Politics Plus

The developments in the Gulf situation in the past couple days have been troubling at best with BP starting to show their true colors.

Shifting and easing winds on Monday bought time for weather-beaten crews to bottle up and burn off a massive slick of rust-colored crude oil before it fouls fragile marshes and sugary beaches across four Gulf Coast states.

That reprieve, however, could also have a nasty ripple effect — pushing outlying plumes of polluted surface water and patches of tar balls into the Gulf of Mexico’s powerful loop current. That would propel the mess across the mangrove islands, seagrass beds and coral reefs of the Florida Keys, then up toward Miami Beach, Fort Lauderdale and beyond.

Trajectories from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration suggest the oil will remain offshore at least through Tuesday, and a University of Miami oceanographer said a weather front expected in 24 to 48 hours will likely begin pushing the spill away from the Gulf Coast and toward the loop current…

Inserted from <McClatchy DC>

Once in the loop current, the toxic mess could move right up the eastern seaboard.

My friend Diane tipped me to this next item.  Other BP wells in the Gulf may be even riskier.

BP is being investigated by US authorities over claims from a whistleblower that the oil company broke the law by not keeping key documents relating to a giant deepwater production platform in the Gulf of Mexico, the Guardian has learned.

The documents for the huge Atlantis platform act as an "operator’s manual", and a complete up-to-date set of records is vital to shut down the platform properly in case of an emergency.

BP said it was co-operating fully with the investigation and denies the allegations.

It is also dealing with the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Last week the rig sank in the Gulf of Mexico following an explosion. Eleven workers are missing presumed dead and up to 1,000 barrels of oil per day are being leaked, threatening to wreak havoc on the region’s fragile ecosystem.

The Minerals Management Service (MMS), the US government agency responsible for overseeing offshore oil and renewable activities, is expected to launch an investigation into the disaster this week. But the Guardian has learned a separate MMS investigation into the Atlantis rig allegations is being launched. MMS said it would complete its report by the end of next month. Atlantis, 190 miles south of New Orleans, is the world’s largest platform of its kind and began operating in 2007 in the Gulf of Mexico at one of the deepest depths in the world.

A whistleblower employed by a contractor working for BP leaked internal emails from staffers dated August 2008 which appear to reveal concerns that BP may not have been keeping a complete accurate record of drawings of the components used to build the Atlantis platform.

Final "as-built" drawings show how generic parts are modified when they are assembled. They can be crucial to assess how such a complex structure operates in practice. It is federal law for rig operators to keep complete, up-to-date "as-built" drawings. If BP assumed the drawings were accurate and up-to-date, "this could lead to catastrophic operator errors", a BP executive involved in the project warned colleagues, according to one email.

At the end of February, the powerful House committee on natural resources wrote to MMS demanding it investigate the claims. The agency, which declined to provide further details to the Guardian , promised to launch the inquiry soon afterwards.

The Deepwater Horizon accident has reinforced environmental concerns in the US about offshore oil drilling and will put pressure on the MMS to ensure standards are fully met by all operators, particularly in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

US environmental consumer campaign group Food and Water Watch also passed to the Guardian what appears to be an official reply to the whistleblower from BP’s office of the ombudsman, which was set up to investigate internal safety concerns following the Texas refinery explosion of 2005. Dated 13 April 2010, deputy ombudsman Billie Pirner Garde is quoted responding to the whistleblower’s concerns over BP’s "Project Execution Plan" over Atlantis, centring on the alleged lack of documentation. "Your concerns about the project not following the terms of its own Project Execution Plan were substantiated, and addressed by a BP Management of Change document," he is quoted as writing.

The Guardian asked BP if it acknowledged the authenticity of the emails and ombudsman’s letter and their contents. A spokesman declined to comment. In a statement, the company said: "We are aware that the MMS is conducting an investigation in connection with past allegations made about our Atlantis platform.  We will continue to co-operate fully with their requests for information… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <The Guardian>

To out this in simpler terms, it appears that BP did not include engineering statements that justify experimental procedures and cut corners.  Without that documentation, platform operators will be working with an invalid set of assumptions should anything go wrong.  Why would they do this?  I can only surmise that they were uncertain that engineers would sign off that the design changes and cut corners are safe, so they covered-up the ways that are surreptitiously cutting costs to increase profit.

