the end, I believe President Obama will make his decision without my advice. And I am glad of that. I don't really know enough about it all to make the decision, not do I want the responsibility.
Ralph
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Tom Price - new one to watch
I first learned who Tom Price was on election day, November 2008. I was a volunteer poll watcher at a precinct in my community. The woman in charge of the polling site was Elizabeth Price. Later in the day, a voter greeted her like an old friend and I learned, from over-hearing their chat and asking questions of a fellow poll watcher that:
1. Her husband is Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), who was also running for re-election. But it was supposed to be OK for his wife to manage a voting site because it was in a different district (the 6th -- one over from ours), and he was not on the ballot for our area. Well, I guess that was ok, but somehow it didn't seem quite as non-partisan as it ought to be. I was maybe primed for offense, because this is a Republican area, and when we first introduced ourselves and asked if we might observe the unsealing of the ballot boxes as they were being prepared for use (as we had been carefully instructed to do) -- Betty Price was very suspicious and curt and wanted to know whom we were representing; and she gave us strict warning to stay out of the way. As the day wore on, she was tough but really ok -- and fair. She warmed up as we pitched in and helped by handing out sample ballots to those waiting in line, running errands for the poll workers, and answering voters' questions. In the end, we had no complaints. She ran a fair polling site.
2. But I've been paying attention ever since to the mention of Tom Price's name in Washington news. He is an orthopedic surgeon from Roswell, Emory trained, and has sponsored legislation on patients' rights. He has also risen in his 6 years in Congress to be on several important committees and was elected by his colleagues as Chairman of the House Republican Study Committee -- the policy study committee.
3. Tom Price was the subject of Jay Bookman's column in the AJC today. He gets quoted a lot lately, and Jay was pointing out his inconsistency and the lack of coherence in his -- the Republican -- position.
Before Obama's Oval Office speech, Price demanded action. "[He] needs to finally take charge of this disaster and show some real leadership."
The next day, Obama took the BP CEO Tony Hayward to the woodshed and they came out with Hayward's having promised to set up the $20B fund to pay for damages. So what was Tom Price's response?
He condemned Obama's [leadership?] tactics, calling it "Chicago-style shakedown politics." The sin, of course, was "compelling a private company to set up an escrow account" to assure the payments.
See, Obama should perform miracles and make the oil leak stop. But he shouldn't do anything to the oil company itself that caused the problem.
And then, of course, everybody jumped on Joe Barton (R-TX) for using the word "shakedown" in the hearing. But that's what they all were saying -- he just was inept enough to say it where it would get full media play.
OK. Why am I surprised? That's just who they are.
Ralph
1. Her husband is Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), who was also running for re-election. But it was supposed to be OK for his wife to manage a voting site because it was in a different district (the 6th -- one over from ours), and he was not on the ballot for our area. Well, I guess that was ok, but somehow it didn't seem quite as non-partisan as it ought to be. I was maybe primed for offense, because this is a Republican area, and when we first introduced ourselves and asked if we might observe the unsealing of the ballot boxes as they were being prepared for use (as we had been carefully instructed to do) -- Betty Price was very suspicious and curt and wanted to know whom we were representing; and she gave us strict warning to stay out of the way. As the day wore on, she was tough but really ok -- and fair. She warmed up as we pitched in and helped by handing out sample ballots to those waiting in line, running errands for the poll workers, and answering voters' questions. In the end, we had no complaints. She ran a fair polling site.
2. But I've been paying attention ever since to the mention of Tom Price's name in Washington news. He is an orthopedic surgeon from Roswell, Emory trained, and has sponsored legislation on patients' rights. He has also risen in his 6 years in Congress to be on several important committees and was elected by his colleagues as Chairman of the House Republican Study Committee -- the policy study committee.
3. Tom Price was the subject of Jay Bookman's column in the AJC today. He gets quoted a lot lately, and Jay was pointing out his inconsistency and the lack of coherence in his -- the Republican -- position.
Before Obama's Oval Office speech, Price demanded action. "[He] needs to finally take charge of this disaster and show some real leadership."
The next day, Obama took the BP CEO Tony Hayward to the woodshed and they came out with Hayward's having promised to set up the $20B fund to pay for damages. So what was Tom Price's response?
He condemned Obama's [leadership?] tactics, calling it "Chicago-style shakedown politics." The sin, of course, was "compelling a private company to set up an escrow account" to assure the payments.
See, Obama should perform miracles and make the oil leak stop. But he shouldn't do anything to the oil company itself that caused the problem.
And then, of course, everybody jumped on Joe Barton (R-TX) for using the word "shakedown" in the hearing. But that's what they all were saying -- he just was inept enough to say it where it would get full media play.
