Politics Plus

This should be quite interesting.

The two men vying for the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate nomination enter the last weekend of the race locked in a dead heat according to the latest tracking poll released by Muhlenberg College. The latest results of the poll, taken between May 11-14: Sen. Arlen Specter 44, Rep. Joe Sestak 43.

The poll, which has tracked 400 likely voters since Apr. 28 and has a margin of error of 5%, has fluctuated in the homestretch of the primary, alternately showing Sestak or Specter ahead by as much as 5 points. Overall, however, the poll has shown the race to be too close to call. Though Sestak has had all the momentum in the closing weeks, the Muhlenberg poll suggests he has not achieved a big enough lead to write off a Specter win by any means.

The TPM Poll Average for the primary, which includes the new Muhlenberg poll, shows Sestak ahead by a margin of 44.5-43.1…

Inserted from <TPM>

Despite polls to the contrary, I think Specter has an better chance to defeat Teabag Toomey than Sestak.  Polls on the general, before the primary, are seldom accurate.  Nevertheless, were I a Pennsylvanian, I would vote for Sestak, because he is more likely to support progressive positions.  However, if Specter wins, I shall support him over Toomey.

Of late, we have been so focused on the Gulf oil leak that other oil industry atrocities have slipped under the radar.  Bill Moyers wrote this excellent piece on one of them.  I’m so glad to see that continues to share the benefits of his integrity, intellect and experience despite his retirement.

Even as headlines and broadcast news are dominated by BP’s fire-ravaged, sunken offshore rig and the ruptured well gushing a reported 210,000 gallons of oil per day into the Gulf of Mexico, there’s another important story involving Big Oil and pollution — one that shatters not only the environment but the essential First Amendment right of journalists to tell truth and shame the devil.

(Have you read, by the way, that after the surviving, dazed and frightened workers were evacuated from that burning platform, they were met by lawyers from the drilling giant Transocean with forms to sign stating they had not been injured and had no first-hand knowledge of what had happened?! So much for the corporate soul.)

But our story is about another petrochemical giant — Chevron — and a major threat to independent journalism. In New York last Thursday, Federal Judge Lewis A. Kaplan ordered documentary producer and director Joe Berlinger to turn over to Chevron more than 600 hours of raw footage used to create a film titled Crude: The Real Price of Oil.

Released last year, it’s the story of how 30,000 Ecuadorians rose up to challenge the pollution of their bodies, livestock, rivers and wells from Texaco’s drilling for oil there, a rainforest disaster that has been described as the Amazon’s Chernobyl. When Chevron acquired Texaco in 2001 and attempted to dismiss claims that it was now responsible, the indigenous people and their lawyers fought back in court.

Some of the issues and nuances of Berlinger’s case are admittedly complex, but they all boil down to this: Chevron is trying to avoid responsibility and hopes to find in the unused footage — material the filmmaker did not utilize in the final version of his documentary — evidence helpful to the company in fending off potential damages of $27.3 billion.

This is a serious matter for reporters, filmmakers and frankly, everyone else. Tough, investigative reporting without fear or favor — already under siege by severe cutbacks and the shutdown of newspapers and other media outlets — is vital to the public awareness and understanding essential to a democracy. As Michael Moore put it, “The chilling effect of this is, [to] someone like me, if something like this is upheld, the next whistleblower at the next corporation is going to think twice about showing me some documents if that information has to be turned over to the corporation that they’re working for.”

In an open letter on Joe Berlinger’s behalf, signed by many in the non-fiction film business (including the two of us), the Independent Documentary Association described Chevron’s case as a “fishing expedition” and wrote that, “At the heart of journalism lies the trust between the interviewer and his or her subject. Individuals who agree to be interviewed by the news media are often putting themselves at great risk, especially in the case of television news and documentary film where the subject’s identity and voice are presented in the final report.

“If witnesses sense that their entire interviews will be scrutinized by attorneys and examined in courtrooms they will undoubtedly speak less freely. This ruling surely will have a crippling effect on the work of investigative journalists everywhere, should it stand.”

Just so. With certain exceptions, the courts have considered outtakes of a film to be the equivalent of a reporter’s notebook, to be shielded from the scrutiny of others. If we — reporters, journalists, filmmakers — are required to turn research, transcripts and outtakes over to a government or a corporation — or to one party in a lawsuit — the whole integrity of the process of journalism is in jeopardy; no one will talk to us.