The GOP has their own explanations.

Limbaugh: "Environmental whackos" may have blown up oil rig to "head off more oil drilling." On his April 29 radio show, Rush Limbaugh questioned "the timing" of the explosion and said: "Lest we forget … the cap and trade bill was strongly criticized by hardcore environmentalist whackos because it supposedly allowed more offshore drilling and nuclear plants." Limbaugh added: "[W]hat better way to head off more oil drilling and nuclear plants then by blowing up a rig? I’m just, I’m just noting the timing here."

Perino: "[W]as this deliberate?" On the May 3 broadcast of Fox News’ Fox & Friends, Fox News contributor Dana Perino said of the spill: "I’m not trying to introduce a conspiracy theory, but was this deliberate? You have to wonder…if there was sabotage involved."

Bolling falsely claimed it was "nine days before" the leak "was even addressed" and asked, "Did they let this thing leak? … if they’re going to try and pull drilling, that may be the way they do it." On the same broadcast of Fox & Friends, Fox Business Network host Eric Bolling said: "The question is … why the delay in the response? You guys were pointing out, nine days before it was even addressed, 12 days before he made a formal comment. The question is, did they let this thing leak? I mean, BP said maybe a thousand barrels a day, it went to five thousand. Did they let it leak a little bit and say, boy I don’t know. The conspiracy theorists would say, ‘maybe they’d let it leak for a while, and then they addressed the issue.’" Bolling added: "That would be a humongous accusation and probably the net result would be no different, but if they’re going to try and pull drilling, that may be the way they do it."… [emphasis original]

Inserted from <Alternet>

This article goes on to analyze the timeline of Obama’s response, demonstrating the perfidy of the GOP position.

Faux Noise even trotted out “Heckuva Job” Brownie to parrot the party line.

Oh well, like most Republicans, he is an expert at failure.

In advance of the Oil, the Gulf Coast has been overrun by a hoard of slithering, venomous snakes.

BP has been offering $5000 payments to residents of coastal Alabama areas, in exchange for essentially giving up their right to sue the oil giant over its deadly Gulf Coast spill, according to the state’s attorney general.

AG Troy King last night urged BP to stop the effort, and told Alabamians to be wary. "People need to proceed with caution and understand the ramifications before signing something like that," King said, according to the Alabama press.

A spokesman for BP told a reporter that the waiver clause had now been removed from the contracts, and that the company won’t enforce it in contracts that were previously signed. But King, a Republican, isn’t satisfied. He said last night he’s still concerned that the process could strip people of their right to sue.

Sid Jackson, a Mobile-based lawyer representing a shrimper who last week filed suit against BP, claiming that the spill had already taken a financial toll on his business, told TPMmuckraker that he believed BP would be wise to back down. "I think they kind of drop-kicked that [waiver] clause into the fine print," Jackson said. But, "I think it would backfire" if BP tried to enforce it… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <TPM>

BP originally claimed that the waiver was left over from a previous incident and included by accident.  That was an obvious lie, because the waiver included the correct dates and location.

Keith Olbermann and Chris Hayes had a good overview of the problem.

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

I have to express my concern that BP will use this bill to try to escape liability.  I understand that Democratic Senators have introduced legislation to raise the limit.  BP’s duplicity in their documentation provides more than enough justification for retroactivity, if only enough Republicans will support it to defeat the coming filibuster.

Friday was the last installment of Bill Moyers Journal.

BILL MOYERS: Welcome to the Journal. Once upon a time, a whole lot of just plain Americans woke up to realize the economic system was working against them. They had believed in it; they worked hard to make it work for them. They knew its shortcomings but saw in it the way to a decent return for their labor and a better future for their families.

Then, one day, calamity struck: The system turned on them. And they discovered that they had been betrayed, bamboozled, by the people at the top.

But they didn’t hang their heads and turn tail, like a dog whipped by its master. They organized and fought back — millions of them in a grass roots movement for democracy. What they did became known as the Populist Moment, an extraordinary time in our country’s history.