OK. Why am I surprised? That's just who they are.
Ralph
Monday, June 21, 2010
Oil makes people crazy
I submit the following to prove my point that oil makes people do and say crazy things:
1. The desire to gain control of oil production in Iraq was at least one of the factors that led the neo-cons (read Cheney) to be eager to invade Iraq -- even before 9/11.
2. Sarah Palin declared on her blog that the oil leak polluting the Gulf is the fault of the "radical environmentalists." If they had not blocked drilling in Alaska's pristine nature preserves, they wouldn't have to be drilling a mile deep in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. But, Sarah, let's not stop there; history is more than a decade old. Why not blame the inventor of the internal combustion engine? Or the first person that discovered that oil would burn?
3. Mississippi Governor and former head of the GOP Haley Barbour said that the temporary moratorium that Obama has imposed on drilling in the Gulf is worse than the oil leak that's been polluting the Gulf for over a month now.
4. Texas Representative Joe Barton apologized to BP CEO Tony Hayward for the awful way Obama strong-armed him into coughing up $20 billion to pay for it all. It's was a "shakedown," Barton said. House GOP leaders at least saw the political disadvantage to siding with BP in this and made Barton apologize for his apology. But -- don't be fooled -- they all really want to side with Big Business on every issue. This one is just a little too politically incorrect right now.
5. Not wanting to be left out, Michele Bachmann (my favorite purveyer of crazy talk) called the BP fund for Gulf victims a "redistribution of wealth fund." All together now, Sarah, Haley, Joe and Michele. Let's have another chorus of: "Drill, baby, drill."
6. Rand Paul has even hinted that some people think that it all might have been a Democratic conspiracy: create the polluting leak as a way to sell radical new energy legislation. No, Rand. Nice try for distraction; but creating the largest pollution ever is just not the style of environmentalists. You're confusing conspiring to cause a tragedy with recognizing the tragic result as a teaching opportunity.
7. The Louisiana Senate last week unanimously approved a resolution creating a state-designated Day of Prayer to seek divine intervention to the oil crisis. The last state sponsored day of prayer to influence nature that I can recall was GA governor Sonny Perdue's getting folks to pray for rain during our drought a couple of summers ago. The Almighty was a bit slow responding: the drought dragged on throughout that summer; but the next spring it rained like crazy, so that we began thinking maybe we needed to have another day of prayer to tell God "that's enough, thank you."
Ralph
1. The desire to gain control of oil production in Iraq was at least one of the factors that led the neo-cons (read Cheney) to be eager to invade Iraq -- even before 9/11.
2. Sarah Palin declared on her blog that the oil leak polluting the Gulf is the fault of the "radical environmentalists." If they had not blocked drilling in Alaska's pristine nature preserves, they wouldn't have to be drilling a mile deep in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. But, Sarah, let's not stop there; history is more than a decade old. Why not blame the inventor of the internal combustion engine? Or the first person that discovered that oil would burn?
3. Mississippi Governor and former head of the GOP Haley Barbour said that the temporary moratorium that Obama has imposed on drilling in the Gulf is worse than the oil leak that's been polluting the Gulf for over a month now.
4. Texas Representative Joe Barton apologized to BP CEO Tony Hayward for the awful way Obama strong-armed him into coughing up $20 billion to pay for it all. It's was a "shakedown," Barton said. House GOP leaders at least saw the political disadvantage to siding with BP in this and made Barton apologize for his apology. But -- don't be fooled -- they all really want to side with Big Business on every issue. This one is just a little too politically incorrect right now.
5. Not wanting to be left out, Michele Bachmann (my favorite purveyer of crazy talk) called the BP fund for Gulf victims a "redistribution of wealth fund." All together now, Sarah, Haley, Joe and Michele. Let's have another chorus of: "Drill, baby, drill."
6. Rand Paul has even hinted that some people think that it all might have been a Democratic conspiracy: create the polluting leak as a way to sell radical new energy legislation. No, Rand. Nice try for distraction; but creating the largest pollution ever is just not the style of environmentalists. You're confusing conspiring to cause a tragedy with recognizing the tragic result as a teaching opportunity.
7. The Louisiana Senate last week unanimously approved a resolution creating a state-designated Day of Prayer to seek divine intervention to the oil crisis. The last state sponsored day of prayer to influence nature that I can recall was GA governor Sonny Perdue's getting folks to pray for rain during our drought a couple of summers ago. The Almighty was a bit slow responding: the drought dragged on throughout that summer; but the next spring it rained like crazy, so that we began thinking maybe we needed to have another day of prayer to tell God "that's enough, thank you."
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
