Politics Plus

It’s not surprising that young Dorothy, discovering that this isn’t Kansas anymore, would say “Oh My!” over the prospect of lions and ligers and bears.  I’m not so young or innocent, but I’m saying “Oh My!” over the prospect of the Walruses and Sea Lions and Seals that BP promised to protect in the Gulf of Mexico.  That isn’t the worst of it!

An oceanographer just back from two weeks of taking water samples in the Gulf of Mexico told a House panel on Wednesday that BP officials are utterly wrong to keep saying there are no large masses of oil lurking below the surface.

"I think part of the problem is that it depends on what the definition of ‘large’ is," said Samantha Joye, a senior marine scientist at the University of Georgia. "I don’t know what their definition of large is, but I’ll bet it’s not the same as mine."

Joye’s instruments, deployed from a University of Miami research vessel, the Walton Smith, detected both the presence of oil and the depletion of oxygen in very deep water — 900 to 1200 meters below the surface — in a plume five to eight miles away from the leak site. As she explained in an interview: "All of the sensors we have to pick up oil and its various components go crazy in the plume."

Lab results from one of the first research vessels doing subsurface tests found only minor concentrations of oil, but Joye, who is expecting test results back shortly, said her samples will inevitably show more than that. "These stank to high heaven," she said. "They smelled like creosote, asphalt and diesel."

"These plumes are real," she said, "and it’s not just oil." Joye, who blogged her research, said she is also very concerned about the concentrations of methane and other gases, such as ethane, propane, butane and pentane, in the water… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Common Dreams>

From the beginning, BP has fed us lie after lie.  Keith Olbermann and environmentalist Rick Steiner discuss BP’s many deficiencies and deceptions.

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

BP claims that a line has to be drawn somewhere.  I agree.  Let’s start here:

Sen. Bernie Sanders is pushing a measure to end more than $35 billion in tax breaks for the oil and gas industry.

The Vermont independent today proposed putting $25 billion in savings toward reducing the deficit and $10 billion toward the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program over five years. Such funds help municipalities build windmills, make energy efficiency improvements or improve sewer treatment plants.

"If there is anything we should be learning from the Gulf disaster, it is that it is time to move aggressively away from polluting and unsafe fossil fuels, which are getting more and more difficult to produce as we move further and further offshore to drill for them," he said in a statement. "And, with a $13 trillion national debt, the last thing we need to be doing is giving tax breaks to big oil and gas companies that have been making record-breaking profits year after year after year."…

Inserted from <Common Dreams>

Furthermore, Obama should demand that BP not spend a penny in dividends to shareholders or brand advertising until the GOP gusher is plugged, the environment restored, and the victims justly compensated.

Next I expect BP to ask us to be thankful, because they have not killed one freaking Polar Bear in the Gulf of Mexico!

The rabid kangaroos on the US Extreme court have done it again, showing shocking preference for the rich over ordinary Americans.

In a burst of judicial activism, the Supreme Court on Tuesday upended the gubernatorial race in Arizona, cutting off matching funds to candidates participating in the state’s public campaign finance system. Suddenly, three candidates, including Gov. Jan Brewer, can no longer receive public funds they had counted on to run against a free-spending wealthy opponent.

The court’s reckless order muscling into the race was terse and did not say whether there were any dissents, though it is hard to imagine there were not. An opinion explaining its reasoning will have to wait until the next term, assuming it takes the case, but by that time the state’s general election will be over and its model campaign finance system substantially demolished.

It seems likely that the Roberts court will use this case to continue its destruction of the laws and systems set up in recent decades to reduce the influence of big money in politics. By the time it is finished, millionaires and corporations will have regained an enormous voice in American politics, at the expense of candidates who have to raise money the old-fashioned way and, ultimately, at the expense of voters.

Arizona’s clean elections program was established by the state’s voters in 1998 after a series of scandals provided clear illustrations of money’s corrupting influence. In particular, the program was prompted by the AzScam scandal of 1991, in which many state legislators were recorded accepting contributions and bribes in exchange for approval of gambling legislation.

The system gives qualifying candidates a lump-sum grant for their primary or general election races in exchange for which the candidates agree not to raise large private contributions. If an opposing candidate is not participating in the system and spends more than the lump-sum grant, the participating candidate qualifies for additional matching funds.

It was those matching funds that produced a challenge from well-financed candidates, backed by the Goldwater Institute [plutocons delinked] and other conservative interests. The candidates argued that the matching funds “chilled” their freedom of speech because they were afraid to spend more than the limit that triggered the funds. A lower court agreed with that pretzel logic, but last month a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disagreed. It said the speech of the plaintiffs had not been chilled. “The essence of this claim is not that they have been silenced,” the panel said, “but that the speech of their opponents has been enabled.”

In 2008, the Supreme Court eliminated the Millionaires’ Amendment, which let Congressional candidates raise more money when running against candidates who pay for their own campaigns. In January, in the Citizens United case, the court eliminated limits to campaign spending by corporations. Both cases cited the First Amendment rights of the wealthy, and in that depressing sequence, state finance programs would be the court’s next conquest… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <NY Times>

Here’s the ethical dilemma.  The Roberts Court has broken a number of precedents with this order that is clearly unjust.  At the same time, it’s hard to oppose anything that hurts the political aspirations of Jan “papers please Jose” Brewer and her bigoted policies.

What is the right thing to do when an injustice harms an enemy.  Do we speak out, or do we remain silent?  After some deep thinking, I say we speak out.  Injustice is injustice, regardless of whom it harms.  Remaining silent in the face of injustice anywhere, invites it everywhere.  Therefore we must support fairness for society’s most despised members.  How else will people know we aren’t right wingers?

Corporations are NOT people!  Money is NOT speech!