In his decision, Judge Kaplan wrote that, “Review of Berlinger’s outtakes will contribute to the goal of seeing not only that justice is done, but that it appears to be done.” He also quoted former Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis’ famous maxim that “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.”

There is an irony to this, noted by Frank Smyth of the Committee to Protect Journalists.Brandeis “made his famous sunlight statement about the need to expose bankers and investors who controlled ‘money trusts’ to stifle competition, and he later railed against not only powerful corporations but the lawyers and other members of the bar who worked to perpetuate their power”

In a 1905 speech before the Harvard Ethical Society, Brandeis said, “Instead of holding a position of independence, between the wealthy and the people, prepared to curb the excesses of either, able lawyers have, to a large extent, allowed themselves to become adjuncts of great corporations and have neglected the obligation to use their powers for the protection of the people.”

Now, more than a century later, Chevron, the third largest corporation in America, according to Forbes Magazine, has hauled out their lawyers in a case that would undermine the right of journalists to protect the people by telling them the truth… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Huffington Post>

I agree with Moyers completely.  I can understand judges requiring the same materials to review themselves in the privacy of their chambers under strict secrecy.  In this way, the defendants are afforded protections from creative editing of the type that occurred in the ACORN case.  But revealing whistleblowers will shut them up tighter then a Republican Senator’s grip on a nickel for the poor.

This piece reveals how Machiavellian Big Oil has become, and in that respect it dovetails nicely with a Rachel Maddow report on the lengths to which Big Oil will go to evade taxes, regulation, and responsibility.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Honesty in Big Oil is as common as Muslim Popes in Catholicism.  Whatever it takes, they all need to pay the full cost of producing their product, including all the suffering they inflict on humankind and nature alike.  There are ways.  A 90% excise tax, perhaps?

Corporations are NOT people!  Money is NOT speech!

Thanks, Diane, for sending me this.  By the time I saw it, it was all over the news.

Ugly, isn’t it?

BP probably held it back, because analysis of the video reveals that the leak is over 70,000 barrels a day.  The original estimate from the Coast Guard, based on BP data was 5,000 barrels per day.  So what we have is one Exxon Valdez disaster every four days.

Democrats in the Senate are trying to raise the liability cap from $75 million to $10 billion.  That’s still too low.  BP annual profit is double that.  The only cap for a disaster of this magnitude is $infinity.  But even the overly lax cap of $10 billion is too much for the GOP.

Alaska’s senior senator blocked legislation Thursday that would have dramatically increased liability caps on oil companies, in the wake of one of the industry’s biggest disasters.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) objected to a voice vote request by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) on the bill, which would have spiked the maximum liability for oil companies after an oil spill from $75 million to $10 billion. The legislation has significant support from Democrats, and the White House has indicated it backs an increase in liability caps.

But Murkowski said the legislation is “not where we need to be right now” and would unfairly advantage large oil companies by pricing the small companies out of the market. Murkowski did signal that she would be open to "look at the liability cap and consider raising it.” Just not at this moment.

Menendez, speaking to reporters after the bill was halted on the Senate floor, said the opposition indicates that Republicans are on the side of the oil companies, not the American people. There had been no formal floor debate or roll call vote requested on the legislation.

“It’s straightforward, it’s common sense,” Menendez said. “Either you want to fully protect the small businesses, individuals and communities devastated by a man-made disaster — this is not a natural disaster; this is a man-made disaster — or you want to protect multibillion-dollar oil companies from being held fully accountable. Apparently there are some in the Senate who prefer to protect the oil companies.”… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Politico>

Murkowski offered two main arguments.  First is that Big Oil has unlimited liability already, because anyone can sue them.  Tell that to the victims of Exxon Valdez spill.  After twenty years, many have died of old age waiting to see the first penny.  The people whose livelihoods are gone need justice now, not 20-30 years from now… if the live that long.

Second, Murkowski argued that it would put “mom and pop” operators out of business by making the cost of their liability insurance so high that they could not afford to operate.  Earth to Murkowski!  Is anyone home?  There are no mom and pop companies in deep offshore drilling.  If there were, any company that cannot afford liability for the damage they cause has no business being in business.  If I can’t afford auto liability insurance, I have no business driving a car.

Many in the GOP are shaking their heads in mock shock that one lone Senator could do such a thing.  Don’t you dare believe that!  Theses greedy Republicans goose step in lock step.  Murkowski was assigned this role, because she does not face reelection until 2014.  The GOP is seeking to help Big Oil avoid responsibility without appearing to do so.

Corporations are NOT people!  Money is NOT speech!