But, the flimflam gang returned with a vengeance in our time — the monied interests and political mercenaries who connived to bring on a calamity that lost eleven million Americans their jobs, robbed people of their homes and pensions, and brought the world’s economy crashing down.

But once again, people are organizing and fighting back; as they did in that early Populist Moment that took on the monopolies and financial trusts. The stirrings of a popular insurgency could be seen late this week as thousands marched on Wall Street. These people are angry at the banks that have cost them so dearly and they want reforms to prevent similar disasters in the future. They want to break up the Wall Street oligarchy and require the banks to use their capital to build and revitalize and innovate, to create jobs and security…

Inserted from <PBS>

You owe it to yourselves not to miss this show.  I know.  You can’t spare the 90 minutes.  Watch it anyway, CLICK HERE.

Today’s lead piece echoes what I have said long before the Extreme Court insulted our freedom with the Citizens United decision.  It just does so better than I have done.

Citizens United v. FEC, the recent Supreme Court decision that allowed corporations to spend unlimited sums of money to influence elections is only the most recent step in this process. There will be more. But the shocking decision may be sufficient to galvanize a political movement that can change the rules and ensure our democracy.

We can save our country by adding eight words to the fundamental law of the land, the US Constitution. "Corporations are not persons." "Money is not speech."

Such a development is not without precedent. Once before a political movement has changed the Constitution to nurture democracy. The populist uprising of the late 20th century led to the passage, in rapid succession of the 16th Amendment in 1913 that allowed for an income tax, the 17th Amendment, ratified the same year that required the direct election of Senators and in 1920 the 19th Amendment that gave women the right to vote.

A campaign to strip corporations of personhood would have a similar populist and popular appeal. A recent Quinnipiac poll reveals a whopping 79 percent public disapproval of the Court’s ruling. A Washington Post-ABC News poll puts the figure even higher at 81 percent. And as Dan Eggen of the Post writes, "The poll reveals relatively little difference of opinion on the issue among Democrats (85 percent opposed to the ruling), Republicans (76 percent) and independents (81 percent)."

But win or lose, a campaign against corporate personhood would allow us to regain control of a narrative we lost in 1980 when Ronald Reagan declared in his Inaugural Address, "government is the problem" and initiated a process that has resulted in the greatest concentration of private wealth and power in American history.

People may not know exactly what Goldman Sachs is, but they know it is not a person. A person doesn’t have unlimited life or limited liability. A person is responsible for her decisions. If she makes a decision that kills or maims people she will go to jail. If a CEO makes such a decision she, at worst, receives a golden parachute.

Unlike a real person, a corporation lacks a conscience. It is guided neither by ethics nor morality but rather by laws that required its Boards to elevate the maximization of profits above all other concerns.

A real person is an independent actor, subject to many influences that affect how he votes. Warren Buffett, for example, thinks it is in his and society’s best interest for him to be required to pay more taxes. A corporation that made this decision could be taken to court by its stockholders.

In his The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Adam Smith’s first, and in his own mind more important work than Wealth of Nations, he outlined his view of the institutions that make men virtuous. He focused on the inherent human qualities of gratitude and sympathy and empathy that lead to a merging of our self-interest with the public good. To Adam Smith, that was the real invisible hand. A corporation lacks sympathy or empathy although occasionally it might express gratitude in the form of increased financial contributions to politicians who do its bidding…

Inserted from <Alternet>

I disagree with this author only on one small point.  Corporate financial contributions to politicians who do their bidding are not expressions of gratitude.  They are investments in the continuation of the current climate of socialism for the rich only that maximize corporate profit at taxpayer expense.

I won’t deceive myself, or you, by imagining such a campaign can succeed anytime soon.  However, there are times when tilting at a windmill is the best strategy, simply because it is the right thing to do.  If would also serve to mobilize independent voters to oppose the GOP’s extreme corporate agenda.

The citation is only the first page of a truly magnificent eight page article.  I strongly encourage you to click through and read it in its entirety.  But finish reading and commenting on today’s articles here first, of course. 😀